Offical and private patterns for the first US coinage

[brandm24]

Just a note in regard to personalities and events discussed in this thread.

Early historical documentation is often contradictory and at times just incorrect. That goes for modern times as well. Details pertaining to the founding of the first US mint in Philadelphia are no exception. The lines often blur between who did what, exactly what they did, and the consequences of their actions or inactions.

To that end, I've used numerous sources in an effort to present the real story as accurately as possible. Undoubtedly, some of what's written here is incorrect but I've made every effort to get it right.

Bruce 

[brandm24]

When the new American government decided in 1791 to design and strike its first oficial coinage they approached it in two ways. First they solicited a series of pattern coin designs and sample strikes from private individuals, these known as contract or provisional trials. At the sametime they sought to develop patterns in-house using current mint engravers. These come under the heading of official patterns.

The fledgling mint was still in the process of being built and outfitted at the site of the old Schubert Distillery at 7th and Sugar Alley in Philadelphia (Filbert St. today). Robert Morris, previously the Superintendent of Finance with the Confederation Government, was tasked with seeing that the new facility was properly outfitted and staffed. He worked under the direction of newly appointed Mint Director David Rittenhouse.

Four denominations were first considered and included a one cent coin, a five cent coin known as a half disme (pronounced "deem"), a disme, and a quarter dollar. The name disme, "tenth" was later anglicized to "dime."

Since the new mint wasn't yet ready for production, a toatl of 1,500 half dismes were struck in July, 1792 at the workshop of a local sawmaker / mechanic named John Harris located several blocks from the mint. A screw press built by mint engraver Adam Eckfeldt and likely harris himself was employed as no other suitable equipment had yet been procured. I've attached an image of the press on display at the Philadelphia Mint in a latr post.

The design for the obverse was done by Eckfeldt and the reverse reportedly by another mint engraver named Robert Birch. It's thought that the dies were cut by Jacob Perkins with the assistance  of a Germantown (now Philadelphia) type founder named Jacob Bay. Bay, a recent German immigrant, likely cut the letter and number punches for all of the early official patterns up until his death in 1793 during a yellow fever epidemic.

Reportedly, the silver used for the pattern strikes cams from the silver service of George Washington himself. It's also been speculated that the model for the portrait of Liberty was the president's wife Martha. However, neither story is supported by direct evidence.

The resulting mintage was turned over to Thomas Jefferson who distributed them to congressmen, dignitaries, and other influential citizens. A small number were also released into circulation.

[brandm24]

This is a stylized drawing of the first mint facility in Philadelphia. In reality it was surrounded by other non-related buildings and only the front facade was visible from the street. (see images).

The building was replaced in 1833 by a new facility at Chestnut & Juniper Sts. known as the "Grecian Temple" because of its classic design. The last of the original mint buildings were demolished in 1911.

The other images are of minting equipment commonly used at the time. They include a screw press, rolling mill, and planchet cutter.

[brandm24]

Here are some more images related to  the first mint in Philadelphia.

The first is a sketch of the coining room c1796. Especially note the two baskets of blanks on the floor by the planchett cutter ready fo be struck.

The second is the original Eckfeldt screw press on display at the Philadelphia Mint. This is the press used to mint the initial run of half dismes in John Harris' workshop. The third image is a portrait of Adam Eckfeldt, and the fourth a mint die sinker c1794.

The last image is one of George Washington and other dignitaries being presented with the first new coins. According to the caption, Adam Eckfeldt is the man in the blie suit.

[brandm24]

At the same time that patterns were being produced for the half disme, others were designed and struck for the disme, cent, and quarter.

The reverse for the disme was essentially the same as on the smaller half disme and was designed by Robert Birch. The obverse die, however, was unlike the others and was cut by Adam Eckfeldt. It featured a portrait of Liberty facing left with flowing hair as opposed to the curly hair on the half disme.

It's believed that they were struck at the new federal mint and may have been the first done there. They were struck in both copper and silver, but the mintage figures apparently haven't survived. A small number still exist today; about a dozen or so of the copper and two or three examples in silver.

The image of the 1919 Illinois tax / trade token is interestingly "valued" at a disme...actually 1 mill. A curious 20th century token though has some relevance to this post.

[brandm24]

The cent patterns were basically of three types: a white meal example, probably tin, called the "large cent", the "silver center cent", and a third referred to as the "Birch cent." The so-named large cent is actually a unique variety of the Birch cent designed by British engraver Willian Russell Birch.

The large cent design was initially rejected  shortly after a small number were struck. It's not clear the number struck but just a single specimen has survived. A few may have been struck in copper but the evidence of such is contradictory.The reason for rejection seems to have centered mostly around the portrait. According to researcher Walter Breen, "Its frizzy hair ( a probable prototype for the half disme) doubtless suggesed a slave woman, no suitable "impression emblamatic of Liberty."

A second cause of rejection was the initials G.W. Pt. engraved on the reverse die. They stood for "George Washington / President." Initially, when coinage designs were being discussed in 1791 while the details of the Coinage Act were being debated, some favored a portrait of Washington to grace the new coins. Others wanted to see an "image emblamatic of Liberty." Many, including Washington, thought the use of his portrait gave the design a "monarchical" flavor. The result of a vote designated Liberty as the approved portrait. Because the Coinage Act (also called the Mnt Act) was the first official act of the fledgling US government, it's commonly known today as Statue One.

[brandm24]

The other two trials for the cent coin are known as the silver center cent and the Birch cent. Although the liberty cent is considered a birch cent variety, I've discussed it in the last post as its design is significantly different.

After the failure of the large cent design, Birch went back to work and redesigned key elements. The portrait was modified and the G.W.Pt. was replaced by the decimal denomination 1/100. Other slight modifications were made to the reverse ,including replacing the beaded circle aroind "One Cent" with a solid one, and removing some of the flourishes.

It's estimated that less than a hundred examples of the modified design were struck, all in copper, between December 18 and 31, 1792. The estimate is based on a 1982 review of old mint records that revealed the purchase of six pounds of old copper by Principal Coiner Henry Voight, apparently for the striking of Birch cents. If all the metal were used to strike coins at the lowest allowable weight, then less than a hundred could have been made.

[brandm24]

The silver center cent pattern was long thought to have been designed and engraved by Henry Voight. This assumption is probably incorrect as the workmanship displayed seems far beyond any engraving skills that he may have had. While Voight is known to have worked in an unspecified mint in his native Germany as a youth, his duties there are unknown.

Even Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, remarked in a letter to George Washington dated December 18, 1792 that two examples of cent coins (silver center) he (Voight) sent for his approval were made "of Voight plan". No disclosure was made as to designer or engraver. As of today, the creator of this historic issue hasn't been positively identified.

The reason for the silver plug was an attempt to give the coin intrinsic bullion value...a cent's worth of metal to match the one cent face value. It was feared, and rightly so, that if the coins were found to be undervalued, they wouldn't be accepted in commerce. The downfall of the effort was the difficulty and labor intensive nature of producing the planchets, not to mention the cost.

Several interesting stories have surfaced in regard to these unique coins. When the old mint buildings were demolished in the early 1900s several planchets for the silver cent cents were unearthed. None of them had a silver plug in them as would be expected.

Many years later in 1994, noted numismatist Anthony Terranova discovered a struck example also without a silver plug. Researchers have opined that these may have been test pieces for the purpose of showing the size of a regular strike coin.

As a result of the unsuitability of the silver center planchets, several other metals were tested. Included was what was known as a fusion mix or billon, a combination of copper and silver used to bring the coin to its specified weight and value. This method too was deemed unacceptable as the resulting coin could be easily counterfeited without using any silver at all. The difference in surface appearance was slight and only the keenest observer would be able to detect the difference. Thomas Jefferson himself opposed this idea.

The other experiment simply used a larger pure copper planchet without a plug. Unfortunately, to utilize enough metal to bring it up to its intrinsic vakue, the result was a coin that was too large and ungainly.

All three experimental examples were struck with the same dies. Despite the concerted effort to "make it work" none were selected as production prototypes.

[brandm24]

The design of the quarter dollar pattern staked out a new path in its concept for early American coinage. Unlike the cent, half disme, and disme, the quarter displayed no denomination.This has led to some confusion as to whether it was another pattern for the cent coinage, but today it's generally accepted as that of a quarter dollar.

While the other patterns display the legend "Liberty Parent Of Science And Industry" or its abbreviation, this one displays only "Liberty". Other stark differences include the rendition of Liberty (hair gathered in a bun), and the American eagle described by catalogers  at Heritage Auctions as a "powerful bird exercising dominion over the earth." This, opposed to the more contemporary description by Corneilus Vermeule in "Numismatic Art in America" when referring to the eagle on the disme and half disme as an "ailing barnyard fowl."

Although the designer and engraver aren't known for certain, most researchers agree that Joseph Wright was responsible. He was a highly skilled painter and artist though little seems known as to any engraving skills he may have had.

Only two copper and possibly two white metal, probably tin, examples survive today. Breen lists the white metal examples in his reference, but more contemporary thought suggests the survival of the copper strikes only. One is in a private collection and the other in the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Inststute in Washington, DC.

[brandm24]

An interesting privately struck pattern for a ten dollar gold coin was submitted to the mint for consideration, likely in early 1792 as the final details of the Coinage Act were being debated. It was surely an attempt to influence George Washington as he was the go-between for opposing factions. It was no accident that Washington's portrait appeared on the pattern as well as on nearly all of the other early submissions. It seemed a given that he would be the subject of most if not all of the first American coinage. The goal of the makers of course was to secure a federal contract for the minting of these coins.

There's been intense debate for many years over who designed and engraved this impressive piece. Many thought it was the work of a British engraver or engravers from Birmingham, several who had previously submitted patterns for consideration. There was some "evidence" to suggest that British die sinker Jonathan Gregory Hancock created the dies and had the trial struck at the mint of Obadiah Westwood in Birmingham. Later research, however, found that the primary historical document used to make this assumption was probably reffering to earlier patterns known to be his work. These previous patterns were for copper one cent pieces. The two varieties...large and small eagle...are known today as Hancock's Washington Cents.
Additional research, including die studies, known as punch-linking and other historical references, further distance Hancock from this issue.

It now seems settled research that Jacob Perkins of Newburyport, Massachusetts was the actual engraver. Perkins was an accomplished mechanic, inventor, engraver, and physicist. Though possessing little formal education, he went on to be awarded 21 American and 19 British patents for disciplines as diverse as banknote engraving, cannon boring, nail making equipment, hermetic tubes, steam powered boilers, and refrigeration. As a matter of fact, he's known today as the Father of Refrigeration so profound were his contributions. He was a true mechanical genius.

At only thirteen years of age, Perkins was apprenticed to a goldsmith named Edward Davis. When Davis died three years later, Perkins was bequeathed the business and went on to becaome a master engraver. At the age of 21 he was tasked with producing dies for the 1788 Massachusetts cent and half cent state issues. He's also credited with engraving the reverse dies for the Washington Born Virginia colonial pieces and a complex pattern for an 1818 large cent in later years.

It was these and other known examples of Perkins' work, in addition to numerous bits of circumstantial evidence, that tell us he was indeed the maker of the ten dollar gold pattern of 1792. It has been punch-linked directly to his work on both the Washington Born Virginia and Massachusetts issues. Proof positive that it's of his hand.

[brandm24]

A fun fact about Jacob Perkins' unique ten dollar pattern. Famed numismatic researcher and collector Eric P. Newman was the proud owner of this single known example for over 60 years. He proclaimed it his favorite coin, no small distinction in light of the size and importance of Newman's marvelous collection.

Many years ago he made a startling claim about it. It was his belief that George Washington may have carried it as a pocket piece up until his death in 1799. A far-fetched claim perhaps, and uncorroborated, even to the point where Newman remarked  in a 1976 article published by the American Numismatic Society that "to prove its ownership by George Washington requires a review of circumstantial evidence." He didn't reveal what that evidence might be.

Interestingly, many years later a Heritage Auctions cataloger's description of the coin noted "The surfaces show a slight gloss consistent with pocket pieces that have not actually seen circulation." A fascinating possibility is it not?

[brandm24]

CONTRACT PATTERNS OF PETER GETZ

Peter Getz was a Lancaster, Pennsylvania diesinker, jeweler, and silversmith described by William Barton in "Memoirs of the Life of David Rittenhouse" (1813) as "a self-taught mechanic of singular ability."Getz was one of the men recruited by Robert Morris, head of the senate committee on coinage, to produce pattern coins in anticipation of the passage of legislation authorizing the minting of America's first official coinage.

Getz chose to use a bust of George Washington on his obverse design as it seemed apparent that he would be chosen to appear on the new coinage. Unfortunately, for him and most of the other designers theie designs became obsolete when a last minute change to the Coinage Act mandated an allegorical figure of Liberty unstead.

There are four designs attributed to Peter Getz, and possibly a fifth. Two 1792 half dollars and two one cent trials are of his hand. The fifth is a possible silver dollar pattern of 1796. Some research suggests that the pattern was actually a model for a 1797 Masonic medal he authored for the celebratiion of Washington's Grand Master status  in the organization.

The trial is very crudely made with edge borders on both sides that were roughly applied by hand. It's overstruck on a cut down Spanish, possibly Mexican, 8-Reales. The portrait is modeled after a sketch of the future president done in 1779 by Pierre Eugene du Simitiere at a private sitting.

Whether this is actually a pattern for a future US silver dollar or for a Masonic medal, it's always been of great interest to the numismatic community. Its crude nature and mysterious purpose have intrigued researchers for over two centuries.

[brandm24]

GETZ AND IDLER RESTRIKES

Apparently, Peter Getz retained his dies and privately struck additional examples in 1795 or 1796. While the purpose for doing so is unclear, pieces overstruck on a 1794 or 1795 large cent and another on an undetermined date cent are known. Others are likely but simply haven't been identified as yet. Breen suggests that rusted dies were used and is the best marker for determining their status. Most prominent, according to him, is the damage to the reverse stars above the eagle and at A1 and A7 of "America."

More interesting than these though are copies, not restrikes or cointerfeits, produced by a Philadelphia coin dealer named William Idler in about 1860. They weren't struck from original dies but from dies cut by Philadelphia die sinker John S. Warren. In all fairness, Idler had the word "copy" applied by Warren to his work to announce their status. Unfortunately, over the years some unscrupulus people filed off the disclaimer and passed them as Getz originals.Idler also used the obverse die of Warren on a storecard advertising his business c1860.

Diagnostics for Idler copies, other than the word "copy", include the positioning of some of the devices. The ending of the 2 in 1792 in the copy points upward, while in the original it points downward. In the field of stars on the reverse the uppermost star (S1) points to the E in States on the copy. The original is positioned between the T and E.

Idler was a prolific copier and electroplater of numismatic items. Fortunately for collectors, he seemed uninterested in using deception as no apparent effort was made to market any of his creations as original.

Though there are any number of pre-Coinage Act trials or patterns, whether contract or official, I feel the ones I've highlighted in this thread are the most compelling. Even some early colonial issues were struck with the intent of procuring later federal coinage contracts. It was inevitable that America would have to issue its owm coinage at some point in time, so many parties were lobying for the prize.

Thanks for reading.

Bruce

[Figleaf]

It is quite obvious that you put an extraordinary effort in this thread, Bruce. The result is worth it. Your story is logical and credible as well as highly informative. It successfully paints a picture of a young nation, feeling its way forward and getting it right in the end. A big "thank you" is in order.

I can still think of questions. Obviously, the system was based on the prevalent coin in circulation, the Spanish colonial pieces of eight reales. It is obvious from the missing dollars (enough Spanish pesos in circulation), the halves (4 reales) and quarters (2 reales) and even the origin of the dollar sign. What surprises is the half cent and cent as first denominations. They don't fit in the Spanish colonial series and even less in the awkward British system. Russia already had a decimal system, but it is an unlikely source of inspiration.

That leads us to France. The French decimal system was introduced in 1795. That was part of a general decimalisation effort that saw the introduction of the decimal meter and gram, a decimal-ish calendar and attempts to decimalise circle degrees and hours. Clearly, the idea of decimalisation existed before it could be introduced. That introduces Ben Franklin, first ambassador of the US to France, highly interested in science and well connected to Jefferson, whose influence on coin naming is known.

Now consider the 1/100 on some of the early coins. In French, that would be un centième. After 1795, the French coins of 1/100 franc would be known as un centime. Pretty close to one cent. Similarly, 1/10 franc was un dixième. Consider that in French, the X in this word is pronounced as an S and the contraction to disme becomes clear. In France, the denomination would be décime, a word that was lost in time. Perhaps just as telling, the five cents, a derived, rather than a prime denomination, did not have a name of its own. In France, it became known as a sou, a pre-decimal coin of 1/20th Franc. The US did not have that option, so the denomination had to wait for a unit name until nickel became a mint metal.

Another aspect of the choice of a decimal system is the rejection of the British system. Clearly, the 13 colonies would have been targets for the second wave of trade tokens, lightweight pennies, halfpennies and farthings, exemplified by the Anglesey issues, starting in 1787. The series steadily deteriorated in weight and there was a steadily decreasing number that had a valid return address. The situation was - as usual - even worse in Ireland. When these were banned in 1796 and succeeded by the unwieldy 1797 cartwheel series, large quantities of tokens were shipped to "the British colonies". They inundated the circulation in Canada, so there is no reason to believe they did not reach the US, especially since the Spanish colonial coin system floated on locally produced silver, but could not provide equally large quantities of copper.

Thus, the previous copper circulation is likely to have been lightweight halfpennies. In Canada, pennies were accepted for halfpennies and farthings were widely refused. Could it be that the nickname penny for a US cent is hidden in this story?

The "red book" claims a number of 18th century British tokens as American. Some are obviously wrong, such as the Franklin press, London token, some deceptive but wrong, such as the North Wales halfpenny 1795 (Atkins 132-133). Reading your story opens questions, though. If Birmingham button makers and minters were trying to get involved in the first coinage, in what capacity was that? Logic says the US would be loath to become dependent on British makers for small change. It would be a large risk to be dependent on suppliers, whose shipments could be blocked at will by the British government. However, as the North Wales/Washington token shows, the Dublin and Birmingham merchants had no qualms putting Washington on a token. Moreover, those who submitted patterns and saw them rejected, could have put the dies to good use on unofficial pieces, even exporting them to the US. I wonder whether an effort has been made to classify the many coppers with Washington's portrait in the red book into "made in the US", "made in Birmingham for the US market" and "made in Birmingham for no market in particular or for a UK market but shipped to the US later."

Peter

[brandm24]

I can still think of questions. Obviously, the system was based on the prevalent coin in circulation, the Spanish colonial pieces of eight reales. It is obvious from the missing dollars (enough Spanish pesos in circulation), the halves (4 reales) and quarters (2 reales) and even the origin of the dollar sign. What surprises is the half cent and cent as first denominations. They don't fit in the Spanish colonial series and even less in the awkward British system. Russia already had a decimal system, but it is an unlikely source of inspiration.


Peter

Yes, the most widely circulated coin in the colonies were the Spanish pesos, mostly the larger denominations...8-reales (milled dollar), 4-reales, and 2-reales. The small fractionals were rarely seen These Spanish coins still circulated until 1857 when foreign coins were no longer legal tender.

The half cent and cent denominations are odd but I think they may have been created to fill the need for small change. The average wage for a skilled worker of the day was about a dollar, even less for unskilled people. Highly skilled workers, including engravers and die sinkers, were often paid a dollar and a half per day...or sometimes expressed in old mint records as 150 cents. The point is of course that these small denominations were important in the conduct of everyday commerce. Although neither series was ever popular, particularly the half cent, they did have some buying power and were widely circulated.

The "red book" claims a number of 18th century British tokens as American. Some are obviously wrong, such as the Franklin press, London token, some deceptive but wrong, such as the North Wales halfpenny 1795 (Atkins 132-133). Reading your story opens questions, though. If Birmingham button makers and minters were trying to get involved in the first coinage, in what capacity was that? Logic says the US would be loath to become dependent on British makers for small change. It would be a large risk to be dependent on suppliers, whose shipments could be blocked at will by the British government. However, as the North Wales/Washington token shows, the Dublin and Birmingham merchants had no qualms putting Washington on a token. Moreover, those who submitted patterns and saw them rejected, could have put the dies to good use on unofficial pieces, even exporting them to the US. I wonder whether an effort has been made to classify the many coppers with Washington's portrait in the red book into "made in the US", "made in Birmingham for the US market" and "made in Birmingham for no market in particular or for a UK market but shipped to the US later."

Peter

As you say, some of what has been tagged American certainly aren't. The Franklin Press Token for one was considered such simply  because of it's association with Benjmin Franklin. They were likely struck at Watts Printing Works in London where Franklin was employed for a time. The prevailing wisdom (?) says that they were actually struck for collectors and not meant for anything else. There's no evidence that I've seen that indicates that they ever circulated in this country.

The North Wales Halfpenny is another that probably never saw "action" in the colonies. Apparently, researchers have come to the conclusion that they were actually evasion coppers meant to circulate in Britain. The planchets are thin and struck lightly to make them appear circulated, when in fact they were brand new. Some of the legends were also misspelled.

I don't know of any attempt to classify Washington portrait pieces as you suggest. They're generally known collectively as "Washington Coppers" or "Washington Heads."

Bruce