Why is it commonly referred to as a "stella"?
BigE2
Posts: 1,037 ✭
0
BigE2
Posts: 1,037 ✭
Comments
Stella is Latin for "star." Since the coin has a large star on the reverse, it is referred to as a stella. That's the short answer.
<< <i>Well, for one thing, the coin itself says "ONE STELLA" on the reverse...
Thats kinda what I was thinking!
The name is LEE!
The name is LEE!
I cataloged a couple of stellas last month and, in doing so, learned more about the significance of the star motif. The Committee of Coinage, Weights, and Measures (circa 1879) decided that they needed a nickname for the proposed four dollar denomination, much like the term "eagle" for our ten dollar pieces. "Stella" was chosen, being that the star was some sort of national emblem. I suppose that "stella" had a better ring than "star." You can read more about the history of these pattern issues in the Judd and Pollock references. Interesting stuff.
It appears that Charles Barber prepared obverse and reverse designs for both versions, with the coiled hair based on his father’s design. (Info based on Barber’s pattern collection inventory and the 1910 pattern hub destruction lists.)
<< <i>Because Marlon Brando collected them.
<< <i>Because Marlon Brando collected them.
Yep.
And who would ever even want a denomination called a "Blanche?"
<< <i>I cataloged a couple of stellas last month and, in doing so, learned more about the significance of the star motif. The Committee of Coinage, Weights, and Measures (circa 1879) decided that they needed a nickname for the proposed four dollar denomination, much like the term "eagle" for our ten dollar pieces. "Stella" was chosen, being that the star was some sort of national emblem. I suppose that "stella" had a better ring than "star." You can read more about the history of these pattern issues in the Judd and Pollock references. Interesting stuff. >>
There. now THAT is the kind of answer I was hoping to extract. Brief but informative with a source of further information available.
This type of research is very expensive per “bit” of data recovered.
Has anyone actually found hard evidence that John A. Kasson was involved in a substantial way with the development of these coins?
To date, no. The source that states Kasson was the moving force behind the Goloid coinage
is the pattern book by Adams & Woodin, published in 1913. The letters from Dr. William
Wheeler Hubbell in the National Archives do not mention Kasson; Hubbell was the chief
proponent of the Stella and other Goloid coins. He may have been in contact with Kasson,
but, if so, I did not find find any evidence of this in the Mint papers.
Denga
This kind of thing is fairly common, and gets corrected, in many fields, by peer reviews of articles, or by pre-submission collaboration and cross checking. Posting on a message board should not be considered definitive, in part because the posting can turn up something new and interesting. (I've occasionally corrected posts where my memory was faulty, or someone else came up with better quality information.)
RWB and denga, are your findings contradictory?
*******
No, the question was if information had been found that showed Kasson to have had a
substantial role in the matter. RWB has found some information about Kasson being in
correspondence with the Committee. When he is able to publish that information we
will know more on the subject and the amount of input.
Denga
For more than 3 years, I have been researching a lengthy article on the model for the “Morgan” dollar – a subject that seemingly has been settled for a long time. When I finally get the last bit of data from its source (and that could be months from now), I will ask denga to kindly take a look at the draft. His prior research into Morgan and his early career with the US Mint and understanding of the era ensures a knowledgeable reading and reliable, productive comments. That the article will contain something “new” or possibly connections that differ with past assumptions is certain, but this is all part of the path toward better understanding.
It is part of the research process of building upon past work to reach new, hopefully more accurate, understandings, while respectfully crediting those who provided that foundation.
I hope this makes sense….
Why is it commonly referred to as a "stella"?
-----
Cuz that's her name.
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
The earliest reference I have from NARA documents is a letter dated February 19, 1879 to Treasury Sec Sherman from House Coinage Committee Chairman Alexander Stephens. In it Stephens refers to a letter from the "Minister at Vienna" (Kasson) being received and that it contains the suggestion for a denomination of "400 cents or four dollars value, being precisely one fifth of the Metric Double Eagles recently struck..." Later in the same letter Stephens describes the coin and uses the name "Stella."
[Source: NARA-CP RG 56 entry 137, box 2] The Kasson letter is in the committee files but I haven’t had time to get copies made.
The mint objected to making stellas claiming they had no authority and no budget. Stephens blasted the mint in a long letter quoting the law and threatening hellfire and brimstone. The mint quickly gave in and by Oct. director Burchard was letting the Philadelphia mint know to be ready to strike Goloid/Metric sets for members of congress.
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Mr. Burdette, in my opinion the 1880 date on the Judd-1657-59 patterns (Flowing Hair) was not imparted with a logotype punch. Rather, there is evidence that the numerals were applied individually.
Ah. Now I understand what you meant. It is as if the task of dating the two 1880 stella dies was delegated to two different employees whom, apparently, were not in communication.
Slightly different date digit styles were used in 1879 and 1880 but they are similar in size. But, the 1880 FH variety used a completely different style and size, suggesting that they might have been made at a different time than the others.
Mr. Burdette,
I may have concluded too quickly regarding the date logotype issue. There is at least a possibility that the 1880 stella dates were imparted with a fixed punch. After being involved with the discussion in this thread, I did a few comparisons and found that the stella date is a very close match to the date logotype used on the three cent nickel of the same year (see image below). We know that a date matrix punch was used on the three cent nickels and it is clear that the two denominations are of comparable size (17.9 mm for the three cent vs. approximately 21.6 mm for the stella). I have not spent much time on the physical photo comparison, but it does appear that the two date punches are of the same size and style.
Do the digits for 1879 and 1880 CH match anything such as quarters or half eagles?
About the 1880 CH stellas, the date does not seem to match any known logotype of the same date, at least in my very quick review. More time should be spent on this issue. I will note that the most obvious possibility is with the 1880 nickel date punch (either proof or business strike), since the five cent pieces and the stellas are of comparable diameter, and both have curved dates. The quarter and quarter eagle dates tend to be linear. Comparing the 1880 five cent dies to the 1880 CH stella dies shows that they are close, but not the same--in terms of both spacing and style. It is possible that the 1880 CH stellas had each digit of the date applied. One whimiscal (and purely speculative) theory is that the obverse dies for both the 1880 FH and CH stellas were prepared on the same day by two different employees; one had the individual punches and the other, being impatient, grabbed the 1880 three cent nickel logotype punch out of the tool room and, well, the rest is history. That would explain the unusually small date on the Flowing Hair examples. Just day dreaming!
Regarding 1879, I will have to take a much closer look into this, but here are my preliminary thoughts:
1) a logotype was used--the same one for the CH and FH stellas.
2) the logotype punch does not match any other regular issue denomination of the year, although the nickel is very close.
3) there may be a correlation between the 1879 stella date punch and other patterns of that year (i.e. J-1596 quarter and others).