Washington Oath of Allegiance medal Julian CM-2 in aluminum

jonathanb · January 25, 2012 10:47AM

Sold at today's Stack's Bowers auction for a bit over $1,000 including premium (link). Julian lists this piece as having a mintage of only 3 pieces in aluminum, a figure that was mentioned in the lot listing.

Oddly, I now know of three pieces. The Massachusetts Historical Society has one, I bought one last year on eBay, and now there's this one. That means that either the mintage figure is incorrect, or the entire mintage is fully accounted for. My bet is that the mintage figure is incorrect.

How many US Mint products have well-documented mintage figures where every piece can be located today? Examples like the 1913 Liberty Nickel don't count -- "Everyone knows" that there were only five struck, but there's nothing official that says that.

Broadstruck · January 25, 2012 1:41PM

How many US Mint products have well-documented mintage figures where every piece can be located today?

Well you'll have to thank Al Gore for inventing the worldwide web!

I won this piece today for a friend of mine that wasn't registered to bid at S/B I've also done a lot of homework on it in the past few days. I couldn't locate anything online in any archives for the last decade nor flipping through close to 100 major exonumia sale auctions catalogs back to the 1950's. I did see Julians mention of just 3 examples having been struck according to mintage records, but was surprised that Baker in his 1885 works had no mention of Aluminum until Fuld's revision in 1965.

Coinosaurus · January 25, 2012 1:57PM

It's a cool medal. I love that bust. Why can't our quarters look like that?

But looking at it, the occassion strikes me as a made-up excuse to strike a medal.

Now, if there had been some scandal and they all cleaned up their act and went on the straight and narrow after that, and didn't keep making fantasy pieces, etc., etc., the thing might have some more legitimacy to it.

It could also be that this was a Civil War thing, that all the federal institutions were asking for oaths at this period. That's a bit more meaningful. But I bet the non-Mint government employees & officers didn't get medals for THEIR oaths of allegiance. The Mint guys were like well, we have this cool Washington bust from the Mint Cabinet medal we can re-use, and w/a simple reverse, voila!, we have a medal to give everyone. It must have been the director's idea, because his name is on it. If you think about it, putting his name on it with the ginormous bust of Washington on the other side is almost presumptuous. Supposedly it's all about the Constitution, Washington, God & Country, etc., and he has to elevate his name to the discussion at hand.

Am I reading this too critically?

jonathanb · January 25, 2012 2:01PM

The three mentioned by Julian weren't struck until the 1891-2 fiscal year, so it makes sense that they weren't mentioned in the 1885 Baker edition.

The only other auction record I have is in lot 351 of the 6/1994 Presidential sale (for $262). The plate is pretty small, but I don't think it's the same specimen as the one that sold today.

Broadstruck · January 25, 2012 2:09PM

IMHO I feel Julian is correct as in 1861 aluminum was still too expensive a metal to use for mass production as it was valued more then gold. The U.S. Mint prior to these 3 medals had only experimented with Aluminum on a 1855 Seated Half pattern after bars of aluminum where being displayed at domestic and international expositions. Pricing on aluminum dropped a bit in the very late 1860's and then the mint produced larger number of patterns between 1868-1876. Another major price drop occurred in the very late 1880's making aluminum a tentative substitute for white metal or pot metal as seen on this 1889 Chicago Washington 100th Inaugural medal advertising this wondrous metal on it's reverse.

Broadstruck · January 25, 2012 2:49PM

<< <i>The three mentioned by Julian weren't struck until the 1891-2 fiscal year, so it makes sense that they weren't mentioned in the 1885 Baker edition.

The only other auction record I have is in lot 351 of the 6/1994 Presidential sale (for $262). The plate is pretty small, but I don't think it's the same specimen as the one that sold today. >>

Could I ask which PCAC number sale that is as I'll need to check a spread sheet to see if I have that one boxed up in storage?

jonathanb · January 25, 2012 10:51PM

PCAC #56

ricko · January 25, 2012 11:19PM

Nice medal... most aluminum does not appear that nice (unless it is just the photographer's skill here). Was it pure or alloyed?? Cheers, RickO

Barndog · January 25, 2012 11:22PM

I'm with you, jonathanb. I think mintage figures often are really close estimates, but can't be relied upon as absolute truth. Who's to say what happened when the boss wasn't looking (or a host of other potential circumstances)?

denga · January 25, 2012 11:24PM

It should be kept in mind that a published mintage figure is not always all of the story. The
three aluminum pieces mentioned were struck for some special use but there was nothing
to keep the coiner from striking a few extra specimens. These latter pieces would not have
been listed in the official records.

blu62vette · January 25, 2012 11:31PM

I have the bronze piece which is real attractive, the aluminum one must be stunning.

Broadstruck · January 25, 2012 11:49PM

As it's been stated on this forum before "Sometimes the opportunity to purchase is scarcer then the item itself". My friend was ecstatic to have won at hammer as that was far from the maximum bid. He already has exceptional examples of the common bronze and scarcer silver issues so this was an important acquisition for him.

mmotx · March 9, 2012 12:22AM

Stack's 2003 Americana sale lists two examples (Lot 1421) in aluminum. Seems impossible that just three were struck.

mmotx · March 9, 2012 12:36AM

To add:

From the Western Reserve Historical Society.

U.S. Mint Oath of Allegiance Medal Study Group, 1861. Copper bronze (4), Aluminum (2). Uncirculated. Types as above (Baker-279). Copper examples are 4.4, 2.8, 2.3 and 2.2mm thick; Aluminum 2.7mm. Copper medals are rich mahogany, thickest with dramatic raised rim, Aluminum are silvery. 6 pieces.

Hammered at $260

coindeuce · March 9, 2012 12:44AM

<< <i>To add:

From the Western Reserve Historical Society.

U.S. Mint Oath of Allegiance Medal Study Group, 1861. Copper bronze (4), Aluminum (2). Uncirculated. Types as above (Baker-279). Copper examples are 4.4, 2.8, 2.3 and 2.2mm thick; Aluminum 2.7mm. Copper medals are rich mahogany, thickest with dramatic raised rim, Aluminum are silvery. 6 pieces.

Hammered at $260 >>

Thanks for this reference mmotx. I have two examples of this medal in copper, and the thickness varies substantially between them. I hope to establish a reason someday for the dramatic variance.

Ahrensdad · March 9, 2012 12:54AM

What a cool medal. This is the type of thread/discussion that really highlights the talents and knowledge of the posters on this forum.

Washington Oath of Allegiance medal Julian CM-2 in aluminum

Comments

Leave a Comment