Document sequence explaining failure of 1849 double eagles.
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
**This exchange of correspondence might be of interest to collectors of double eagles or to numismatists in general. It is clear from Franklin Peale’s comments that several 1849 DE were struck using a toggle press, and that all were failures. **(If anyone wants the manuscript originals, send me a PM.)
[All from RG104 entry 216 vol 08]
Mint of the United States, Philadelphia
December 22, 1849
Hon. William M. Meredith,
Secretary of the Treasury
Sir,
After a long delay, which it was not in my power to control, I am at length able to send to you the enclosed double-eagle, and to refer it to your judgement. If it meets with your approbation, I must beg that you will let me know, at the earliest time, in order that as many of these coins as possible may be struck in the few days that remain of the present year.
Very respectfully,
Your faithful servant,
R.M. Patterson,
Director
[Pencil annotation at lower right: “Gold or base metal? First Obv – understandably.”]
December 24, 1849
Dr. R. M. Patterson,
Director
It is with extreme regret, and after the most earnest endeavor to overcome the difficulty, that I am compelled to inform you that the impression upon the new die for the double eagle cannot be brought up by the usual coining process, the depth of the head of the obverse is such, that the steel will not sustain the degree of pressure necessary for a perfect impression. To this is to be added the minor disadvantage of the projection of the head beyond the border of the coin, preventing its being “piled,” (as it is technically expressed) and exposing it to abrasion.
Franklin Peale
Chief Coiner
December 25, 1849
Hon. William M. Meredith,
Sir,
On the 22nd inst., I had the honor to send you a double-eagle, and to refer it to your judgement.
This specimen had been struck with a heavy hand press. Since then a number have been coined by the ordinary steam-press, and the unhappy result has been reported to me, by the Chief Coiner, in the letter which I send enclosed. I think it proves that the obverse die is in too high a relief for coinage, and that a new one must be made.
If the time required for this work, by the Engraver of the Mint, may be judged from that engaged upon the former, the delay will be very considerable.
R.M. Patterson,
Director
Comments
I read these and the first thing that came to mind was Alastair Sim and A Christmas Carol.
Do we know why they started the process so late in the year?
It had been authorized in March of that year. I assume a delay in die preparation?
Die preparation started as soon as the coin was authorized. Longacre delayed plus Peale was reluctant to help and Patterson sat on it, so to speak. Longacre was also fiddling with the new gold dollar dies.
JBL was not hired as a die sinker - one who cut dies into steel. He was an 'engraver' who was supposed to make corrections and touch-up hubs and working dies. The reducing lathe was supposed to make high quality hubs from large models. At this time the lathe and hub making were controlled by the Chief Coiner, not the Engraver. This meant the two officers had to work together if anything was to be accomplished. They did not. Eventually Longacre won and Peale was fired in 1854.
Thanks for the information.
Coin stacking ("piling") is an important consideration in coinage design. High relief is pretty but not always practical.
Thomas Elder cataloged 1907 high relief $20s as "kind wouldn't stack."
Stacking was also a problem with the new 1877 double eagle hubs. The first set had excessive relief and the coins wobbled. Director Linderman ordered William Barber to cut a new obverse and that was the one used for most of the year's production. Pieces from the first hubs represent about 10% of P and S production for 1877, even though the director had ordered the coins condemned.
(I discovered this in archival documents and David McCarthy of Kagin's confirmed the discovery with a piece from the Saddle Ridge hoard.)
Interesting history of internal mint issues.... Thanks for posting these letters... Cheers, RickO
@RpgerB
It has long been written in the history of this period that Longacre's problems with the gold dollar dies were due to his inexperience and sabotage by jealous mint employees. Was this true?
The problems that Longacre was having are documents by two coins. The first is the hand engraved told dollar that he produced. This pattern is the only hand engraved coin in the U.S., series to my knowledge.
The other was the big die break on the first reverse that was used to strike the 1849 "No L" ("Small Head") gold dollars. Here is the one that is my collction now.
At one time I had one in AU that had this die break pattern on the reverse. I sold it when I found an upgrade. I wish I had kept it or at least taken a photo.
Remember the recent thread about an 1877 $20 with doubling on the final A of America? I strongly suspect there were two reverse hubs as well.
RE: "It has long been written in the history of this period that Longacre's problems with the gold dollar dies were due to his inexperience and sabotage by jealous mint employees. Was this true?"
Preliminary conclusion is that Longacre was hired to do something for which he was not experienced. He was not a die sinker. He and Peale often seemed at odds. But --- there's a lot more information to correlate before I could say anything definite. C.C. Wright was considered as a replacement.
The engraved dollar was simply an expedient when a very quick sample was wanted. No one could have designed and cut a pair of dies from scratch in a day or two.
Reductions and working dies were made by Peale and his staff, not Longacre. Problems with defective dies were not Longacre's responsibility.
RE: "Remember the recent thread about an 1877 $20 with doubling on the final A of America? I strongly suspect there were two reverse hubs as well."
Yes. In looking at a lot of 1877-P and 1877-S DE, I've never noticed a connection with the A/A that was posted and a different reverse hub. According to letters, only the obverse had to be replaced. But----fresh eyes might find things I missed. I hope someone can solve this little mystery.
According to Mike Moran's research, published in "1849: The MInt Strikes Gold" these were engraved outside the mint by a local jeweler.
Possible - I have not checked my files on these.
So perhaps Longacre didn't engrave it, which would make it less thrilling. I was offered one of these once, but you can't buy every expensive item that comes along.