Article on the origins of 1841 $2-1/2 's and other related coins of the 1840's (incl. Half Cents)
CaptHenway
Posts: 33,767 ✭✭✭✭✭
Just read this fascinating article on Coin Week by Roger Burdette:
https://coinweek.com/origins-of-1841-quarter-eagles-and-similar-coins/
It explains how the U.S. Mint began exchanging sets of coins with other countries around 1840 to enhance the Mint Cabinet of Coins. The 1841 Quarter Eagles may have been struck simply to help some of the exchanges come out close to even gold vs. gold and silver vs. silver.
As I read the article, which mentions Half Cents being included in sets, it occurred to me that these exchange sets are very possibly the reason why the Mint first began striking Proof-only Half Cents starting in 1840. One might assume that once collectors found out about them, they kept bugging the Mint to buy them, and the Mint obliged by restriking them from various dies for many years.
There is also an interesting section about the Mint selling restrikes, INCLUDING AN 1804 DOLLAR, in 1843.
Enjoy!
TD
Comments
Good read, thanks for posting. I wonder if any other countries have some of these exchange coins still around in museums etc.
That's awesome. I get the sense that the Mint made the coins in anticipation of those foreign exchanges. Is there a record for where the first recorded sale of an 1841 $2.50 was sourced from?
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
Per John Dannreuther's fabulous two-volume set on Proof Gold: Bangs 7/12/1860 sale, Lot 110, graded VF.
I am guessing that that would be a Proof-50 today.
Curiously, several 1841 $2-1/2's are known circulated, which might bolster the explanation that they were distributed to non-numismatic recipients.
That's fascinating in the sense that the late 1850s and 1860s were a time for numismatic restrikes and yet I doubt such a coin could be worn down to VF so quickly. What are the chances the other coins purposely made for foreign exchange weren't recorded on the books either?
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
As I said, their VF is probably not our VF.
That was a fascinating article. Thank you for posting it and to Roger Burdette for writing it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know! Had you ever heard about this exchange program? I hadn't.
No, I hadn’t - it was new news to me and a great read.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
the
Roger can, and no doubt will, speak for himself regarding your comments, but speaking for myself I question your interpretation of the article to say that the Proofs in question of 1840-on were struck for diplomatic purposes.
In my mind the "diplomatic Proof coins" were the sets produced in 1834-35 at the request of the State Department specifically for the purpose of making presents to foreign monarchs that the State Department wished to establish diplomatic relations with.
As I understand the current article in question, the U.S. Mint on its own initiative instigated the exchanges mentioned in it with foreign Treasuries and/or Mints partly for the purpose of obtaining sets of coins that could be tested to fulfill the Mint's obligation to establish the values of foreign gold and silver coins, and partly to obtain specimens of foreign coinage for placement in the Mint Cabinet of coins.
There was nothing "diplomatic" about them, other than that the Mint/ Treasury Dept. used the good offices of the State Department to obtain coins overseas, and the diplomatic pouch system of the State Department to convey those coins to the United States more safely than the mails of the day, and to safely convey the exchange coins back to the foreign Treasuries and/or Mints.
Assuming that this is the correct interpretation of the article, I would not not be surprised if the State Department retained no records of this courtesy performed for the Treasury Dept. 185 years ago.
TD
the