Options
Classic head large cent vs. half cent
Colonialcoin
Posts: 913 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have viewed some stunning Classic head large cents in the current large cent post. IMHO it is a gorgeous head style and far more attractive than the bust when found on a 1/2c. Why did the mint stop minting them in 1814, but kept the Classic head 1/2c for another 20+ years?
1
Comments
I couldn’t agree more! 😁
And no, the half cents aren’t as attractive. The reason for the change after 1814 is confusing in that regard. Apparently there was some public criticism of the design so the mint sought a new one. This is from NGCcoin.com:
“The Mint had been harshly criticized since it struck its first coins in 1793. As an institution it had become increasingly sensitive to public ridicule. Shortly after the Classic Head cent was introduced in 1808, critics pointed out that the fillet on Liberty’s head had not been worn by women in Classical times but was given as a prize to boy athletes who had won town games.”
And further:
“Desiring a new design, but wishing to avoid further embarrassment, Mint officials bypassed Assistant Engraver John Reich (who they had previously chosen over Chief Engraver Robert Scot to create the Classic Head) and assigned Scot to redesign the cent. Scot’s creation went into production in 1816 and was a resounding artistic failure, but it did have one redeeming quality: no one could mistake the new Liberty for a boy athlete.
The new design featured an enlarged head of Liberty. The fillet holding the hair on the previous Classic Head series was replaced by a coronet and the word LIBERTY was added in relief. The reverse was essentially unchanged and retained the “Christmas wreath” of Reich’s 1808 design.
While generally referred to as the “Coronet” type, this is not a universally accepted name. Some collectors prefer “Matron Head.” Dr. William Sheldon, author of the standard reference for cents struck from 1793 to 1814, scathingly remarked that the figure of Liberty on these coins “resembled the head of an obese ward boss instead of a lady.””
Another thing happened to cent production in 1815. There wasn’t any. I hear a lot about the yellow fever epidemic being the cause, but I think it also had a lot to do with the strained relationship with England, the source of the copper blanks. I have read that the main reason for no 1815 cents was that they had simply run out. Whatever the reason, 1814 saw the end of the old hand engraving style of die production and by 1816 they had apparently been able to tool up and switch to a more mechanized method die production. I don’t know if that had anything to do with the choice to replace the one cent design. Coincidental?
Empty Nest Collection
".. went into production in 1816 and was a resounding artistic failure" - yes, yes it was.
I'm pretty sure there was a production run in December 1815, just no cents dated 1815
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/.
I’ve been looking into why the half cents didn’t get the same treatment. The concentsus is that even in the 1820’s, half cents just weren’t being used for commerce that much. IN FACT, as any half cent collector knows, there was a gap in production from 1811 until 1825, due mainly to the lack of planchet material. Its likely that when the mint decided to resume half cents production in 1825, there just wasn’t enough public scrutiny about the “young male athlete” problem so much as there WAS a problem with the shall we say “ugliness” of the new design. Also I believe there was a new superintendent at the mint by then so even less reason to push for a new design.
Empty Nest Collection