1796 and 1797 half dollars

RogerB · December 12, 2017 10:46AM

Does this letter support the idea that half dollars dated “1796” were actually coined in 1797? (...or that 1794 halves were coined in 1793?)

August 28, 1894

R. P. Smith, Esq.,
Columbus, Ga.
Sir:
Replying to your inquiry of the 25th instant you are informed that, with the exception of the years 1796, 1798, 1799, 1800 and 1815 when no coinage of half dollars was executed, silver coins of this denomination have been coined at the mints of the United States each year since the first coinage in 1793.

Very Respectfully,
R. E. Preston,
Director of the Mint

RG 104, entry 235, vol 072

BillJones · December 12, 2017 11:00AM

So far as the 1793 coinage of half dollars is concerned, he is dead wrong. It would have been illegal for the mint employees to have handed silver before the chief coiner and the assayer had posted their bonds, which they were unable to do. That did not happen until the second half of 1794.

As for the 1796 coinage, the mint delivered them in early 1797. They might actually have been struck in 1796, but 1797 is possible. Given the over context of the way this lettler reads, I would not hang my hat on the history provided Mr. Preston alone.

TommyType · December 12, 2017 11:03AM

If the letter was more contemporary with the years you state, I might draw that conclusion. But being 90+ years later, it's maybe just as likely that it was just bad record keeping or corporate memory? I kind of doubt the inquiry resulted in an exhaustive search of the records....(and would the records even be readily available at that point?)

RogerB · December 12, 2017 11:32AM

If Preston used "since" in the sense of "after" it might be OK. But we'll never know?

MrEureka · December 12, 2017 1:43PM

1804, 1816...

CaptHenway · December 12, 2017 2:39PM

Yes, he was just making it up as he went along.

denga · December 12, 2017 3:00PM

The letter, if one assumes that “since” 1793 meant after that date, is correct. The
director is not speaking of dates on coins but rather dates of mintages. Half dollars
dated 1815, for example were all struck in January 1816.

bjh98a · December 12, 2017 3:30PM

Mr Eureka,

Most of the half dollars dated 1803 were struck in 1804. Delivery dates can be looked up.

Mint workers seemed especially eager to leave the city in the summer of 1803 due to yellow fever breaking out down the hill along the river. But Director Boudinot insisted that all silver on hand be struck into half dollars and deposited with the Bank of the U.S. before the mint could be closed. 31k half dollars were delivered by the end of August if memory serves. The balance of coins reported for 1803, 156k, were delivered in 1804 bearing the date 1803 because the obverse die used on O.101-103 refused to fail.

I believe the Red Book does a disservice by not so reporting the mintage.

MrEureka · December 12, 2017 3:49PM

@denga said:
The letter, if one assumes that “since” 1793 meant after that date, is correct. The
director is not speaking of dates on coins but rather dates of mintages. Half dollars
dated 1815, for example were all struck in January 1816.

So there were also 1814's struck in 1815?

Coinosaurus · December 12, 2017 6:57PM

I doubt Preston spent a lot of time on this response, or that he worked over the mintage figures from original documents.

Hydrant · December 12, 2017 11:22PM

This is all very interesting. Roger B, MrEureka, Capt H, etc., please continue.

Timbuk3 · December 12, 2017 11:30PM

Interesting !!!

denga · December 13, 2017 6:22AM

@MrEureka said:

@denga said:
The letter, if one assumes that “since” 1793 meant after that date, is correct. The
director is not speaking of dates on coins but rather dates of mintages. Half dollars
dated 1815, for example were all struck in January 1816.

So there were also 1814's struck in 1815?

No half dollars were struck in 1815.

RogerB · December 13, 2017 7:04AM

It is likely that one of the Philadelphia clerks looked through the office files, came up with a draft letter, and sent it to Preston at HQ in Washington. Each mint kept its own document files, and HQ did not begin until April 1, 1873.

ricko · December 13, 2017 8:19AM

Interesting...sometimes historical documents raise as many questions as they purport to answer. Cheers, RickO

RogerB · December 13, 2017 8:49AM

@ricko said:
Interesting...sometimes historical documents raise as many questions as they purport to answer. Cheers, RickO

Agreed. At times, they can also change our perspective on events and people. For example, documents located over the past 15 years show that Charles Barber was not the mean-spirited obstructionist that Breen presented.

Accessing and making the content locked in these old documents available for use is critical to an accurate and thorough understanding the American finance and numismatics.

1796 and 1797 half dollars

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories