@afford said:
This is really a no brainer.
It appears no one in recent times has seriously researched all the portraits of Martha W. and compared them to the half disme, or maybe no one with an art background. But the similarities are
definitive, maybe a forensic police sketcher needs to be added to the frey. I only minored in art but how I see it there is no question the mint's first engraver/artist did a fine job capturing Martha's likeness and what he did with her hair could have been his interpretation of simply Martha without a hat.
It seems like you have the necessary interest and background for this. What's the best way to put this forward with the wider numismatic community? Aside from getting someone to take this up in their own book, could you publish your own book, even using say Amazon self-publishing, to get this discussion going with more people?
"1970 Peace dollar (0.800 fine)
Trial/allow experimental pieces legally produced under authority of the Director. Counted and destroyed by count; confirmed by weight of planchets and coins."
Never hear much about this coin. It oddly is overshadowed by the 1964-D.
I would like to add:
1) 1974 Steel-clad cent made in conjunction with the aluminum pieces.
2) 1975 aluminum cent. I believe confirmed to of been struck but very few and none known today.
@kenriles012 said:
"1970 Peace dollar (0.800 fine)
Trial/allow experimental pieces legally produced under authority of the Director. Counted and destroyed by count; confirmed by weight of planchets and coins."
Never hear much about this coin. It oddly is overshadowed by the 1964-D.
Interestingly, searching for "1970 peace dollar" in Google returns only 5 results for me, while "1964 morgan dollar" returns more than 1000. Seems like it would have more discussion.
At the risk of not talking about 1792 Half Dismes, a mysterious modern rarity is the 1976 No Mint Mark Bicentennial dollar in 40% silver and in Proof WITH the Variety Two reverse. Back in August of 1974 the first official strikes of the three Bicentennial designs were made at the Philadelphia Mint in 40% silver and in Proof and without mint marks. Sets of the coins were presented to the three designers and to a representative of President Ford. He had just become President only a few days earlier, and was too busy to attend.
The dollars of course had the Variety One reverse. Samples of the coins were on display at the ANA Convention in Bal Harbour, Fla. Official Mint press photographs were distributed far and wide. Those and pictures taken by numismatic press photographers at the ANA clearly showed that the coins did not have mint marks.
Then there was a wait before the circulating coins were issued in the second half of 1975, and the three-piece 40% silver sets were sold in both Proof and Unc. When the silver Proof sets did go on sale, with S mint marks, I dug the press photos out of the Coin World photo morgue to illustrate the story, and noticed that the coins struck in August of 1974 did not have mint marks. I mentioned this in my story, but the Coin World Editor edited the comment out for no apparent reason. When I pushed it I was told that all of the August, 1974 sets had been recalled and replaced with normal 40% silver Proof coins. I thought this explanation odd, and have sometimes wondered if various people, including perhaps the Coin World Editor, had sets of the no mint mark Proofs, but have never heard the slightest inkling that any such set still existed.
Then in 1977 a 1976 40% silver Proof dollar with no mint mark but with the Variety Two reverse came in the mail to0 Coin World, The sender said that the lightly mishandled coin had been found in a cash register in a department store in Washington, D.C. I would presume that somebody at the Mint's D.C. office accidentally spent it, but why was it struck in the first place???
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
At the risk of not talking about 1792 Half Dismes, a mysterious modern rarity is the 1976 No Mint Mark Bicentennial dollar in 40% silver and in Proof WITH the Variety Two reverse. [...]
There's some good info on the 1976 Silver Dollar Variety 2 Reverse on PCGS CoinFacts with some speculation that Gasparro may have struck this piece himself as a trial piece. It's classified as a pattern: Judd-2164/Pollock-2088.
This is only half of the story as the original reverse design was then changed sometime in the middle of 1975. Williams confirmed that he received a call from Philadelphia Mint Chief Engraver Frank Gasparro asking if it would be OK to change the reverse design lettering to improve the striking quality and to facilitate minting procedures at the Mint. Thereafter, the U.S. Mint began producing Type 2 Eisenhower Dollars (Type 2 coins display thinner lettering on the reverse of the coin).
There is no mention as to whether Proof Bicentennial Dollars with a Type 2 reverse design were ever produced at the Philadelphia Mint. The only confirmations indicate Type 1 proofs were made without mint marks for presentation and promotional purposes, but there is no mention as to why the Type 2 No S Ike were produced. However, since Frank Gasparro was consulting Williams on the modifications for the new Bicentennial Type 2 Dollar redesign, it is very possible Gasparro struck a trial piece or trial pieces at Philadelphia to determine if the new Type 2 design would work.
@CaptHenway said:
At the risk of not talking about 1792 Half Dismes, a mysterious modern rarity is the 1976 No Mint Mark Bicentennial dollar in 40% silver and in Proof WITH the Variety Two reverse. [...]
There's some good info on the 1976 Silver Dollar Variety 2 Reverse on PCGS CoinFacts with some speculation that Gasparro may have struck this piece himself as a trial piece. It's classified as a pattern: Judd-2164/Pollock-2088.
This is only half of the story as the original reverse design was then changed sometime in the middle of 1975. Williams confirmed that he received a call from Philadelphia Mint Chief Engraver Frank Gasparro asking if it would be OK to change the reverse design lettering to improve the striking quality and to facilitate minting procedures at the Mint. Thereafter, the U.S. Mint began producing Type 2 Eisenhower Dollars (Type 2 coins display thinner lettering on the reverse of the coin).
There is no mention as to whether Proof Bicentennial Dollars with a Type 2 reverse design were ever produced at the Philadelphia Mint. The only confirmations indicate Type 1 proofs were made without mint marks for presentation and promotional purposes, but there is no mention as to why the Type 2 No S Ike were produced. However, since Frank Gasparro was consulting Williams on the modifications for the new Bicentennial Type 2 Dollar redesign, it is very possible Gasparro struck a trial piece or trial pieces at Philadelphia to determine if the new Type 2 design would work.
Thanks. I did not know that Gasparro had consulted with Williams on making the minor changes.
I see that the coin is now in a Proof-66 holder. I guess that the slight mishandling that I saw on it when I first received it at Coin World from the guy who found it in the cash register must have dipped off!
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Just for consideration as well; perhaps if not Martha on the 1792 Half Disme, any chance that either Maria Cosway, or, Adrienne Catherine de Noailles may be the inspiration, as these two women were influential in Thomas Jefferson's life while he was serving as Minister to France from 1784-1789. Why not?
Notice curls on the lower portions of her hair as well. Adrienne Catherine de Noailles would be my guess if not Martha Washington on the half disme. She certainly has fascinating qualities, and character.
@RogerB said:
Also, when silver dollars were moved from multiple vaults in the old mint to the new Philadelphia mint, they were consolidated into one large vault containing multiple cages. Available documents include extensive lists of coins moved from place to place, but nothing that refers to coin dates. The method of handling the bags shows no attempt to keep original vault contents together -- it was just "move the stuff to the new mint building." The implication is that the 12 bags of 1895 dollars were casually mixed with other bags which would make tracking by vault and cage location impossible.
The move to the new building occurred in 1901, by which time collectors were aware that no circulation-strike 1895 Philly dollars were available. If such coins did actually exist, couldn't a well-connected collector have prompted a search of the vault in which they supposedly resided? I would think that there would have been a scramble to find a group of coins with an announced mintage of 12,000 that had not showed up anywhere after several years.
Yes, I have already started, and have been accumulating the photos to make the case. So it is in the works and was motivated after the recent book came out to put it to bed in print at a date in the near or so future...I considered writing this before the latest book came out and met a great deal of blow back so I shelved it until now. It is interesting that there are many that strongly oppose Martha being the model of the half disme, I cannot fathom why the opposition is so great.
The challenge for this book will be to find evidence from archival sources to validate pre-conceived opinions. Without source evidence, the book will not prove anything, other than the author's bias.
I am not aware of anyone who oppose the possibility of Martha being the model for the 1792 half disme, what they oppose is a myth being stated as fact without primary evidence.
The recent book on 1792 coinage is outstanding and is the standard for research on 1792 coins. What is remarkable is the authors' ability to stay objective and not fall victim to legend and myths, and to keep with the facts of the archival evidence they uncovered, which is substantial.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@RogerB said:
Also, when silver dollars were moved from multiple vaults in the old mint to the new Philadelphia mint, they were consolidated into one large vault containing multiple cages. Available documents include extensive lists of coins moved from place to place, but nothing that refers to coin dates. The method of handling the bags shows no attempt to keep original vault contents together -- it was just "move the stuff to the new mint building." The implication is that the 12 bags of 1895 dollars were casually mixed with other bags which would make tracking by vault and cage location impossible.
The move to the new building occurred in 1901, by which time collectors were aware that no circulation-strike 1895 Philly dollars were available. If such coins did actually exist, couldn't a well-connected collector have prompted a search of the vault in which they supposedly resided? I would think that there would have been a scramble to find a group of coins with an announced mintage of 12,000 that had not showed up anywhere after several years.
The serious collectors could all get an 1895 dollar...in Proof. If a peasant could not get a business strike at face value, that was their tough luck.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The serious collectors could all get an 1895 dollar...in Proof. If a peasant could not get a business strike at face value, that was their tough luck.
Some serious collectors, even back then, were collecting circulation strikes as well as proofs. That's why, for example, there are a reasonable number of high-grade circulation strike 1879 to 1890 halves. And the published 12,000 mintage of the 1895 dollar would have encouraged collectors of the day to try to find and acquire specimens in any condition.
RE:
"The move to the new building occurred in 1901, by which time collectors were aware that no circulation-strike 1895 Philly dollars were available. If such coins did actually exist, couldn't a well-connected collector have prompted a search of the vault in which they supposedly resided? I would think that there would have been a scramble to find a group of coins with an announced mintage of 12,000 that had not showed up anywhere after several years."
Nope. The move occurred over more than a year. Work on silver dollars began in 1899 and included boxing of coins whose bags had rotted, removing and melting damaged and badly tarnished coins, and recounting of millions of pieces - by hand.
1895 proof dollars were available direct in 1895 and early 1896. Collectors did not generally know about the small production until the Annual report came out - 6+ months later. The 12,000 1895 pieces were placed in a vault in June 1895 and others packed with and in front of them - as was normal. Collectors could request specific date coins, but the Mints only supplied them if is was convenient - they NEVER opened a sealed vault or sealed bag to supply coins for collectors.
Vault records (not known to exist) of the 1890s would show where the 1895 coins were stored. When the dollars were moved, all that information became useless - bags were mixed together. Records exist showing movement of coins, but only by an arbitrary accession number, not date/mint. [Here's a sample page from 1901.]
Few Mint employees were coin collectors. The people handling these were unskilled laborers earning $3 a day, if they were lucky. Silver dollars were worth face value, contained less than half that value in metal, and proofs brought only a few cents above face at auction.
Without documentation, it is speculation. Reasonable, although not definitive, conclusions can be based on observation, historical circumstances and other circumstantial evidence. It might be a very good idea to write the proposed article, submit it for publication and see what happens. Because others disagree is no reason to abandon a proposal - rather it is an incentive to search, refine and improve your arguments.
As for the coin portrait, it is very likely not of any person living at the time. Look into the engraver or diesinker's training, background and national origin. Those are the places more likely to reveal sources of the image. Contemporary paintings are largely unreliable - they show people as they wished to be remembered, not as they were.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to start yet another thread for speculation as to the portraiture on the 1792 Half Disme, and leave this thread for speculation about its tread title.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to start yet another thread for speculation as to the portraiture on the 1792 Half Disme, and leave this thread for speculation about its tread title.
A separate thread could be useful like the Continental Currency coin/medal thread, but it also seems like the portrait discussion fits well with the thread title "Great Rarities. Separating fact from fiction", especially since views have changed over time. How much of the history of the 1792 Half Disme is documented and how reliable is it? What research has been turned up on the model?
@afford said:
The engraver was William Russell Birch, emigrated from England in 1790's (born in 1755) and known for his miniature portraits, he was a miniaturist, enamel painter, engraver and etcher. An accomplished artist known for his engravings. He lived in Penn and died there in 1834. So this type of work was up his alley and using portraits or a live body/face would have been easy for him.
Unfortunately William Russell Birch did not arrive in America until October 1794,
as noted in the Philadelphia General Advertiser, under date of October 17, 1794.
Several names have been proposed as the engraver of the 1792 half disme dies
though none has been proven beyond any doubt.
@RogerB said:
Work on silver dollars began in 1899 and included boxing of coins whose bags had rotted, removing and melting damaged and badly tarnished coins . . .
Melting tarnished coins? Hadn't they ever heard of MON$$TER TONING!!?? Why didn't they just put them on eBay? Coin collecting back then must have been even more primitive than I imagined!
@kenriles012 said:
"1970 Peace dollar (0.800 fine)
Trial/allow experimental pieces legally produced under authority of the Director. Counted and destroyed by count; confirmed by weight of planchets and coins."
Never hear much about this coin. It oddly is overshadowed by the 1964-D.
Interestingly, searching for "1970 peace dollar" in Google returns only 5 results for me, while "1964 morgan dollar" returns more than 1000. Seems like it would have more discussion.
It is sort of amazing to me why the 1970 peace dollar is ignored.
Also odd to me that all the hoopla about the 1974 aluminum but supposed rumors of the 1974 steel-clad never seem pursued and I am not aware of anybody trying to track down the 1975 aluminum cents.
Overdate:
I suspect that many of the legitimately toned Morgans came from the millions that were repackaged. Damp storage conditions, rotting canvas bags, heat and chemicals from the shoddy flooring in vaults likely produced suitable toning conditions.
The mint always wanted to issue nice coins to the public. That meant shiny and free of defects including tarnish. I recall that over 100,000 dollars were melted due to excessive tarnish and/or corrosion (but I'd have to double check the numbers and not trust my memory).
The 1970 Peace dollars were made in a small press run to test production of 0.800 fine alloy in dollar-size pieces. This was before trial dies for the Ike dollars were ready. There was never any intention to make them for external use.
There are many other experimental pieces made by the Mint Bureau that are largely undocumented. It appears that project files were destroyed by Director (Hackel) Sims' orders.
@RogerB said:
There seems to be persistent confusion about the origins of some of coin collecting’s great rarities in American Numismatics. This brief exposition is intended to help separate fact from fiction/imagination. All the tall tales, malarkey and bologna has been stripped away,
Most of all, have fun with these.
1792 half disme
Produced under authority of the United States and received by the responsible government official, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. A regular issue coin, albeit in very small quantities.
For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning
that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in
the August 15 issue of Numismatic News. These documents show, for the first time,
the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck.
The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year
1792 is now a little less certain.
@RogerB said:
There seems to be persistent confusion about the origins of some of coin collecting’s great rarities in American Numismatics. This brief exposition is intended to help separate fact from fiction/imagination. All the tall tales, malarkey and bologna has been stripped away,
Most of all, have fun with these.
1792 half disme
Produced under authority of the United States and received by the responsible government official, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. A regular issue coin, albeit in very small quantities.
For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning
that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in
the August 15 issue of Numismatic News. These documents show, for the first time,
the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck.
The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year
1792 is now a little less certain.
WOWZER!!!!!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Will the Mint have to issue refunds on its current 225th anniversary shinola?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@RogerB said:
There seems to be persistent confusion about the origins of some of coin collecting’s great rarities in American Numismatics. This brief exposition is intended to help separate fact from fiction/imagination. All the tall tales, malarkey and bologna has been stripped away,
Most of all, have fun with these.
1792 half disme
Produced under authority of the United States and received by the responsible government official, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. A regular issue coin, albeit in very small quantities.
For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in the August 15 issue of Numismatic News. These documents show, for the first time, the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck.
The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year
1792 is now a little less certain.
@RogerB said:
There seems to be persistent confusion about the origins of some of coin collecting’s great rarities in American Numismatics. This brief exposition is intended to help separate fact from fiction/imagination. All the tall tales, malarkey and bologna has been stripped away,
Most of all, have fun with these.
1792 half disme
Produced under authority of the United States and received by the responsible government official, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. A regular issue coin, albeit in very small quantities.
For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in the August 15 issue of Numismatic News. These documents show, for the first time, the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck.
The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year
1792 is now a little less certain.
@RogerB said:
There seems to be persistent confusion about the origins of some of coin collecting’s great rarities in American Numismatics. This brief exposition is intended to help separate fact from fiction/imagination. All the tall tales, malarkey and bologna has been stripped away,
Most of all, have fun with these.
1792 half disme
Produced under authority of the United States and received by the responsible government official, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. A regular issue coin, albeit in very small quantities.
For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in the August 15 issue of Numismatic News. These documents show, for the first time, the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck.
The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year
1792 is now a little less certain.
@RogerB said:
There seems to be persistent confusion about the origins of some of coin collecting’s great rarities in American Numismatics. This brief exposition is intended to help separate fact from fiction/imagination. All the tall tales, malarkey and bologna has been stripped away,
Most of all, have fun with these.
1792 half disme
Produced under authority of the United States and received by the responsible government official, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. A regular issue coin, albeit in very small quantities.
For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in the August 15 issue of Numismatic News. These documents show, for the first time, the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck.
The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year
1792 is now a little less certain.
Comments
What's the best way to convince the book authors? Who else would need to be convinced?
It seems like you have the necessary interest and background for this. What's the best way to put this forward with the wider numismatic community? Aside from getting someone to take this up in their own book, could you publish your own book, even using say Amazon self-publishing, to get this discussion going with more people?
"1970 Peace dollar (0.800 fine)
Trial/allow experimental pieces legally produced under authority of the Director. Counted and destroyed by count; confirmed by weight of planchets and coins."
Never hear much about this coin. It oddly is overshadowed by the 1964-D.
I would like to add:
1) 1974 Steel-clad cent made in conjunction with the aluminum pieces.
2) 1975 aluminum cent. I believe confirmed to of been struck but very few and none known today.
Interestingly, searching for "1970 peace dollar" in Google returns only 5 results for me, while "1964 morgan dollar" returns more than 1000. Seems like it would have more discussion.
At the risk of not talking about 1792 Half Dismes, a mysterious modern rarity is the 1976 No Mint Mark Bicentennial dollar in 40% silver and in Proof WITH the Variety Two reverse. Back in August of 1974 the first official strikes of the three Bicentennial designs were made at the Philadelphia Mint in 40% silver and in Proof and without mint marks. Sets of the coins were presented to the three designers and to a representative of President Ford. He had just become President only a few days earlier, and was too busy to attend.
The dollars of course had the Variety One reverse. Samples of the coins were on display at the ANA Convention in Bal Harbour, Fla. Official Mint press photographs were distributed far and wide. Those and pictures taken by numismatic press photographers at the ANA clearly showed that the coins did not have mint marks.
Then there was a wait before the circulating coins were issued in the second half of 1975, and the three-piece 40% silver sets were sold in both Proof and Unc. When the silver Proof sets did go on sale, with S mint marks, I dug the press photos out of the Coin World photo morgue to illustrate the story, and noticed that the coins struck in August of 1974 did not have mint marks. I mentioned this in my story, but the Coin World Editor edited the comment out for no apparent reason. When I pushed it I was told that all of the August, 1974 sets had been recalled and replaced with normal 40% silver Proof coins. I thought this explanation odd, and have sometimes wondered if various people, including perhaps the Coin World Editor, had sets of the no mint mark Proofs, but have never heard the slightest inkling that any such set still existed.
Then in 1977 a 1976 40% silver Proof dollar with no mint mark but with the Variety Two reverse came in the mail to0 Coin World, The sender said that the lightly mishandled coin had been found in a cash register in a department store in Washington, D.C. I would presume that somebody at the Mint's D.C. office accidentally spent it, but why was it struck in the first place???
There's some good info on the 1976 Silver Dollar Variety 2 Reverse on PCGS CoinFacts with some speculation that Gasparro may have struck this piece himself as a trial piece. It's classified as a pattern: Judd-2164/Pollock-2088.
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/62402
Thanks. I did not know that Gasparro had consulted with Williams on making the minor changes.
I see that the coin is now in a Proof-66 holder. I guess that the slight mishandling that I saw on it when I first received it at Coin World from the guy who found it in the cash register must have dipped off!
TD
"Slight mishandling" goes away with time and magical slabbing.....
Martha was not that photogenic
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Just for consideration as well; perhaps if not Martha on the 1792 Half Disme, any chance that either Maria Cosway, or, Adrienne Catherine de Noailles may be the inspiration, as these two women were influential in Thomas Jefferson's life while he was serving as Minister to France from 1784-1789. Why not?
Maria Cosway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Cosway
Perhaps the curls of Maria Cosway's hair are similar to the half disme's design?
Adrienne Catherine de Noailles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_de_Tessé
Notice curls on the lower portions of her hair as well. Adrienne Catherine de Noailles would be my guess if not Martha Washington on the half disme. She certainly has fascinating qualities, and character.
The move to the new building occurred in 1901, by which time collectors were aware that no circulation-strike 1895 Philly dollars were available. If such coins did actually exist, couldn't a well-connected collector have prompted a search of the vault in which they supposedly resided? I would think that there would have been a scramble to find a group of coins with an announced mintage of 12,000 that had not showed up anywhere after several years.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
The challenge for this book will be to find evidence from archival sources to validate pre-conceived opinions. Without source evidence, the book will not prove anything, other than the author's bias.
I am not aware of anyone who oppose the possibility of Martha being the model for the 1792 half disme, what they oppose is a myth being stated as fact without primary evidence.
The recent book on 1792 coinage is outstanding and is the standard for research on 1792 coins. What is remarkable is the authors' ability to stay objective and not fall victim to legend and myths, and to keep with the facts of the archival evidence they uncovered, which is substantial.
The serious collectors could all get an 1895 dollar...in Proof. If a peasant could not get a business strike at face value, that was their tough luck.
Some serious collectors, even back then, were collecting circulation strikes as well as proofs. That's why, for example, there are a reasonable number of high-grade circulation strike 1879 to 1890 halves. And the published 12,000 mintage of the 1895 dollar would have encouraged collectors of the day to try to find and acquire specimens in any condition.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
RE:
"The move to the new building occurred in 1901, by which time collectors were aware that no circulation-strike 1895 Philly dollars were available. If such coins did actually exist, couldn't a well-connected collector have prompted a search of the vault in which they supposedly resided? I would think that there would have been a scramble to find a group of coins with an announced mintage of 12,000 that had not showed up anywhere after several years."
Nope. The move occurred over more than a year. Work on silver dollars began in 1899 and included boxing of coins whose bags had rotted, removing and melting damaged and badly tarnished coins, and recounting of millions of pieces - by hand.
1895 proof dollars were available direct in 1895 and early 1896. Collectors did not generally know about the small production until the Annual report came out - 6+ months later. The 12,000 1895 pieces were placed in a vault in June 1895 and others packed with and in front of them - as was normal. Collectors could request specific date coins, but the Mints only supplied them if is was convenient - they NEVER opened a sealed vault or sealed bag to supply coins for collectors.
Vault records (not known to exist) of the 1890s would show where the 1895 coins were stored. When the dollars were moved, all that information became useless - bags were mixed together. Records exist showing movement of coins, but only by an arbitrary accession number, not date/mint. [Here's a sample page from 1901.]
Few Mint employees were coin collectors. The people handling these were unskilled laborers earning $3 a day, if they were lucky. Silver dollars were worth face value, contained less than half that value in metal, and proofs brought only a few cents above face at auction.
Without documentation, it is speculation. Reasonable, although not definitive, conclusions can be based on observation, historical circumstances and other circumstantial evidence. It might be a very good idea to write the proposed article, submit it for publication and see what happens. Because others disagree is no reason to abandon a proposal - rather it is an incentive to search, refine and improve your arguments.
As for the coin portrait, it is very likely not of any person living at the time. Look into the engraver or diesinker's training, background and national origin. Those are the places more likely to reveal sources of the image. Contemporary paintings are largely unreliable - they show people as they wished to be remembered, not as they were.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to start yet another thread for speculation as to the portraiture on the 1792 Half Disme, and leave this thread for speculation about its tread title.
A separate thread could be useful like the Continental Currency coin/medal thread, but it also seems like the portrait discussion fits well with the thread title "Great Rarities. Separating fact from fiction", especially since views have changed over time. How much of the history of the 1792 Half Disme is documented and how reliable is it? What research has been turned up on the model?
Unfortunately William Russell Birch did not arrive in America until October 1794,
as noted in the Philadelphia General Advertiser, under date of October 17, 1794.
Several names have been proposed as the engraver of the 1792 half disme dies
though none has been proven beyond any doubt.
Melting tarnished coins? Hadn't they ever heard of MON$$TER TONING!!?? Why didn't they just put them on eBay? Coin collecting back then must have been even more primitive than I imagined!
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
It is sort of amazing to me why the 1970 peace dollar is ignored.
Also odd to me that all the hoopla about the 1974 aluminum but supposed rumors of the 1974 steel-clad never seem pursued and I am not aware of anybody trying to track down the 1975 aluminum cents.
Overdate:
I suspect that many of the legitimately toned Morgans came from the millions that were repackaged. Damp storage conditions, rotting canvas bags, heat and chemicals from the shoddy flooring in vaults likely produced suitable toning conditions.
The mint always wanted to issue nice coins to the public. That meant shiny and free of defects including tarnish. I recall that over 100,000 dollars were melted due to excessive tarnish and/or corrosion (but I'd have to double check the numbers and not trust my memory).
The 1970 Peace dollars were made in a small press run to test production of 0.800 fine alloy in dollar-size pieces. This was before trial dies for the Ike dollars were ready. There was never any intention to make them for external use.
There are many other experimental pieces made by the Mint Bureau that are largely undocumented. It appears that project files were destroyed by Director (Hackel) Sims' orders.
For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning
that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in
the August 15 issue of Numismatic News. These documents show, for the first time,
the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck.
The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year
1792 is now a little less certain.
WOWZER!!!!!!!
Will the Mint have to issue refunds on its current 225th anniversary shinola?
So, just what year was the Mint founded?
Enquiring minds want to know!
April 2, 1792
Google is our friend
BHNC #203
Yes, but @denga wrote:
What was written in the August 15 issue of Numismatic News?
no idea, I let my subscription lapse.
And I am sorry that I did.
[hangs head in shame.]
BHNC #203