For those who own a 1794 dollar or half dollar – or both
denga
Posts: 922 ✭✭✭
The following entries from the Mint Waste Book show the first deliveries by Chief Coiner
Henry Voight, in 1794, of dollars and half dollars. The director was David Rittenhouse.
All of the silver dollars were paid out to Dr. Rittenhouse as he had deposited the silver for
this coinage.
Denga
Henry Voight, in 1794, of dollars and half dollars. The director was David Rittenhouse.
All of the silver dollars were paid out to Dr. Rittenhouse as he had deposited the silver for
this coinage.
Denga
0
Comments
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I'm always amazed at their handwriting. Where I went to school we spent hours dipping our pens in inkwells (this being 50's) and trying to write like that, never happened here.
Ditto here.
I did manage to keep a few shirtmakers in business though.
---
I have to admit I find the post intersting but confusing.
Why is it called a Waste Book ?
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
I have to admit I find the post intersting but confusing.
Why is it called a Waste Book ?
The entries were first posted in such books and then later entered in other volumes once the
originals had been carefully checked. The term “waste” then presumably meant that it was not
the final official record. The Waste Books were, however, always corrected before final entries
were made and are equally useful for research purposes.
Denga
<< <i>I am not old (still in my early thirties), but I know of some kids who are not even being taught the cursvie writing style anymore. It is really quite sad. When I asked one to sign her name and then print below it, she printed it both times! I was really somewhat amazed she had no clue what I was asking for. >>
I'm suprised she didn't rubber stamp it
I'm most curious about the claim that Rittenhouse provided all the silver for the first halves and dollars. These images show the 69k ounce deposit by the Bank of Maryland and the fact that this deposit was delivered to the coiner the day before Rittenhouse's first deposit.
Since coining didn't begin for another 2 months, how can anyone say which silver was used first?
Denga,
I'm most curious about the claim that Rittenhouse provided all the silver for the first halves and dollars. These images show the 69k ounce deposit by the Bank of Maryland and the fact that this deposit was delivered to the coiner the day before Rittenhouse's first deposit.
The law required that all deposits be paid off in the order that they were brought to the Mint
but this created a problem. The Bank of Maryland deposit consisted of French coin, much
of which was billon and difficult to refine to standard. For this reason Rittenhouse asked the
Bank for permission to sidestep the legal requirements and it agreed.
The payments to Rittenhouse shown on your illustrations are correct but entered at a later
date than the actual transfer of the coins so that the account books would show that the legal
requirements had been met.
I did not say that Rittenhouse received the half dollars, only the dollars. The amounts involved
make it clear as the train of events. In addition there are newspaper accounts of dollars being
distributed by the end of November 1794, long before the account books so indicate; one such
notice may be found in Taxay’s work on the Philadelphia Mint, page 106.
Denga
For instance, the waste book shows a total of 1523 oz. 12 dwt's were needed to create the 1758 dollars delivered on October 15, 1794. On August 22, 1794, Rittenhouse deposited two ingot deliveries of 1479.5 oz & 255.5 oz. which totals 1735 oz. This amount is far too high, so past researchers tried to adjust the mintage to 2000 pieces, saying that 242 were melted as being no good. There is no Mint documentation to validate this way of thinking. We do know that 1758 silver dollars were delivered on October 15, 1794 - but we don't know to whom.
It wasn't until May of 1795 before another delivery of silver dollars was made; and, as shown on May 7, 1795, many of those dollars (1706) went to Rittenhouse with the notation that it was from deposit No. 2 (the one Rittenhouse made on August 22, 1794). This is certainly much closer to the 1735 ozs. he deposited in 1794, so we see that he waited for the large screw press to be made operational again by Adam Eckfeldt (from January to May) to receive his silver dollars. He received 294.51.5 cents for his other deposit of 255.5 ozs.
Clearly Rittenhouse's two same day deposits, along with the Charles Gilchrist deposits of 1132.10 & 40.13 on the same day, August 22, 1794, were not used exclusively for making the new silver dollars.
As brought out in this thread, we don't know exactly whose silver was being refined, struck, and delivered...none of us were alive or working at the Philadelphia Mint, so that means we should keep an open mind about the reality of how it actually was. Also, as brought out, Rittenhouse sometimes bent the rules to ensure the continuation of the Mint. He also spent a great deal of his own money to make things work, as evidenced by his covering the $5K surety deposit for coiner Henry Voigt.
I even had this situation somewhat incorrect in my "Henry Voigt and Others" book, as I had figured the initial 1479.5 deposit was all that was needed to create the 1758 silver dollars delivered on October 15, 1794. However, as evidenced by the waste book amount, I was off by nearly 44 ozs. Therefore, we find the numbers on the Rittenhouse deposits don't match what silver dollars were struck and delivered in 1794.
We don't know the actual time it took to strike all of those coins for that initial delivery. If the press was not working properly (as evidenced by the coins), Voigt could have taken weeks to strike that number of coins. The silver bullion from the initial Rittenhouse deposit was sent to the coiner on September 1, 1794. the other deposit was recorded the following day. Additionally, we don't know exactly when the planchets were finally ready for coining as they had to be hand-filed to adjust each one to achieve the proper weight. Prior to that, the silver had to be properly refined and rolled out to the correct thickness.
It's very difficult to believe that all of the nation's brand new silver dollars would have been given to the Mint Director, who in reality wanted them out in circulation, which was accomplished shortly after they were delivered. Rittenhouse certainly didn't have time to make business trips up and down the Atlantic seaboard; or to write letters to all of his friends enclosing a new dollar. That sounds like the story of Washington getting all the 1792 Half Dismes. There's simply no validation or logic for any of these made-up concepts, which have been with us and repeated for decades. The Collins book on 1794 dollars, p.92, plus the delivery warrants posted by Slumlord shows that Rittenhouse received silver dollar coinage for his initial deposit on May 7, 1795, and the other deposit was delivered in coins on May 8, 1795. These equal the $2001 worth of deposits of silver ingots that Rittenhouse made in August of 1794.
Unfortunately, Breen and Taxay did not validate a lot of their research and writings, so they can't be used as confirmation on activity inside the Mint - only Mint records can be used to validate, and even those are not complete, and are oftentimes misleading and/or misunderstood.
Such entertainment!
Having studied for many years the situation regarding the first silver dollars, I can say that I think we still don't have it quite right.
Actually, we do. It is firstmint that does not understand the records.
For instance, the waste book shows a total of 1523 oz. 12 dwt's were needed to create the 1758 dollars delivered on October 15, 1794. On August 22, 1794, Rittenhouse deposited two ingot deliveries of 1479.5 oz & 255.5 oz. which totals 1735 oz. This amount is far too high, so past researchers tried to adjust the mintage to 2000 pieces, saying that 242 were melted as being no good. There is no Mint documentation to validate this way of thinking. We do know that 1758 silver dollars were delivered on October 15, 1794 - but we don't know to whom.
We do know and it was Rittenhouse. The figure of 2000 sometimes seen is an estimate as it is known
that some of the 1794 dollars were so badly made that they were not released and instead used as
planchets when the dollar coinage resumed in early May 1795.
It wasn't until May of 1795 before another delivery of silver dollars was made; and, as shown on May 7, 1795, many of those dollars (1706) went to Rittenhouse with the notation that it was from deposit No. 2 (the one Rittenhouse made on August 22, 1794). This is certainly much closer to the 1735 ozs. he deposited in 1794, so we see that he waited for the large screw press to be made operational again by Adam Eckfeldt (from January to May) to receive his silver dollars. He received 294.51.5 cents for his other deposit of 255.5 ozs.
The press used to resume dollar coinage in May 1795 was constructed by Samuel Howell, Jr. & Co.
for the Mint; it is well documented. Firstmint’s claim that “[Rittenhouse] waited for the large screw press
to be made operational again by Adam Eckfeldt (from January to May) to receive his silver dollars” is
simply not true. The matter of the presses was examined at length in an ANS presentation some years
ago and Craig Sholley, a recognized expert on early Mint machinery, not only pointed this out at the
symposium but also said as much to firstmint in an exchange on this forum.
Clearly Rittenhouse's two same day deposits, along with the Charles Gilchrist deposits of 1132.10 & 40.13 on the same day, August 22, 1794, were not used exclusively for making the new silver dollars.
They clearly were. The Bank of Maryland silver was still being processed in January and February 1795,
long after the 1794 dollars were struck; this particular information was published in the American State
Papers. The Bank of North America also deposited ingots on August 23, 1794, and part of this deposit
was used to coin the 5,300 half dollars of December 1, 1794, and most of the half dollars struck over
the next several weeks. The Maryland silver was apparently brought on line (for half dollars) beginning
in late January 1795.
As brought out in this thread, we don't know exactly whose silver was being refined, struck, and delivered...none of us were alive or working at the Philadelphia Mint, so that means we should keep an open mind about the reality of how it actually was. Also, as brought out, Rittenhouse sometimes bent the rules to ensure the continuation of the Mint. He also spent a great deal of his own money to make things work, as evidenced by his covering the $5K surety deposit for coiner Henry Voigt.
Interlesting, as firstmint’s book on Voigt has a section (pages 121–123) claiming that Rittenhouse went to
jail for bankruptcy and died in prison in 1798. (According to firstmint, David Rittenhouse’s friends covered
up the jail time with false newspaper stories of his death!) Unfortunately firstmint did not research the matter
carefully and Rittenhouse did die in 1796; it was Joseph Rittenhouse, a prominent Philadelphia entrepreneur,
who was in debtor’s prison. The latter even publicly petitioned Congress to be released from prison and his
pleas can be found in the American State Papers, a source readily available to anyone.
I even had this situation somewhat incorrect in my "Henry Voigt and Others" book, as I had figured the initial 1479.5 deposit was all that was needed to create the 1758 silver dollars delivered on October 15, 1794. However, as evidenced by the waste book amount, I was off by nearly 44 ozs. Therefore, we find the numbers on the Rittenhouse deposits don't match what silver dollars were struck and delivered in 1794. We don't know the actual time it took to strike all of those coins for that initial delivery. If the press was not working properly (as evidenced by the coins), Voigt could have taken weeks to strike that number of coins. The silver bullion from the initial Rittenhouse deposit was sent to the coiner on September 1, 1794. the other deposit was recorded the following day. Additionally, we don't know exactly when the planchets were finally ready for coining as they had to be hand-filed to adjust each one to achieve the proper weight. Prior to that, the silver had to be properly refined and rolled out to the correct thickness.
The striking rate on the press used for the dollars in October 1794 is known to have been about 12 to
14 coins per minute. Even at the slower rate this means about 2 ½ hours. Coinage would not have
been held up while the planchets were still being prepared.
It's very difficult to believe that all of the nation's brand new silver dollars would have been given to the Mint Director, who in reality wanted them out in circulation, which was accomplished shortly after they were delivered. Rittenhouse certainly didn't have time to make business trips up and down the Atlantic seaboard; or to write letters to all of his friends enclosing a new dollar. That sounds like the story of Washington getting all the 1792 Half Dismes. There's simply no validation or logic for any of these made-up concepts, which have been with us and repeated for decades. The Collins book on 1794 dollars, p.92, plus the delivery warrants posted by Slumlord shows that Rittenhouse received silver dollar coinage for his initial deposit on May 7, 1795, and the other deposit was delivered in coins on May 8, 1795. These equal the $2001 worth of deposits of silver ingots that Rittenhouse made in August of 1794.
The usual misinformation from firstmint. It is clear from the records and newspaper accounts that
Rittenhouse received the 1,758 silver dollars immediately after they were struck and distributed them,
by mail or in person. The records show quite clearly that he officially received 1,706 dollars plus
another 52 pieces, making in all 1,758 dollars, the exact number delivered in October. The 3,810
silver dollars delivered by the chief coiner on May 6 went to the Bank of Maryland and there were
NO other deliveries of dollars through the fictional payment dates to Rittenhouse. (The next delivery
was on May 16, 1795.) There is absolutely no question but that Rittenhouse received all of the
October coins, despite firstmint’s attempts to confuse the issue.
Unfortunately, Breen and Taxay did not validate a lot of their research and writings, so they can't be used as confirmation on activity inside the Mint - only Mint records can be used to validate, and even those are not complete, and are oftentimes misleading and/or misunderstood.
Firstmint has made a career out of trashing the reputations of Breen and Taxay, primarily to build up
his own reputation. For those interested in the overall accuracy of firstmint’s work I suggest reading
the following review of the Voigt book by William Eckberg that appeared in the E-Sylum:
Eckberg Review
Eckberg even points out that parts of the Voigt book by firstmint were there for the sole purpose of
trashing Taxay’s reputation.
Such entertainment!
Since there is a discrepancy, I would ask Denga to kindly provide documentation for his claim that the records were "then later entered in such volumes", in this case nearly 7 months after they were alledgedy delivered to Rittenhouse in 1794. It would seem to me that post dating deliveries would have been highly suspect and not proper US Mint proceedure and policy. However, I (and others) will await Denga's validation.
The two silver ingot deposits made by Rittenhouse and Gilchrist on August 22, 1794 total over 2900 ozs. and yet according to Denga, all of this silver was processed to make silver dollars; the other deposits received at the Mint were used for half dollars. Apparently then, part of the silver deposited by the Bank of Maryland was used for making the Half Dimes? Since Denga does not mention any HD's, it would be educational for all numismatists to see Denga's validation of who's silver was used to make which denomination.
Denga claims that firstmint does not undersand the records. The "large press" (citation from Rittenhouse) that came from John Rutter & Co. on March 25, 1794, was a used piece of equiment that needed rebuilt (by Eckfeldt for nearly 5 months in 1795) to continue it's functionality after October 1794 for striking the silver dollars. Denga states the one built for the Mint by Howell is well documented, but does not offer citations to such documentation, so where do we look (which ANS publication?) There is a purchase warrant by Rittenhouse for Howell mentioned in Stewart on August 5, 1794, "for bar iron, cast iron, etc. from March 26th", but no menton of a press.
I would like to be proven wrong beyond a shadow of doubt on the delivery warrant for May 7 & 8, 1795, when Rittenhouse first received his silver dollars - that it was not on this date. Denga states "it is clear from the records and newspaper accounts" - to which I say please dig them up and present them to prove the fact.
This is the crux of the matter of this particular thread, with the information and conclusions that have been factually stated are being subject to misinterpretation without complete information and validation being presented.
For my part, I am taking the Mint records (or Denga's "fictional payment dates") as validation.
As far as building up my reputation, I don't even consider such a notion. I'm not involved in numismatics for personal gain. I'm a researcher trying to find out what happened through source documents, and not believing and accepting what others in the past have purported when supporting documentation did not accompany their claims.
And since it was brought up, in the case of the Eckberg review of my Voigt book (that originally appeared in Penny-Wise) he made misassumptions as to what was actually written. For example, on p.31, I wrote, "this writer believes the 1792 dismes were designed and engraved by Joseph Wright based on the similarity to his obverse design of the 1783 Libertas Americana medal that he made for Ben Franklin while staying at the Franklin residence in Passy, France. The original concept for this medal was Franklin's, the obverse design by Joseph Wright, the reverse design by French painter Espirit-Antoine Gibelin, while Augustin Dupre of the French Mint was merely the engraver and has been given most of the credit because his name appears on both sides".
Because of Mr. Eckberg's challenge of six words (the obverse design by Joseph Wright), I wrote a lengthy article based on my extensive research that appeared in the Medal Collectors of America Advisory that validated my belief, which was clearly stated as such. Everyone knows that Wright was not an employee of the French Mint. However, I uncovered records and several previously unpublished letters regarding the LA medals that had not been presented before. I provided background on the Wright family and the cap-on-a-pole theme. It should be noted that after my article appeared in the MCA publication there were no challenges, and it proved for the first time in over 200 years that the designs did not come from Dupre. It can be reviewed on my website if anyone has an interest.
The delivery warrants clearly show that Rittenhouse was paid silver dollars in May of 1795, yet Denga claims Rittenhouse received them in October of 1794. Since there is a discrepancy, I would ask Denga to kindly provide documentation for his claim that the records were "then later entered in such volumes", in this case nearly 7 months after they were alledgedy delivered to Rittenhouse in 1794. It would seem to me that post dating deliveries would have been highly suspect and not proper US Mint proceedure and policy. However, I (and others) will await Denga's validation.
I find it interesting that firstmint would ask for documentation when his book on Henry Voigt has
virtually NO citations for some very bizarre claims, a point carefully made by William Eckberg and
never answered by firstmint. Having said that, however, it was the practice at the Mint to pay out
coins in advance. On March 12, 1795, for example, 2,757 “half dismes” were paid to the Bank of
Maryland, several weeks before the official record was made on May 6, 1795, and in addition,
well before the official delivery by the chief coiner; this is found in an official document in the Mint
archives and was published in the 1960s. Moreover the newspaper clipping from early December
1794 indicates that the 1794 dollars had reached quite some distance from Philadelphia. The usual
attacks by firstmint on Taxay’s work does not explain away the clipping or the official document
showing that coins were in fact paid out prior to official deliveries.
The two silver ingot deposits made by Rittenhouse and Gilchrist on August 22, 1794 total over 2900 ozs. and yet according to Denga, all of this silver was processed to make silver dollars; the other deposits received at the Mint were used for half dollars. Apparently then, part of the silver deposited by the Bank of Maryland was used for making the Half Dimes? Since Denga does not mention any HD's, it would be educational for all numismatists to see Denga's validation of who's silver was used to make which denomination.
I said nothing of the sort. I merely said that this silver was used for the dollars. I did not mention half
dimes, which were not struck until well into 1795. This is merely an example of firstmint changing the
subject. Because silver was normally combined from different deposits it is very difficult, if not impossible,
to determine which silver was used for a given delivery of coins after the middle of January 1795.
Denga claims that firstmint does not undersand the records. The "large press" (citation from Rittenhouse) that came from John Rutter & Co. on March 25, 1794, was a used piece of equiment that needed rebuilt (by Eckfeldt for nearly 5 months in 1795) to continue it's functionality after October 1794 for striking the silver dollars. Denga states the one built for the Mint by Howell is well documented, but does not offer citations to such documentation, so where do we look (which ANS publication?) There is a purchase warrant by Rittenhouse for Howell mentioned in Stewart on August 5, 1794, "for bar iron, cast iron, etc. from March 26th", but no menton of a press.
Firstmint used Stewart extensively in his Voigt book, but apparently not very carefully. On page 178 we find
the payment to the Howell company for, among other items, “1 large press, 1 ton 11 cwt [hundredweight].”
Moreover, Rittenhouse had noted in an earlier letter (November 20, 1794) that the dollar coinage would not
resume until a press, then under construction, was finished. This letter is in the American State Papers and
is mentioned in the discussion of presses that was printed in the ANS publication America’s Large Cent,
1996. The article appears under my name but the press discussion was actually done in consultation with
Craig Sholley. The point was raised by Sholley in particular during the Q&A following the presentations.
Sholley also informed firstmint of this fact some time back on this very forum.
It is not especially difficult to show that firstmint uses Stewart, an excellent reference, without complete
citations. In a very rare lapse Stewart used “Robert L. Patterson” instead of the correct “Robert Patterson”
for the 4th mint director. The same usage appears in the Voigt book. There really was a Robert L. Patterson
but he was a depositor of the precious metals some years later. In other words firstmint copied a mistake by
Stewart, a charge he often makes again Breen and Taxay.
I would like to be proven wrong beyond a shadow of doubt on the delivery warrant for May 7 & 8, 1795, when Rittenhouse first received his silver dollars - that it was not on this date. Denga states "it is clear from the records and newspaper accounts" - to which I say please dig them up and present them to prove the fact. This is the crux of the matter of this particular thread, with the information and conclusions that have been factually stated are being subject to misinterpretation without complete information and validation being presented. For my part, I am taking the Mint records (or Denga's "fictional payment dates") as validation.
The point has sufficiently been made in the above remarks.
As far as building up my reputation, I don't even consider such a notion. I'm not involved in numismatics for personal gain. I'm a researcher trying to find out what happened through source documents, and not believing and accepting what others in the past have purported when supporting documentation did not accompany their claims.
In other words Taxay and Breen have deserved the seemingly endless personal attacks and noted
by Eckberg in his book review. I think not, as Taxay was a superb researcher. He made mistakes,
as we all do, but his level of expertise in the history of the U.S. Mint was among the very best.
And since it was brought up, in the case of the Eckberg review of my Voigt book (that originally appeared in Penny-Wise) he made misassumptions as to what was actually written. For example, on p.31, I wrote, "this writer believes the 1792 dismes were designed and engraved by Joseph Wright based on the similarity to his obverse design of the 1783 Libertas Americana medal that he made for Ben Franklin while staying at the Franklin residence in Passy, France. The original concept for this medal was Franklin's, the obverse design by Joseph Wright, the reverse design by French painter Espirit-Antoine Gibelin, while Augustin Dupre of the French Mint was merely the engraver and has been given most of the credit because his name appears on both sides".
Because of Mr. Eckberg's challenge of six words (the obverse design by Joseph Wright), I wrote a lengthy article based on my extensive research that appeared in the Medal Collectors of America Advisory that validated my belief, which was clearly stated as such. Everyone knows that Wright was not an employee of the French Mint. However, I uncovered records and several previously unpublished letters regarding the LA medals that had not been presented before. I provided background on the Wright family and the cap-on-a-pole theme. It should be noted that after my article appeared in the MCA publication there were no challenges, and it proved for the first time in over 200 years that the designs did not come from Dupre. It can be reviewed on my website if anyone has an interest.
More disinformation. The Eckberg review makes some very serious points about the credibility of the
Voigt book, most of which were ignored in the answer by firstmint. Firstmint claims to have “validated”
his research in the MCA publication but I read the article and saw nothing of the sort. There were a fair
number of claims but virtually no proof of anything.
And, since firstmint is dodging the bullet, I will ask again for an explanation of his bizarre claim that
David Rittenhouse died in a debtor’s prison in 1798. (Rittenhouse’s probated will shows that he was
worth about $40,000, an enormous sum for the time.) This is merely one of the numerous strange claims
made by firstmint in the Voigt book without any proof whatsoever.
Denga
I think I will go see the new (re-make) film about the two of you - Clash of the Titans.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......