In 1807 John Reich was hired at the mint as an assistant engraver. Reich was charged with redesigning every U.S. coin that was in circulation, and he brought his Classic Head design to the cent in 1808. Reich’s interpretation of Ms. Liberty was a rather buxom lady wearing a turban with “LIBERTY” on her headband. The wreath on the reverse was more closely wrapped with a more compact bow at the bottom. The 1814 large cent was the last of the "early cents" according to Dr. William Sheldon. For years it was claimed in the Red Book that the Classic Head cents were produced on soft copper that caused those coins to show wear quickly while they were in circulation. More accurately the reason for the scarcity of high grade Classic Head cents can be traced to the mintages. From 1796 until 1807 the mint produced almost 16.1 million Draped Bust cents. During the period from 1808 to 1814 the mintage of Classic Head cents totaled only 4.8 million pieces. Since there were few collectors in America who would have preserved these early coins, natural attrition took a greater toll on the Classic Head coins. At the beginning of the War of 1812, the British embargoed their imports to America, which included the copper planchets upon which the cents were made. The mint had been importing copper planchets and sheet copper from England since its early days and did not have a reliable domestic supplier. By the end of 1814 the mint had run out of copper planchets, and the mintage of cents was suspended. The mint did not strike any cents dated 1815, and that one year remains to this day the only date in which the United States did not issue a one cent piece. Over the years collectors have tried to fill this “hole” in their collections with cents that have had their date altered to 1815. Most often an 1813 cent has been used for this purpose although other Classic Head dates and later large cents are occasionally seen. The 1816 large cent was the only coin bearing that date that the United States Mint issued. I have never been a great admirer of the Matron Head Large Cent design, but in this case, I will make an exception. This beautiful coin undoubtedly came from the Randall Hoard. In 1816 Chief Engraver, Robert Scott re-designed the large cent. Scott’s design, which is known as the Matron Head featured an older, middle aged woman wearing a crown with “LIBERTY” across its headband. Many collectors find this design less attractive than the earlier large cents. Many Mint State examples of this design dated from 1816 and 1820 are available in large quantities from the famous Randall Hoard which appeared in the mid 1860s. The hoard, which may have contained as many has 30,000 large cents in Mint State or near Mint State condition, was dispersed by coin dealer J. S. Randall in the 1860s and ‘70s. Type collectors lump the large cents from 1816 to 1839 into one group that they call "the Matron Heads." By the mid 1830's the bust of Ms. Liberty had been modified to considerable extent. The placement of the bust and the date on this 1841 large cent is interesting. Christian Gobrecht gave his gold coins of the period a similar look. The design of the large cent would not change radically for the rest of the series although there would be many minor modifications to the design until the series ended in 1857. In the mid 1835, mint engraver Christian Gobrecht introduced the first of many minor alterations to the large cent design. Gobrecht’s new Ms. Liberty was younger and slimmer than her predecessor and in the opinion of many, more attractive. In 1839 Gobrecht completed his design modification program with a number of subtypes that include such colorful names as the “booby head” and the “silly head.” Collectors still use these nicknames, which were the product of coin dealers’ imaginations in the 1860s. At the end of 1939 Gobrecht’s final motif, the Braided Hair design (1839 – 1857), would become the model for the rest of the series. 1857 would be last year in which the large cent would be issued. By then the "big pennies" had become too expensive to produce. Beginning in 1853 the U.S. mint began to experiment with smaller, lighter weight alternatives to the large cent. These experimental coins, which featured either a liberty head or flying eagle design, were made of various metallic alloys including copper, nickel, tin and zinc. These coins were made in limited quantities, but I have seen circulated examples of these coins in dealers’ inventories, which indicates that some of these coins were probably used in commerce. The general public apporved of the new small cents which were lighter and easier to carry. This beautiful Flying Eagle design was issued for general circulation for only two years. The design did not strike up well. The eagle's head and more often his tail feathers were not well defined on many pieces. In February of 1857 the mint replaced the large cent with the new small cents, which were made of a copper-nickel alloy. The large cent had never circulated well outside of the large cities, and the rising cost of copper had made the big pennies too expensive for the mint to continue to produce them. The public quickly accepted the new small cents, which had the same diameter as the modern cent, but were thicker and heavier. The passing of the large cent and its sister coin, the half cent, marked the end of an era. Many Americans noted this, and began to form date collections of the “big pennies.” Soon dates that were in short supply, which included all of the 1793 varieties, 1799 and 1804, began to increase in value. Today many collectors have gone beyond date sets and now collect large cents by die variety. Some collectors try to acquire the varieties listed in A Guide Book of United States Coins or “Red Book,” but more serious collectors concentrate on the hundreds of die varieties that the mint issued from 1793 to 1857. The early dates (1793 - 1814), which where covered in Penny Whimsy by Dr. William Sheldon, have long been the basis for early large cent variety collecting. Over the past two decades the middle dates (1816 – 1839) and the late dates (1840 – 1857) have also gained a significant following. Over time interest in large cents has grown to the point were there is a specialized club that encourages the collection and study of all U.S. copper coins dated 1857 and earlier. The Early American Coppers Club is among the most active of all numismatic specialty organizations. The club publishes a quarterly magazine, Penny-Wise, and holds an annual convention at various cities around the country.
Excellent post as always sir. If I were a US collector nowadays I am sure I would be a EAC member. It is closest to ancient collecting in terms of mindset. I always wondered what happened to US coinage in the early 19th century. The US got off to such a great start on coinage, with beautiful coinage. Then they started replacing these great designs with Matron Head cent, SL for the silver, and generic looking gold designs. The US went from outstanding artistry to the bottom of the pack very quickly. I do not mind the "coronet heads" as much, but surely no one could have looks at them and thought they were equivalent artistry to early cents.
Nice description. And a shout out to EAC is always appreciated! However, there is zero evidence that Reich created the head of 1808 and zero evidence the Scot created the Head of 1816. Both were in the shop in both years, so either could have designed either coin. It seems unlikely to me that Scot, who was the boss, would have farmed out the design of coin obverses to his assistant. There is a precedent. We know that when Scot previously had an assistant, John Smith Gardner in the 1790s, his assistant did not design any obverses (Walter Breen's pronouncements notwithstanding). There is documentary evidence in Gardner's case. (Frank Stewart's book)
So, we now say that we have no idea who designed the new coins, cira 1807-8? I am not buying that. Someone started marking an arm on the 13 star of all Capped Bust gold and silver coins. Robert Scot did not do that for the designs that we know he devised. It started when John Reich was hired, and it continued until he left the mint in 1817. No one noticed this until the die variety collectors noted it some years ago. For those who are not familiar, here are a couple of examples. 1807 Half Dollar The star. 1808 Quarter Eagle 1808 Quarter Eagle 13th star The specialists in organization, like the John Reich Society, view this as his signature that he put on his dies. Scot did not do it.
There is a lot in numismatics, like many other things, that have been repeated often enough that people believe them, but that doesn't make them true. Like the notion that wearing a surgical mask prevents breathing. If it did, all the doctors and nurses would be dead. The notched or scalloped (depending on who you read) 13th star appeared when Reich joined the engraving department and ended when he left. It is quite logical to conclude that he probably cut that punch and punched it into the dies. That does not constitute evidence that he designed any coins. Breen wrote that Reich's first job was to replace the "unsatisfactory" Scot designs. How many on this form consider the Draped Bust to be an unsatisfactory design? I'm actually researching this topic from primary sources. As yet I have no evidence that Reich designed any coins. Medals and seals, yes, but not coins. That doesn't prove he didn't (you can never prove a negative), but so far there is no evidence that he did.
Here is one more litte tidbit, less convining that the previous "star" example, but put out there nonetheless. Some people think that Reich signed work with an initial on the Ms. Liberty's clasp. Here is a close-up on the 1807 Capped Bust Half Dollar I posted earlier. It looks like a "J." You seem to be bound and determined to give John Riech no credit for anything. If that's what you want, who do think designed this really ugly $2.50 gold piece? It was Scot's last bit of work before he died. The Bust was introduced in 1821 and was said to be a Scot copy of Reich's work. If Reich didn't design anything, then it's a ugly copy of Scot's earlier unattractive work. The woman is unattractive and the die work is in low relief. This is not a nice coin. It's only a very expensive coin, which I needed to buy to complete a type set. I admire the Draped Bust design, and unlike some collectors, I like the Heraldic Eagle too. In his later years, Scot's talents left him. He stayed around for too long, and it showed.
Great exposition! Any reader who really liked this article should really LOVE my ANA presentation on Monday, 3Aug at 3pm Eastern time -- "The Ultimate Large Cent Date and Type Set". You will have to register with ANA for this Zoom Presentation.
Can you provide discussion about whether the cents minted in 1815 and delivered in early 1816 were dated 1814 or 1816? https://www.coinworld.com/news/prec...rg-war-of-1812-american-history-us-coins.html
CoinCorgi, there's a considerable update to the Coin World article that addresses the question you ask in The Numismatist volume 131 #5, May of 2018, pp 54-58. I believe it will answer your question.
Not at all. I have no personal axe to grind about Reich. I'm merely pointing out that there is no source documentation for the notion that he designed coins. Since he was Scot's assistant, there would have to be evidence to prove he did. If there is, I'd be delighted to see it.
The Coin World author makes a point when he says that there would not have been time in 1816 to have prepared the dies. Yet, the 1816 dies could have been prepared in 1815, and used as soon as the shipment of planchets was received from England. The limiting factor is concept of die rust. Many Philadelphia dies rusted in the humid climate during the 17 and 18 hundreds. This problem continued into the 1850s and beyond. I am not aware of ever seeing an 1814 cent with a lot of die rust. The S-295 is known with extensive die crumbling but not rust. It may have been properly stored, taken out of mothballs and used in 1816 where it was pushed to its limits. On the other hand, maybe the dies for the S-295, 1814 cent, were useless at the end of 1814 and retired. John Wright, who posted above, states in his book that the 1816 dies were made in 1815 and ready for work. Therefore the coins released in 1816 were all dated that year and had the new design. Nobody knows for sure, but given the limited production at the U.S. Mint in 1815, Robert Scot would have had plenty of time on his hands to produce new dies.
Please read the articles, particularly the one in the Numismatist. My good friend John Wright wrote his wonderful book almost 30 years ago. The recent evidence convinced him that many of the cents struck in 1816 were dated 1814. The notion that 1816-dated dies were created in 1815 was pure speculation by R.W. Julian. There are multiple lines of evidence that the S-295 was struck in January and February of 1816. Please just read the articles.
That would make sense to me that there would be dies left over from 1814 so they could be used to strike coins anytime thereafter without having to make new dies.
