How many sets of dies were created and used for the 1792 half dimes?

CaptainRon · September 7, 2008 10:05AM

How many sets of dies were created and used for the 1792 half dimes?

Thanks
Ron

Quarternut · September 7, 2008 10:35AM

One?

QN

SomeGuyFromMichigan · September 7, 2008 11:31AM

One

MrHalfDime · September 7, 2008 12:22PM

It has always been held that there was just one set of dies made for the 1792 half disme. If we understand the very basic, almost crude, conditions under which these were made, this is easy to understand. The 1792 half disme was minted before the first mint building was completed, in the basement of John Harper's saw manufacturing building. It was done so at the urging of President Washington. The coin presses had not yet arrived from Europe, forcing them to use an old hand screw press that belonged to John Harper. As much as I love the 1792 half disme design, even I have to admit that it is a bit crude in its artistic qualities. For such a small mintage quantity, of just 1500-2000 pieces, it is highly unlikely that more than one die pair was used.

Having said that, I did notice, while closely inspecting the Cardinal specimen of the 1792 half disme, that there is a small die crack on the reverse, above the eagle's (viewer's) right wing that had never been seen or mentioned in the available literature before. The 1792 half disme is variously listed as Judd-7 and Pollack-7, and neither of those references mentions the die crack. Of course, the mere presence of the die crack does not imply that there was more than one die pair in use, but if the Cardinal specimen is purported to be the finest known, graded SP-67, would it not be likely that it was an early strike? If so, would not others, struck later, also have the die crack? Perhaps the die crack does exist on other examples, but is simply not seen as many/most examples known are well circulated, and this is a very fine die crack.

Quarternut · September 7, 2008 12:59PM

Very high grade uncirculated coins will show many more details than even lower grade uncirculated coins. A coin that receives only a small amount of wear can obliterate these details.

The crack you saw could be one of several things.

1. It could be mearly a surface stress crack that was lapped off after that speciman was struck.

2. It could be the beginning of a true die crack that did not progress any further and with a little wear is not noticable on any other specimens. It is my understanding that most of the remaining coins are not in uncirculated grades, the larger proportion that are worn, may not show this feature.

3. Just because the Cardinal specimen is the finest known does not necessarily mean it is an early strike. It could actually be a later strike produced at any time, or after the die was lapped.

Until another die marriage is discovered, or some contemporary documentation is found listing what was originally made, I am going to continue to believe that there was only one set of dies produced.

QN

firstmint · September 7, 2008 1:02PM

As a clarification to what Mr. HalfDime mentioned , The Cardinal 1792 HD is not the one that is graded PCGS SP-67. That is the Eckfeldt/Starr example which first appeared in 1924. It may have been cleaned in the past. The prooflike surfaces were described in the 2007 Heritage sale catalogue, along with the reversedie crack.

The Cardinal NGC MS-68 example is in fact one (reportedly of 4)coming directly from a descendent of David Rittenhouse, which appeared in the 1919 ANA sale. It has original surfaces and is attractively toned, having resided in a Wayte Raymond holder from when it was owned by Joseph Spray.

The Princeton example, recently reported in the trade papers, is probably an MS-65 or thereabouts. It has not been submitted for grading, and shows dark surface oxidation from improper storage since 1917. It may get bodybagged if submitted.

I do agree that there was just one set of HD dies prepared and used. Die steel was at a large premium at the time, according to engraver Joseph Wright, who wouldn't quarantee the steel from cracking during hardening for the quarters which were prepared shortly afterwards.

MrHalfDime · September 7, 2008 1:07PM

"I am going to continue to believe that there was only one set of dies produced."

I think this would be a very safe assumption.

I really do not believe that there was anything as 'sophisticated' as die lapping used on the 1792 half disme dies. This was an afternoon's production run, minted all at one time, under very minimal conditions, to satisfy the President's urgent desire to get the mint up and running. President Washington felt that no nation could be taken seriously, or its sovereignty respected, if it did not produce its own coins, and he pushed to get them made, even before the mint building was completed and its equipment in place.

Quarternut · September 7, 2008 1:10PM

I tend to agree with you about the possible die lapping, but again state that just because it is a high grade coin does not mean that is was an early strike.

QN

Quarternut · September 7, 2008 1:15PM

<< President Washington felt that no nation could be taken seriously, or its sovereignty respected, if it did not produce its own coins, and he pushed to get them made, even before the mint building was completed and its equipment in place. >>

Can you tell me where this information might be found?

I believe it was Rittenhouse who "pushed" to get them done. I have never read any letters written by Washington stating anything about the half-Dimes, only his annual address written by Jefferson stating that they had been struck.

QN

SomeGuyFromMichigan · September 7, 2008 1:48PM

When MrHalfDime said
..."but if the Cardinal specimen is purported to be the finest known, graded SP-67, would it not be likely that it was an early strike?"
When Mark Borckardt cataloged the Starr sale he said of this coin "...while certainly very special and deserving of a Specimen designation, but is not, nor could it be, the first 1792 half disme struck. The reverse has faint but clearly visible die cracks. Earlier die state examples are known without the die cracks, proving that this example is a later die state and was among the final examples produced in July 1792.
This was in response to HRH's statement of "The coin is so exceptional that I believe it could very well be the first 1792 half disme struck, and thereby the first U.S. coin ever struck.

firstmint · September 7, 2008 2:22PM

HRH said basically the same thing about the 1794 Neil/Carter/Contursi dollar.

MrHalfDime · September 7, 2008 9:32PM

"When Mark Borckardt cataloged the Starr sale he said of this coin "...while certainly very special and deserving of a Specimen designation, but is not, nor could it be, the first 1792 half disme struck. The reverse has faint but clearly visible die cracks. Earlier die state examples are known without the die cracks, proving that this example is a later die state and was among the final examples produced in July 1792."

Thank you, SomeGuyFromMichigan, for this important information, which I did not have. I may have confused the grades of the Cardinal and the Starr specimens (MS-68 vs. SP-67, respectively), but this information from Mark Borkardt confirms the die cracks that I saw on the Cardinal specimen, which I had never seen mentioned in any of the available literature.

"Can you tell me where this information might be found?"

QN, I have a large folder filled with any and all information that I have ever encountered on the 1792 half dismes, and the source for my comment is in there. I will research that and get back to you, although it could take a while.

I believe all of this merely confirms that there was just one set of dies for the 1792 half disme, an issue which, while extensively studied, leaves many questions unanswered.

SomeGuyFromMichigan · September 7, 2008 10:55PM

Your welcome
Text
I enjoy researching for good information, but you do have to weed through alot.
Mike

firstmint · September 8, 2008 1:45AM

There is plenty of past "MIS-HISTORY" surrounding these particular issues.

Joel Orosz presented all of the twists and turns in his comprehensive article about them that appeared in the ANS publication American Journal of Numismatics, second series #15, in 2003. He based his findings on a questionable 1844 dated document by a unreliable source, who validated his own claims in 1853 in newspapers after Adam Eckfeldt had died.

I presented a different viewpoint and background based on original documents and letters found in the Archives and the Library of Congress in my "Henry Voigt and Others..." book which appeared last year.

The President Washington involvement (providing silver, getting all of them for friends, giving them out as diplomatic gifts, etc) is complete fabrication. There is nothing in governmental records to indicate his "stopping by the Mint" and taking a specific interest in ANY of the coinage. That was Thomas Jefferson and David Rittenhouse's responsibility.

Washington wasn't even in Philadelphia when these were made.

George Washington did however relate once or twice that the new country needed its own coinage, but that was way before the April 2, 1792, Mint Act had been passed. The President was a supporter of having a national Mint, and when Congress finally agreed on the exact wording (which was done on March 27, 1792) he had his secretary, Tobias Lear attend the next meeting of Congress to announce that the bill had been signed and was now official.

CaptainRon · September 8, 2008 8:14AM

Thanks for all the info....

A while back, there was an auction were there was four lots 1792 half dimes. One of these lots, the half dime was thought to be of a differant size (Larger or smaller O.D. then the others). What was ever determined about this lot.

From the pictures that were provided for the lot, did it appear to have all of the same die markers as the rest of the 1792 half dimes?

Thanks
Ron

Barndog · September 8, 2008 8:18AM

<< Thanks for all the info....

A while back, there was an auction were there was four lots 1792 half dimes. One of these lots, the half dime was thought to be of a differant size (Larger or smaller O.D. then the others). What was ever determined about this lot.

From the pictures that were provided for the lot, did it appear to have all of the same die markers as the rest of the 1792 half dimes?

Thanks
Ron >>

can't tell you what happened, I'm sure someone else can. I can tell you that one of the coin was oversized as I viewed all of the lots in hand

Quarternut · September 8, 2008 8:55AM

If I remember right it was determined to be post-mint damage and was withdrawn from the sale. Here is a link to the thread:

1792 Thread

Anyone else know what happened to it? MrEureka?

QN

SomeGuyFromMichigan · September 8, 2008 11:28AM

firstmint There is plenty of past "MIS-HISTORY"
When you stated......Washington wasn't even in Philadelphia when these were made.
No dis-respect here.

A little time line.

This article by Bruce Amspacher

..."On July 9, 1792, President Washington sent a message to Rittenhouse authorizing him to strike dismes, half dismes and cents. Washington, who kept a residence on High Street only a few blocks from Harper's home, attended the striking of the first coins, which took place later that day or on July 10.
On July 11, Washington left Philadelphia for Mount Vernon.
On July 13 Thomas Jefferson, who was in attendance at Harper's cellar with Washington on July 9-10, received the first 1,500 half dismes. This may have been the entire mintage, although many speculate that an additional 500 to 1,000 pieces were struck." (Old News?)

"Conversations with the President"
1792 by Jefferson, Thomas
University of Virginia Library

July 10. 1792. My lre of -- -- to the President, directed to him at Mt Vernon, had not found him there, but came to him here (Phil.). He told me of this & that he would take an occasion of speaking with me on the subject. He did so this day.

11 July 1792
Mount Vernon / Martha Washington Collection
BILL from F. Serre. July 11, 1792. Philadelphia.
For making and mending clothes.

11 July 1792
Jefferson Letters
Th: Jefferson with his respects to the President sends him a letter to received by which he will perceive that Mister Blodget has deposited with the two Boston banks 10,000 Doll. subject to the draught of the Commissioners.

_________________________________________________________

This just adding information of the period regarding Coinage of the U.S.

Th. Jefferson COMMUNICATED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
7- 13, 1790
Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States

WEIGHTS.

There are two series of weights in use among us; the one called avoirdupois, the other troy.

In the Avoirdupois series:

The pound is divided into 16 ounces;
The ounce into 16 drachms;
The drachm into 4 quarters.

In the Troy series:

The pound is divided into 12 ounces;
The ounce (according to the subdivision of the apothecaries) into 8 drachms;
The drachm into 3 scruples;
The scruple into 20 grains.

According to the subdivision for gold and silver, the ounce is divided into twenty pennyweights, and the pennyweight into twenty-four grains.

So that the pound troy contains 5760 grains, of which 7000 are requisite to make the pound avoirdupois; of course the weight of the pound troy is to that of the pound avoirdupois as 5760 to 7000, or as 144 to 175.

COINS.

Congress, in 1786, established the money unit at 375.64 troy grains of pure silver. It is proposed to enlarge this by about the third of a grain in weight, or a mill in value; that is to say, to establish it at 376 (or, more exactly, 375.989343) instead of 375.64 grains; because it will be shown that this, as the unit of coin, will link in system with the units of length, surface, capacity, and weight, whenever it shall be thought proper to extend the decimal ratio through all these branches. It is to preserve the possibility of doing this, that this very minute alteration is proposed.

We have this proportion, then, 875 to 864, as 375.989343 grains troy to 371.2626277; the expression of the unit in the new grains.

Let it be declared, therefore, that the money unit, or dollar of the United States, shall contain 371.262 American grains of pure silver.

If nothing more, then, is proposed, than to render uniform and stable the system we already possess, this may be effected on the plan herein detailed; the sum of which is:
1st. That the present measures of length be retained, and fixed by an invariable standard.
2d. That the measures of surface remain as they are, and be invariable also as the measures of length to which they are to refer.
3d. That the unit of capacity, now so equivocal, be settled at a medium and convenient term, and defined by the same invariable measures of length.
4th. That the more known terms in the two kinds of weights be retained, and reduced to one series, and that they be referred to a definite mass of some substance, the specific gravity of which never changes.
And 5th. That the quantity of pure silver in the money unit be expressed in parts of the weights so defined.

In the whole of this no change is proposed, except an insensible one in the troy grain and pennyweight, and the very minute one in the money unit.

II. But if it be thought that, either now, or at any future time, the citizens of the United States may be induced to undertake a thorough reformation of their whole system of measures, weights and coins, reducing every branch to the same decimal ratio already established in their coins, and thus bringing the calculation of the principal affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply and divide plain numbers, greater changes will be necessary.

I like how Jefferson thought about this.

Fourth Annual Message of George Washington
November 6, 1792

Excerpt...
In execution of the authority given by the Legislature measures have been taken for engaging some artists from abroad to aid in the establishment of our mint. Others have been employed at home. Provision has been made of the requisite buildings, and these are now putting into proper condition for the purposes of the establishment. There has also been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.

The regulation of foreign coins in correspondency with the principles of our national coinage, as being essential to their due operation and to order in our money concerns, will, I doubt not, be resumed and completed.

CaptainRon · September 8, 2008 12:00PM

Thanks for the additional info.

Barndog, when you had a chance to ew all 5, did you have time to examine the larger specimen closely enough to determine if it had the same die markers as the smaller four?

Thanks
Ron

Quarternut · September 8, 2008 12:13PM

SomeGuyFromMichigan,
No disrespect to you or Bruce, but I don't consider this "timeline" by Bruce Amspacher to be substantiated by undisputable proof. What documents does he cite this information from?

This looks like the same rehashed information first spewed out by Taxay & Breen.

The point firstmint is trying to make is that much of the supposed historical "facts" that numismatic writers have been writing about for decades if not the last 125 years, have absolutely no basis in facts and are just repeatings of earlier writers fabrications that have no documentation to back them up.

I will look back through the Thomas Jefferson papers and see if i can find the exact documents that pertain to this subject and we can look at direct quotes from these letters. I am work right now, but will be home in an hour or so.

QN

Quarternut · September 8, 2008 12:47PM

Feel free to look at the document you are quoting from:

Text

This is a note that Jefferson wrote to himself on July 10 1792, about a conversation with Washington that happened on another day. He never wrote in the date of the letter that he sent to Washington "directed to him at Mt. Vernon had not found him there, but came to him here".

See the space he left at the beginning of the note after "My ltr. of___to the President," it is not "ire" as Bruce quoted but an abbreviation of the word "letter".

We don't know the date of this letter for certain, although it can be guessed at due to the date he wrote this note.

Here is a letter from Washington on July 9th to Jefferson. It says that it was received on July 9th, but this was most likely written by someone else besides Jefferson, probably a clerk, a secretary or even someone many years later, based on the date Washington wrote. This is the inside of a letter and the outside portion of, which would have had the address to and from, is missing. You can still see the outline of the wax seal that bled down into the internal letter page.

Text

Jefferson also sent a letter to Washington on July 9th, again, unfortunately, all we have to look at is a copy so we do not know where it was sent to. Perhaps somewhere in Washington's papers this letter can be found.

Again the point being made is that prior numismatic writers have used the information found and interpreted it in their own way. There is always more than one way to look at something, but just because you want it to be one way does not mean that is what really happened.

We are left, after over 200 years have passed, with some of the clues and evidence we need to fully understand the events that took place in 1792, but there are just as many missing pieces to the puzzle.

Theories can be formulated, but they are just that...theories. The main issue is that these theories have to be based on the actual evidence we have and not on heresy, conjecture, or previous writings of other individual’s perceptions.

QN

Barndog · September 8, 2008 1:01PM

<< Thanks for the additional info.

Barndog, when you had a chance to ew all 5, did you have time to examine the larger specimen closely enough to determine if it had the same die markers as the smaller four?

Thanks
Ron >>

no, wish I had the time, but there were too many coins to be seen for intense study

firstmint · September 8, 2008 3:24PM

SGFM -

Thank you for finding one of the old references that I mentioned.

As QN pointed out, the documentation supporting such writing is completely lacking, and unfortunately is not entirely based on original sources.

Washington had left Philly on the 11th. That is confirmed in multiple sources. The often-seen Frank Stewart commissioned painting showing the leaders of the country examining the new HD's is a complete fabrication.

The HD's were not struck until at least the 11th-13th when TJ picked them up before he left town. These were in all likely hood taken to the Bank of the US where all federal funds (including coinage) were stored.

These were not struck on the 10th when Washington was still there.

If you wish to take it hour by hour on the 11th, then you are most welcome to be the first person to present the real history based on the daily activities of Jefferson, Rittenhouse, Voigt, Wright, Birch, Harper, et al. Then again, they may have been struck on the 12th...or the 13th...

However, being open minded, you can believe whatever you like.

edited to add - The 1790 TJ document to Congress was in reply to Thomas Bordley's proposals for the new nation's coinage to be uniform with other nations. Becuase Bordley's document was very sensible, Washington commissioned Jefferson to make a reply to the earlier proposal.

Jefferson had just returned from France and did not know anything about the subject matter. Based on the detailed and technical content of the 1790 Jefferson reply, I will state specifically that he was not the main author of that particular document.

denga · September 9, 2008 12:28AM

Quarternut September 08, 2008
SomeGuyFromMichigan,
No disrespect to you or Bruce, but I don't consider this "timeline" by Bruce Amspacher to be substantiated by undisputable proof. What documents does he cite this information from?
This looks like the same rehashed information first spewed out by Taxay & Breen.
The point firstmint is trying to make is that much of the supposed historical "facts" that numismatic writers have been writing about for decades if not the last 125 years, have absolutely no basis in facts and are just repeatings of earlier writers fabrications that have no documentation to back them up.
QN

The original reference to the July 13 receipt by Jefferson was in fact discovered by Don Taxay who, despite the
poorly-informed remark by quarternut, is an excellent researcher. His book on the early mint is, in my opinion, a
well done reference that will stand the test of time.

I am of the opinion that Washington actually attended the coinage of half dismes, even though there is no proof
of this. On the other hand there is no proof that he did not, merely speculation.

Jefferson receipted for the coins on the 13th but this does not mean that they were struck on that day or even on
the 11th or 12th. They could easily have been struck on the 10th. On the other hand there could have been a
ceremonial striking on the 10th especially for the President’s benefit and the rest minted on the 11th and/or 12th.

This first coinage would have been considered a signal event in 1792 and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever
that every effort would have been made to strike the coins while the President was still in Philadelphia. Whether
this meant merely a ceremonial striking – or otherwise – cannot be determined unless further documentation is
discovered.

Denga

Quarternut · September 9, 2008 3:28AM

<< The original reference to the July 13 receipt by Jefferson was in fact discovered by Don Taxay who, despite the
poorly-informed remark by quarternut, is an excellent researcher. His book on the early mint is, in my opinion, a
well done reference that will stand the test of time. >>

Who are you to say whether I am poorly informed or not?

Have you personally done any research in the mint archives or the Library of Congress, including the Thomas Jefferson papers, or do you just blindly believe everything written by Taxay, Breen and Julian?

I believe you sir, are the one who is "poorly-informed"...

There are many items written by Taxay that are blatantly wrong, taken out of context, or based on improper research.

<< I am of the opinion that Washington actually attended the coinage of half dismes, even though there is no proof
of this. On the other hand there is no proof that he did not, merely speculation. >>

This is the most informed thing you wrote. Speculation is rampant in previous numismatic writings.

<< This first coinage would have been considered a signal event in 1792 and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever
that every effort would have been made to strike the coins while the President was still in Philadelphia. Whether
this meant merely a ceremonial striking – or otherwise – cannot be determined unless further documentation is
discovered. >>

You, as others before you, are putting 19th, 20th & 21st century perspectives to this event.

Why do you believe that this was a more significant event than so many other firsts that occurred during this time? This was only one small step towards establishing the government on many multiple levels, it is very doubtful that there was any sort of "ceremony" involved. This is romanticism brought on by the passage of time and the need of writers and collectors to bring more importance to their field of interest.

Please go back and do the proper research before posting your comments here or anywhere else for others to be subjected to...

QN

denga · September 9, 2008 5:19AM

Quarternut September 09, 2008

<< The original reference to the July 13 receipt by Jefferson was in fact discovered by Don Taxay who, despite the
poorly-informed remark by quarternut, is an excellent researcher. His book on the early mint is, in my opinion, a
well done reference that will stand the test of time. >>

Who are you to say whether I am poorly informed or not?

Primarily because I know Taxay and his work. I have not seen him for more than 20 years (and do not know
if he is still living) but before that time I was in regular contact. His research is both thorough and careful.

Have you personally done any research in the mint archives or the Library of Congress, including the Thomas Jefferson papers, or do you just blindly believe everything written by Taxay, Breen and Julian?

I believe you sir, are the one who is "poorly-informed"...

There are many items written by Taxay that are blatantly wrong, taken out of context, or based on improper research.

Now that you have made your charge about Taxay, please back it up. Please name situations where he was "blatantly wrong,"
took items "out of context," and did "improper research."

<>

This is the most informed thing you wrote. Speculation is rampant in previous numismatic writings.

Previous to what? 2008? 1990? 1950?

<< This first coinage would have been considered a signal event in 1792 and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever
that every effort would have been made to strike the coins while the President was still in Philadelphia. Whether
this meant merely a ceremonial striking – or otherwise – cannot be determined unless further documentation is
discovered. >>

You, as others before you, are putting 19th, 20th & 21st century perspectives to this event.

You might want to rethink this statement. The 19th century began in 1801; I did not realize that such a great change had
taken place in those nine short years.

Why do you believe that this was a more significant event than so many other firsts that occurred during this time? This was only one small step towards establishing the government on many multiple levels, it is very doubtful that there was any sort of "ceremony" involved. This is romanticism brought on by the passage of time and the need of writers and collectors to bring more importance to their field of interest.

Please go back and do the proper research before posting your comments here or anywhere else for others to be subjected to...

QN

I was not aware that I needed your approval to post my views on numismatic topics. Are you saying that those who have not
done research at the LC or Archives should not be allowed to post messages on certain topics?

Denga

firstmint · September 9, 2008 5:55AM

Since I was among the first to challenge some of Don Taxay's work in my Henry Voigt book, I'll respond to what QN mentioned about him.

In his 1966 book about the first US Mint, page 72, Taxay states "Although Voigt was only employed on a tempory basis..." In reality, he was employed full-time and non-stop. It was his original commission as Acting Superintendent and Coiner that was temporary. This was made permanent on January 29, 1793.

On the following page Taxay states "Eckfeldt also brought to the Mint his own lathe for the purpose of turning dies". Eckfeldt's own testimony from 1803 specifically states that this lathe belonged to Henry Voigt. Proper ownership was also mentioned in Frank Stewart's book about the first Mint on p. 128.

Taxay miscopied and combined information from original source records as well. He writes "It is recorded that on November 22 Voigt paid John Bringhurst nineteen cents for hauling a balance from Eckfeldt's and on the 28th he paid the porter 25 cents for hauling two small balances also from Eckfeldt's." These were separate entries which Taxay combined.

As originally written, John Bringhurst sold a set of rollers to the US Mint on the 10th and had nothing to do with moving any balances on the 22nd or 28th.

These are just a few examples of inaccurate information that was presented in print. Although they don't have much bearing on anything today, it is exactly this sort of information that gets copied and becomes fact. Bob, you have said this yourself more than once.

As for reality, from the 18th century, we can only rely on what is found and validated, since we weren't alive back then. Our interpretations can be quite subjective and in many cases quite incorrect.

As researchers, we need to determine, as best as can be accomplished, the truth of the matter.

Anyone is welcome to express their opionions. However, it helps if you provide some reasons to go along with them, such as your opinion that the 1792 HD's were struck when Washington was still in Philadelphia.

There are many references in print that Washington often visited the Mint. The reality is, that there is not a single validation for this belief.

Knowledge about the past is constantly evolving. We need to keep an open mind, as well as keeping up with the newer information.

Woodward · September 9, 2008 6:10AM

All-

No need for a p***ing match here. Let us try to construct the arguments in terms of original documents as much as possible and not resort to ad hominem attacks. All of you guys have done time in the archives, we don't need to debate credentials. Good scholarship will stand the test of time - let your work speak for itself.

denga · September 9, 2008 6:20AM

firstmint September 09, 2008

Since I was among the first to challenge some of Don Taxay's work in my Henry Voigt book, I'll respond to what QN mentioned about him.

In his 1966 book about the first US Mint, page 72, Taxay states "Although Voigt was only employed on a tempory basis..." In reality, he was employed full-time and non-stop. It was his original commission as Acting Superintendent and Coiner that was temporary. This was made permanent on January 29, 1793.

It has always been my understanding that he was considered temporary because the government
was attempting to obtain a more accomplished coiner. I see nothing wrong with what Taxay said in
this case.

On the following page Taxay states "Eckfeldt also brought to the Mint his own lathe for the purpose of turning dies". Eckfeldt's own testimony from 1803 specifically states that this lathe belonged to Henry Voigt. Proper ownership was also mentioned in Frank Stewart's book about the first Mint on p. 128.

Taxay miscopied and combined information from original source records as well. He writes "It is recorded that on November 22 Voigt paid John Bringhurst nineteen cents for hauling a balance from Eckfeldt's and on the 28th he paid the porter 25 cents for hauling two small balances also from Eckfeldt's." These were separate entries which Taxay combined.

As originally written, John Bringhurst sold a set of rollers to the US Mint on the 10th and had nothing to do with moving any balances on the 22nd or 28th.

These are just a few examples of inaccurate information that was presented in print. Although they don't have much bearing on anything today, it is exactly this sort of information that gets copied and becomes fact. Bob, you have said this yourself more than once.

All books have copying errors of this type and they certainly have no direct importance to the coinage. It
is easy to conflate notes on minor points and I doubt the existence of a numismatic reference that has
not done this. Taxay took notes heavily from documents and it not difficult on rare occasion to get the
notes mixed up.

As for reality, from the 18th century, we can only rely on what is found and validated, since we weren't alive back then. Our interpretations can be quite subjective and in many cases quite incorrect.

As researchers, we need to determine, as best as can be accomplished, the truth of the matter.

Anyone is welcome to express their opionions. However, it helps if you provide some reasons to go along with them, such as your opinion that the 1792 HD's were struck when Washington was still in Philadelphia.

I gave an opinion based on my knowledge of the Washington Administration as well as standards of the time. Those
who say that he was not there are also giving an opinion and nothing more. There is no difference and I have yet to
see any concrete proof that he was not present.

Knowledge about the past is constantly evolving. We need to keep an open mind, as well as keeping up with the newer information.

Ar long as the newer information is accurate, I agree.

Denga

Quarternut · September 9, 2008 6:46AM

<< Primarily because I know Taxay and his work. I have not seen him for more than 20 years (and do not know
if he is still living) but before that time I was in regular contact. His research is both thorough and careful. >>

I now know who you are and must apologize for my earlier ignorance on that account. This newfound knowledge continues my disappointment, that only recently emerged, when I read an article you recently wrote for Coins magazine on 8/6/2008 about the Bust Quarter series.

Coins Magazine Article

This article is full of misinformation and flawed assumptions made on improper research and a repeating of old writings that have no basis in fact. I was so appalled by what was written that I could not believe it came from you. My respect for your previous work has been severely diminished due to this article. Knowing that you have spent time in the archives and have access to the real, original information only makes it worse. If you wish we can go point by point through the article and I can show where the “facts” you present are in error, however I do not think this is the proper forum for that.

<< Now that you have made your charge about Taxay, please back it up. Please name situations where he was "blatantly wrong,"took items "out of context," and did "improper research." >>

Firstmint has been kind enough to cite a few, however there are too many to list, where would you like to start?

<< Previous to what? 2008? 1990? 1950? >>

Previous to today, of course, as you are continuing to write…

<< You might want to rethink this statement. The 19th century began in 1801; I did not realize that such a great change had taken place in those nine short years. >>

Just because the century began in 1801 (and some would disagree with that and state the beginning was 1800), does not mean that my statement is incorrect. The 19th century did continue past 1801, don’t you think? My comment was in reference to the latter half of the century when American numismatics began to be written about.

<< I was not aware that I needed your approval to post my views on numismatic topics. Are you saying that those who have not done research at the LC or Archives should not be allowed to post messages on certain topics? >>

It is true that you are free to post here whenever you like, I for one, wish only that when you do, you present accurate and true information not just your views. Too many people who have not had the chance to do the research for themselves will walk away believing everything that is posted.

QN

denga · September 9, 2008 8:01AM

Quarternut September 09, 2008

<< Primarily because I know Taxay and his work. I have not seen him for more than 20 years (and do not know
if he is still living) but before that time I was in regular contact. His research is both thorough and careful. >>

I now know who you are and must apologize for my earlier ignorance on that account. This newfound knowledge continues my disappointment, that only recently emerged, when I read an article you recently wrote for Coins magazine on 8/6/2008 about the Bust Quarter series.

This article is full of misinformation and flawed assumptions made on improper research and a repeating of old writings that have no basis in fact. I was so appalled by what was written that I could not believe it came from you. My respect for your previous work has been severely diminished due to this article. Knowing that you have spent time in the archives and have access to the real, original information only makes it worse. If you wish we can go point by point through the article and I can show where the “facts” you present are in error, however I do not think this is the proper forum for that.

The article is based directly on archival documents.

<< Now that you have made your charge about Taxay, please back it up. Please name situations where he was "blatantly wrong,"took items "out of context," and did "improper research." >>

Firstmint has been kind enough to cite a few, however there are too many to list, where would you like to start?

I assume this means you cannot do so.

<< Previous to what? 2008? 1990? 1950? >>

Previous to today, of course, as you are continuing to write…

An interesting remark.

<< You might want to rethink this statement. The 19th century began in 1801; I did not realize that such a great change had taken place in those nine short years. >>

Just because the century began in 1801 (and some would disagree with that and state the beginning was 1800), does not mean that my statement is incorrect. The 19th century did continue past 1801, don’t you think? My comment was in reference to the latter half of the century when American numismatics began to be written about.

Those who think the 19th century started in 1800 probably failed second-grade arithmetic.

<< I was not aware that I needed your approval to post my views on numismatic topics. Are you saying that those who have not done research at the LC or Archives should not be allowed to post messages on certain topics? >>

It is true that you are free to post here whenever you like, I for one, wish only that when you do, you present accurate and true information not just your views. Too many people who have not had the chance to do the research for themselves will walk away believing everything that is posted.

QN

Apparently quarternut thinks that insults are a substitute for rational discussion.

Denga

MrHalfDime · September 9, 2008 8:15AM

It is unfortunate that rational minds cannot agree to disagree on this or any other subject. We have had some real numismatic heavyweights respond here, each with substantial credentials, and each with much to offer to the discussion. But perhaps the most meaningful comment I have read here was Woodward's"

"No need for a p***ing match here. Let us try to construct the arguments in terms of original documents as much as possible and not resort to ad hominem attacks. All of you guys have done time in the archives, we don't need to debate credentials. Good scholarship will stand the test of time - let your work speak for itself."

I will take each of the comments made here and add them to my large folder on the 1792 half disme, and consider each to be valid until proven otherwise, all part of the ongoing saga of this fascinating piece of Americana.

So how many sets of dies did we decide were made for the 1792 half disme?

CaptainRon · September 9, 2008 10:34AM

Here is three from the recent Stack's July Baltimore auction.
What prompted my original question is:
Notice the reverse of the last coin, (was listed as a vf35) this coin falls in between the other two as far circulation marks. Top one being listed as a MS64 and the middle one as a VG10.

I'm sure it is just the digi pics, however to me the vf35 reverse looks differant then the other two in regards to the the placement of the tips of both of the eagles wings.
The wing tip on the viewers left side, appear to over lap T1, and the wing tip on the viewers right appears to me to be alligned lower into the I then more centered to the R I as the other two.

MrHalfDime · September 9, 2008 11:37AM

I recall a similar discussion a couple of years ago on this forum when a 1792 half disme in a third world slab appeared on eBay which just didn't look right. Although I do not own a real 1792 half disme, I do own a couple of the Gallery Mint replicas, and when I compared them with the eBay coin I determined that the eBay coin was a well worn Gellery Mint replica. So much for the value of the TPG. In this case, however, I am convinced that all three examples of the 1792 that you posted are not only genuine, but also from the same die pair. Any apparent differences in placement of letters and devices can be attributed to differences in photographs and also to differences in die wear and coin circulation wear.

Well, you certainly provided us with a very spirited discussion with your OP, even if it did not provide any evidence of more than one die pair.

CaptHenway · September 9, 2008 12:30PM

CaptainRon......getting back to your OP, there is only one die pair. As the numbers, stars and lettering were put on the dies one by one via hand-held punches, there would be numerous positional differences had two different die pairs been made.

I personally do not see any differences in the positions of the wingtips relative to the letters. You may have some striking differences (note the bifurcation in the lettering on the one coin), but they are still the same dies.

Captain Henway

Barndog · September 9, 2008 12:33PM

<< I recall a similar discussion a couple of years ago on this forum when a 1792 half disme in a third world slab appeared on eBay which just didn't look right. Although I do not own a real 1792 half disme, I do own a couple of the Gallery Mint replicas, and when I compared them with the eBay coin I determined that the eBay coin was a well worn Gellery Mint replica. So much for the value of the TPG. In this case, however, I am convinced that all three examples of the 1792 that you posted are not only genuine, but also from the same die pair. Any apparent differences in placement of letters and devices can be attributed to differences in photographs and also to differences in die wear and coin circulation wear.

Well, you certainly provided us with a very spirited discussion with your OP, even if it did not provide any evidence of more than one die pair. >>

the coin MrHalfDime is referring to was in an NTC holder...not surprisingly, that TPG has no guarantee of authenticity.

How many sets of dies were created and used for the 1792 half dimes?

Comments

Leave a Comment