Offical and private patterns for the first US coinage

[brandm24]

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

The fact is that the US was very dependent on outside assistance in not only organizing a mint but in staffing, equipping, and supplying one. They simply didn't have the expertise or experience to do so. Even as early as the first attempt made at establishing a mint in 1783, the majority of the effort rested on the shoulders of recently arrived English and some German artisans and administrators.

Benjamin Dudley, a Birmingham die sinker, was given the responsibility by Robert Morris for organizing the effort. Dudley, who then lived in Boston, had brought over several other workers with him including Adam Eckfeldt's father John. All were highly experienced Birmingham men. The mint ultimately failed but not before striking some silver dollar size trials (known as 100 unit coins). Not surprisingly, they were struck in Birmingham as no suitable equipment was available to them here. Even some of the presses that would be used later in the new Philadelphia mint were manufactured by English companies or individuals.

Like it or not, the Americans needed outside assistance and took what was available. As for any hesitancy on the part of Birmingham merchants, well, there was a profit to be made.

Bruce

[brandm24]

This silver center cent example didn't surface until it was bought at a Modesto California police auction in 2006. Thinking it was a possible fake, the collector bid only $400 on it.

His suspicions were aroused by the odd looking center plug and condition of the surfaces. After investigating it and coming to the conclusion that it was indeed a fake, he put it away and forgot about it. In 2008 he came across it again and decided to send it to a professional grading surface for their opinion. They determined that it was authentic but had nearly a dozen other experts examine it for authenticity. Every single one confirmed the original determination of the graders.

Why such a fuss over this one scratched and damaged coin? Mettalurgical tests later determined that the plug wasn't silver, but iron. In that regard it was unique and thus of great monetary and historic value.

While it can only be speculated on as to its origin, it was thought that the plug probably wasn't original. At some point it may have been removed for its silver value and the coin carried as a pocket piece. The slight shine and wear on the surfaces at least suggect the possibility. At some point when these old patterns were drawing the attention of collectors, an iron plug was inserted and the coin poorly tooled in an effort to make it appear original. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know the truth.

Bruce