Did John Harper change the way the Mint struck coins in 1796?
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
At the beginning of 1795 John Harper of Philadelphia proposed several changes to US Mint presses and other machinery to a Committee of Congress. “… on his going to the Mint, and pointing out the improvements which he thought necessary, he was treated with neglect, and as a person knowing but little of the business.”
He built a new press, made sample dies and struck pieces for the Committee, who “…were greatly pleased with the simplicity of the machine, and the expedition with which it struck the coins.”
In February 1796 Director Elias Boudinot wrote “The same simple mode of coining is now practiced at the Mint of the United States with great advantage.”
What were Harper’s suggestions and what did his sample copper pieces look like?
[RG104 E-3 Correspondence 1796-1804. February 8, 1796. Report of Boudinot to Speaker of the House]
Comments
I wonder if any of the coins, dies, or even the press are still around?
The dies were taken from Harper by Boudinot sometime before the report, so I presume they were thought of as threatening to official coinage. Maybe he copied existing cent designs? (The full report is about 7 pages.)
No good deed goes unpunished.
I think they claim that the Jefferson Head cents were made by Harper. I also think that he ended up having his machinery seized by the government, along with some dies with Washington's image on them.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Yes, the Jefferson heads have traditionally been attributed to Harper. Not sure there is any evidence for that beyond the cents themselves and the fact Harper did make a presentation to the Mint.
I read a warrant recently for the seizure of his press and dies - my recollection was that the dies were identified as having Washington on them, which made me wonder whether they were the Getz dies or perhaps the Washington President/Washington Born Virginia dies.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
The interesting question is, what was the change? Since the report Boudinot made was dated February of 1796, it isn't unreasonable to assume the change started some time in 1795.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
What kinds of simplification took place in about 1795 in relation to the common screw press? The director says "to great advantage...."
I think this is the short inventory to which Regulated refers --
[RG104 Entry 14 Undated documents]
Maybe a feeding /ejection mechanism?
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
The dies referred to are:
2 dies of G. Washington Head
1 die of the Free Mason Coat of Arms
1 die for Jersey half pence
The last two entries use an 18th century abbreviation for "ditto".
Compare that inventory (from NARA) with this one in the Eckfeldt family archive (that appeared on the market a couple years ago).
Thanks. The one I posted is possibly a draft and the one Coinosaurus posted is the final dated copy. So far the cover letter, if there is one, has not been located.
The one that I saw was the list Coinosaurus posted.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I do not understand. Why was this property seized?
It's a fascinating list. Washington, NJ, and "Freemasons Coat of Arms" dies. If you take the "Freemasons" comment to refer to the the Eye of Providence (which was allegedly adopted by the Masons in 1787), you have a list of dies that corresponds rather neatly to several of the Confederation-era "pattern" issues.
Documents like this make me wish I had a time machine.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
This topic has been covered in detail in print on a number of occasions.
The relevant documents (except for the list discovered by Coinosaurus)
concerning the John Harper pieces were printed in full in the September
1964 Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine. The topic was also discussed
at length in the 23 August 2011 issue of Numismatic News. The so-called
“Jefferson” cents have long been accepted as the Harper products.
Based on delivery figures for copper coins, the improvement in coining at
the Mint was almost certainly a feeding tube for the smaller denominations
although the larger pieces (eagle, half dollar, and dollar) had to wait until
after 1800.
Harper is known to have worked in an English mint, perhaps that of Matthew
Boulton at Soho or one of Boulton’s competitors in that same area. He was
also involved with the New Jersey copper coinage of the 1780s.
Some documents are yet to be found. One of these is a discussion, drawn up
for Mint Director Rittenhouse in early 1795, of the changes needed at the Mint.
G104 E-3 Correspondence 1796-1804. February 8, 1796. Report of Boudinot to Speaker of the House_]
I've seen the Jefferson Head pieces identified this way repeatedly, but is there any compelling evidence to back the claim up?
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
There is no definitive proof but there are no other cent pieces known for 1795
that fit the necessary conditions. That the Harper pieces disappeared without a
trace, and the “Jefferson” cents were then prepared by an otherwise unknown
hand, is highly unlikely.
That's assuming that Harper's "sample pieces" were 1795-dated cents.
The list of confiscated materials doesn't mention anything about dies that resembled a US Cent, although it was at least a year after the sample pieces were struck.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I want to know more about the levers without balls!
The list of confiscated materials postdates the death of John Harper in
mid-1796. The dies prepared by Harper in early 1795 had been seized
by Director Elias Boudinot in late 1795.
I might add that Regulated’s suggestion that there may also have been
an improvement in the ejection mechanism is worthy of consideration.
I've seen a feeder/ejection mechanism of the era that used a cam to operate both.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
RE: "September 1964 Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine. The topic was also discussed
at length in the 23 August 2011 issue of Numismatic News."
Are either publication electronically indexed or available via NNP? I understand that a great deal of excellent information was published in Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine but is essentially "locked up" due to lack of modern search capability. There are many articles by Denga thus unavailable.
As to the Jefferson-head cents, nothing of past attribution is compelling in my opinion. Maybe something positive will eventually turn up as more people look through the great volume of manuscript materials extant.
Feeding tubes or positioning/ejection mechanisms are certainly good candidates for improving efficiency - if that is what the Director meant. Comments mention simplicity not complexity or efficiency.
Further, in this letter from June 1796, the Director complains about gold and silver coin quality. Maybe there is no relationship since this letter post-dates the Director's Report to the Speaker.
Numismatic Scrapbook can be searched on NNP but is not available for full-view. Numismatic News has not been scanned.
When I searched, the bit I got back was too small to be of value. It was a lot like the Google "snippets" that are effectively useless. (Maybe I searched incorrectly..... ?)
Disclaimer -- some of my books are available for searching in NNP. But, users are supposed to get back at least a full paragraph for each hit and possibly more. The goal is to give researchers a good idea if the material will be useful, yet avoid having the work copied for unauthorized distribution.
Interesting Mint history... with still many unanswered questions. Strange that such improvements would not receive more documented notice. I assume the confiscation of materials/equipment was due to fear of counterfeiting. Cheers, RickO
It is likely that a majority of early Mint documents have been lost....maybe 90% as a guess?
Although CaptHenway is joking, some readers might not understand the fun. The woodcut is one that is commonly reproduced as a typical screw press. However, these presses were made in many sizes and not always of iron.
A large screw press had two horizontal arms (labeled "D" in the woodcut below) attached to the vertical screw. As the arms were rotated horizontally the screw (labeled "I"), with a die ("N") at one end, moved up or down. The amount of force varied with the kinetic energy of the arms. Faster moving arms meant that force was applied to the die within a shorter amount of time; heavier arms carried more energy for the same speed of rotation.
Press arms were often tapered, and this allowed weights ("F") to be added and positioned on each arm to produce the desired amount of force. Heavier weights could also be used to change the total force applied to a die. Weights were commonly held in place with a cotter pin or similar locking arrangement. The arms were moved by a workman at each end "throwing" the leather straps ("slings" labeled "G") and then catching the rebounding arm to start another cycle.
If too much weight was used, or it was unevenly placed on the arms, the kinetic energy of the press could break its mounting or crack the frame ("H"). [In this illustration the boy (labeled "C") is preparing to get a finger squished off unless he moves quickly.]
Illustrations like this one often show spherical "ball" weights even though a square with sides equal to a sphere's diameter will weigh 1.91 times as much, and should have been easier to cast and trim.
Harper's inventory phrase, "leavers without balls," means the horizontal levers were present but there were no ball weights.
There is a nice ANA video available on YouTube showing Doug Mudd using a small single-lever press to strike tokens.
Yes, what happened to the balls?!?!
"Some parts not included. See your local IKEA screw press store for details."
When the Mint closed down due to yellow fever outbreaks, the cotter pins were removed to a safe place to prevent the presses from being used. When the Mint reopened and the workers would start getting paid again, they would "welcome back (the) cotters!"
Arrrrgh.....
What RogerB reproduces as a screw press was actually called a Lever
press in the early Mint documents as there were two kinds of screw
presses used at the Philadelphia Mint in 1795, the Lever and Wheel
presses. The Lever press had, as shown by RogerB, a large iron bar
which rotated and drove down the upper die. In 1795 Adam Eckfeldt
crafted one such bar for a Lever press which weighed nearly 800
pounds. There are no known illustrations of the early U.S. screw
presses at work but a picture does exist showing London presses of
the 1790s. The Lever presses are on the left, Wheel on the right.
Although it was normal procedure to use two men to swing the heavy iron
bar on the Lever press, sometimes it required four, as shown in this stylized
view of Russian mint workers at Suzun (Kolyvan) striking the large copper 5
kopeck pieces (piataks) during the reign of Catherine the Great.
Thanks for the clarification, Denga. Whether turned by a lever, bar or wheel, all used the same basic screw mechanism derived from wine presses, printing presses, and similar compaction devices.
RWB said "No such thing as a 1946 Proof Lincoln, so no on that one.
I have my doubts about the '54 but hard to tell from pics.
Maybe member BUFFNIXX has an imaginary '46 proof cent to got with his 1917 ?
The OPs coins have been polished - neither is or ever was a proof."
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Sorry Rodger I do not have a “proof” 1946 Lincoln head cent.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
A large screw press had two horizontal arms (labeled "D" in the woodcut below) attached to the vertical screw. As the arms were rotated horizontally the screw (labeled "I"), with a die ("N") at one end, moved up or down. The amount of force varied with the kinetic energy of the arms. Faster moving arms meant that force was applied to the die within a shorter amount of time; heavier arms carried more energy for the same speed of rotation.
Press arms were often tapered, and this allowed weights ("F") to be added and positioned on each arm to produce the desired amount of force. Heavier weights could also be used to change the total force applied to a die. Weights were commonly held in place with a cotter pin or similar locking arrangement. The arms were moved by a workman at each end "throwing" the leather straps ("slings" labeled "G") and then catching the rebounding arm to start another cycle.
Reading this is very much like watching paint dry.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Research should not be easy, but it should be fun. If it's not fun, go do something else.
Thank you for the excellent and informative explanation!
.........forgot to mention grass growing.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Bob is repeating a misinterpretation of mine from many years ago. I had originally thought that the woodcut from Ackermann's Microcosm of London showed both fly-arm (the period term) and flywheel presses, but further study of the image shows that the presses at right are, in fact, fly-arm presses. You can see the end weights on a blow up of the image.
Additionally, from discussions with English mint researchers, it is very doubtful that the English ever used flywheel type presses. At this time period, flywheel type presses were used for drawing and crushing operations. Period documents don't show the use of this type of press for stamping until the late 1800's.
As to Harper's improvements, they could have been a faster double or triple threaded screw or possibly some improvement to the feed mechanism. It is very doubtful the US Mint ever hand-fed a screw press - a very dangerous action that often resulted in the loss of a finger. I believe it was Pistrucci who noted that every coiner in the English mint had lost at least one digit! Since there are no reports of that happening in the US Mint and given the coining rate in 1794 through early 95, the US Mint did have some sort of feed.
As I noted in a 2017 (Sept ?) article in Pennywise, Harper's equipment was seized, along with the dies noted, from a Richard Harper, who was charged with counterfeiting, At the present it is not known if Richard was a son, grandson, or cousin, but he apparently came into possession of the presses and rollers from Harper's estate auction.
The "Jefferson Head" cents are presumed to be from Harper's experimental striking. While there is no direct documentation, Harper did strike cents for his demonstration. The Jefferson Head pieces are very crude and do not match any other variety, so the evidence is fair that they are Harper's cents.
~With exception to a few entries above~
These are the type of threads I like the most, history and where it all started...
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
I was not repeating anything published by Rittenhouse on the screw presses in my earlier
posting. Whether they were called flywheel or wheel presses by early officials is not known
but mint records show that “wheels” were ordered for the Philadelphia coining presses, not
“flywheels.” How many wheel presses were on hand is not known as the records are imperfect.
Lever presses were also used of course.
The London Mint illustration shows very clearly that these wheel type presses were used for
coinage.
As to Rittenhouse’s claim that the Philadelphia Mint never hand-fed planchets I think the results
and documents show otherwise. In 1793 the practical limit of a day’s coinage was about 6,500
pieces but by the late 1790s this had reached 14,000 pieces from one press, which could have
been achieved only by a feeding tube, not a change in pitch for the screw mechanism. (It may be
that there was a safety mechanism (chain) which kept the person feeding the blanks prior to 1796
from being injured.) There is also direct evidence that planchets for the larger coins (eagle, dollar,
and half dollar) were hand fed into the press until after 1800. The 22 April 1799 letter from Director
Elias Boudinot to Matthew Boulton at Soho is definitive on this point.
No Bob, unless you can produce other records, there is but a single record noting both a press and a wheel, that being the warrant to John Rutter on March 25, 1794. I had mistakenly interpreted that as a flywheel for a press. However, at 112 lbs, it's far too light. Eyewitness accounts of the presses (besides Wailes) note the size of the lever and without end-weights it would have weighted more than Rutter's wheel.
Since you noted Boudinot's April 22, 1799 letter, I suggest you re-read, especially the part where he says, "We use the common Presses with levers that go by manual labor..." No mention of flywheels.
As far as the Ackermann image, it appears you are using the "dumbed down" one I sent you years ago that I pulled from Linecar's book. Sure looks like it. Anyway, a couple years ago I got a much better image from an original copy and when you blow it up and sharpen, you can see the end weights. So we'll just have to disagree.
As to Boudinot's April 22, 1799 letter, I too have copy, as you may recall. You are misreading what Boudinot said: "We use the common Presses with levers that go by manual labor, excepting that as to small coin and Cents, the Press is fed by means of a hopper, instead of being put under by Hand."
Note the commas before and after " excepting that as to small coin and Cents." Those are important as they change the whole meaning of the sentence. Since other records show the cent press (and thus presumably that for other small coin) was operated a bit differently than the larger presses, the meaning becomes clear - the larger presses had a feed hopper.
As I am presently working on a discussion of the presses and operation, I don't want to give away what I've found. But you'll able able to read it shortly.
The 1799 letter says just what is obvious in reading it, that the larger planchets
were fed by hand. Those readers wishing to decide this point for themselves can
see the original letter posted on the Newman Portal at U.S. National Archives
Record Group 104, Entry 3, Letters Sent, Book B, page 135. If all coins were
struck on a Lever press with feeding tubes then Boudinot would simply have
noted the fact and not distinguished the larger pieces separately.
The 1799 letter mentions only Lever presses, which merely means that the wheel
press or presses were no longer used. The weight of the 1794 wheel (at one
hundred weight) is just the base wheel before the weights were added. It may well
have been meant for the smallest coins, the half dime and dime.
It is true that there is only the one archival reference to a wheel press but one is
quite enough to prove the point. The mention of Lever arms for that type of press
is equally thin even though we know that Lever presses were used exclusively
after the 1790s.
I note that Rittenhouse fails to provide an explanation for the change in daily press
production to 14,000 pieces in the late 1790s. (The mint director also used, in one
of his reports, 15,000 daily pieces per press.) The change to a feeding tube for the
smaller coins fully justifies Boudinot’s remark, noted by RogerB, that “The same
simple mode of coining is now practiced at the Mint of the United States with
great advantage.” The change of pitch on the screw, as surmised by Rittenhouse,
is highly unlikely as the source of the strong improvement in daily mintage.
A second copy of the London Mint illustration was obtained from a Cambridge
friend in 2009 but was only slightly sharper than the earlier copy.
The 1794 Wheel press cost only $69.06, a small amount even by 1794 standards.
(Oddly enough it is called a large press.) The real large press for dollars and medals,
obtained in late April 1795, weighed more and was charged at $134.07, nearly twice
as much. Clearly the 1794 Wheel press was meant for the smaller coins.
A minor clarification for readers. In late 18th century mechanical references, a "flywheel" is generally a vertical spoke-and-rim wheel with a thick rim that was kept in continuous motion. It was used for delivering constant, even power to a piece of equipment such as rolling mills.
No, it says the exact opposite. Those commas are important.
He distinguished because the small press was operated a bit differently.
First, there is no evidence the wheel was part of the press. That is my misinterpretation from nearly 30 years ago. You're simply parroting my mistake. It was merely part of what the Mint had ordered. Rutter had previously supplied items, so there is no reason to connect the two.
And, pray tell, how does one add weights to the wheel? There is no extant documentation of flywheel presses with extra weights. You've repeated an old error of mine and are now trying to justify.
There were the improved presses supplied by Howell. They did change screws several times, and a faster thread will produce faster speeds. The development of double and triple threads were a significant mechanical improvement. And there were likely several iterations of the feed mechanism. Mechanics is not a static, Bob.
Well, it looks like we'll just have to disagree again. I'm OK with that. My track record when we disagree is pretty good.
First, a minor correction. The 1799 letter is not exactly where I said it is. One has
to go to the year 1796 at RG 104 entry 3 before Book B appears for use.
Rittenhouse keeps mentioning that the small presses were operated differently.
Documentation would be nice but even if true does not mean that the larger
presses had feeding tubes. Boudinot would have said so had that been the case.
I have seen nothing from the 1790s about differences in striking small coins
versus large.
And yet another case of deliberate confusion on the part of Rittenhouse: “...and
given the coining rate in 1794 through early 95, the US Mint [presses] did have
some sort of feed.” I don’t know the coining rate per press during this time period
and neither does Rittenhouse as we have no daily coinage records of the kind that
exist for April through July 1793. It is clear, however, from the 1794 copper delivery
records that at least two presses were striking cents and probably more; this fact
alone negates the Rittenhouse claim about feeding tubes in 1794. One could not,
for example, deliver 12,200 cents on July 8 and 40,000 the next day from just one
press.