1788 Rare Coin

Because under the Articles of Confederation. which was passed in 1777, and was the government the states operated under until the ratification of the Constitution in 1787, the Federal government had the authority to establish the currency and set the standards and issue coins (this was the authority the Fugio Cent was issued under). But the STATES were also given the authority to issue their own coinage, and Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts did so. (Vermont issued coins as well but they were an independent country at the time, not part of the United States. They didn't become part of the US until 1791. They were not a signatory of the Articles of Confederation.) Once the Constitution was ratified the power to create coins was reserved to the Federal Government.

Although the Constitution had been written in 1787, it wasn't ratified until June of 1788, and didn't go into effect until 1789, so the 1788 CT coppers were still legally authorized by the State. So they were legitimate coinage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It seems like a very grey area. So is the OP's coin federal or confederate?

 

The mustache!!! LOL!!!

 

You are correct that the terms are not well-defined or universally accepted and that is because the geopolitical conditions of the period were unsettled.

From my reading, it seems like collectors refer to the coins of the period between independence and 1792/3 as "Pre-Federal" although many collectors use the term "colonial" for this time period as well as the period before independence. You can choose for yourself whether you think Federal coinage began with the half-dismes of 1792 or with actual operation of the first mint in 1793. The period before independence seems to be universally referred to as "Colonial". Where I see some disagreement regards the date of "independence". Some say it is 1775 when our revolutionary war hostilities began. Some say it dates from 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Some say it is 1781 with the de facto cessation of hostilities. And, finally, some say it is 1783 with the adoption of the Treaty of Paris.

As you can see, there is no bright-line definition accepted by all and frankly it doesn't matter much to most people. Although there have been some vigorous essays in the last year or so about the status of the half-dismes.

I would call the OP's 1788 coin "Pre-Federal". Numismatically, I have only seen the term "confederate" applied to the Civil War era and the coins and paper money of the Confederate States of America.

 

Thank you for this. Very well explained and now I understand why it was confusing to me. Most of my searches led me to the same vague explanations.

 

You could call the time from 1782 to 1789 “the Confederation Period,” but that would confuse too many people.

But, no, calling it “colonial” is inaccurate.

 

Neither. Federal came later and confederate is the Civil War period. All of the coin dealers I felt with called the colonial coinage but there are number of people that don't like that.

According to the Redbook pre-federal issues started with the Spanish American coinage of the New World. The first dates that appeared on them were 1556. The section on Massachusetts gives an interesting history of the beginning of money in America.

A number of the colonies mentioned their own coins from dies that they made. According to the Redbook colonial issues ended in 1767. In 1783 postcolonial issues consisting of speculative issues, tokens and patterns were minted.

There is a large number of postcolonial issues that you should refer to your red book to learn more but the postcolonial issues wete last dated 1795. Then the federal issues started with Continental currency dated 1776. There were large numbers of contract issues and patterns that fall into this category.

Then on April 2, 1792 the half cent was authorized. Numerous acts changed the weight with the first half Cent being minted in 1793. Large Cents we're also minted in 1793. All of these coins were minted in Philadelphia.

Just tells me that in early America coins were hard to get and bartering was a common practice. It also makes it difficult to pin down what type of issue it was, meaning pre-colonial, colonial or postcolonial. Coins from other countries circulated freely in the colonies. Dates of mintage and the governmental acts authorizing the mintage further complicate the dates.

This time period is open to interpretation and it's quite interesting. It is certainly an area that we could all you use more knowledge of.

 

Seems the pre-federal currency is more mysterious than the ancients.

 

Like your house...

 

You guys gonna do this all week?

 

why not

 

My view on that.

Before 1775 we were colonies.
1775 hostilities began. We were colonies in rebellion.

1776 Independence declared. Declaring independence does not make you independent. If it did there would be no reason to fight a war.

1781 hostilities cease. But there was no peace treaty, and our independence had not been formally or officialy recognized. Hostilities could easly recommence.

1783 Treaty of Paris. Britain formally recognizes and accepts that were are now independent of their control. THIS is where our independence actually begins.

I chose 1793. The 1792 half dismes were issued after the Mint act of 1792 was passed, but that act also said that silver of gold coinage could not be issued until after the coiner and assayer had posted their bonds, and that didn't happen until 1794. So the 1792 could not be considered to be a legal coin at the time it was produced. (or at least they had no legal authority to produce it.) I would call it a token produced as a favor for Jefferson using mint equipment. It did not have legal authority.

Actually I would say the first Federal coinage was the Fugio cent in 1787, issued by the Federal Government, via contract, under the authority in the Articles of Confederation. The fact that it was produced by an outside contractor and not directly by the government itself does not stop it from being a Federal coin. It was produced under a Federal contract.

It is a legally authorized state issue produced with Federal approval under the Articles of Confederation. (The overall government over all the states during the Confederation period is still the Federal Government.)

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is considerable disagreement regarding the status of the 1792 half dismes. The question revolves around the legality of the striking and whether it was or was not intended to be circulating coinage. I do not pretend to know the answer to that question but the two most recent opposing arguments were published in the John Reich Journal (JRJ) in the issues of December, 2019 (Vol. 29/Issue 3) and April, 2020 (Vol. 30/Issue 1). I present only the briefest synopsis of these articles below.

In the first article, Mr.Robert A. Izydore presents his arguments that the coins were not only illegally struck but were not intended to be circulating coinage. Much of Mr. Izydore’s argument rests on the legal requirements of the Mint Act of 1792 including the appointment of officers and their bonding requirement. Arguments are presented supporting the half disme status as a pattern coin but I find them to be fairly nebulous and relying heavily on an interpreted intent of certain speaker’s statements.

The second article, co-authored by Joel J. Orosz and Leonard Augsberger, rebuts Mr. Isydore’s claims and present their own arguments for legality and intent. The authors’ arguments hinge upon the legality of President Washington’s authority to order coinage under the provisions of the Mint Act of 1791. Their argument is legal and has to do with the recess appointment authority of the President under that act. Under intent, they argue that the intent was to produce circulating coinage. Among their arguments supporting that position, they state that it is unreasonable to assume that a 1500-coin mintage would have been intended as a pattern strike intended only for review and approval. Other pattern coins of the year were struck in very small quantities.

I am not going to claim that either of these claims settles the issue but I am inclined to be more persuaded by Mssrs. Orosz and Augsberger on both the legal and intent arguments. Therefore, in relation to our question as to when Federal Coinage began, I am inclined to think that 1792 is more apt than 1793 although I recognize that 1793 is the more widely accepted date. Whichever date you choose, 1792 or 1793, they are primarily characterized as the start of Federal coinage in a Federally-owned and operated establishment.

I certainly recognize the argument that Federal coinage can be considered to have begun in 1787 with the Fugio Cent and I think that is probably the correct interpretation. I certainly don’t have any objection to that usage but this coinage was a contract coinage, not the product of a Federally-owned and operated mint. Is this a distinction without a difference? Very possibly but a useful distinction nonetheless since the first coinage out of our first official mint is rather momentous in our numismatic history.

As always seems to be the case, how you define something depends on how you want to look at it

The Orosz/Augsberger article is available at the Newman Numismatic Portal at:

https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/583797

The Izydore article is not available on-line for reasons unknown to me. The Journal for years 2017-19 is not on the NNP. Unfortunate.

 

@Collecting Nut , are you going to keep collecting Connecticuts? I am hoping to at least get to 50 varieties, I am at 44 now.

 

I just found a few at very low prices. I don't focus on them but I do like them so I'll be keeping these.

 

This is a great conversation, thank you both Publius2 and Condor101 for a good debate and crash course on the transition from colonial coins to Federal mints.

Can someone confirm this info from Wiki?... I lack trust in them anymore.

..."When speaking to the House of Representatives in November 1792, President Washington mentioned the "want of small coins in circulation" and stated that he had begun work on establishing a U.S. Mint and that some half dismes had been produced already. At this point, most of the personnel had been hired, but the Mint's buildings and machinery were not yet ready. As a result, the half dismes, which had been struck in or around July 1792, were produced using the private facilities of local craftsman John Harper, although under the auspices of official Mint personnel".

Q: Is "The use of private facilities" being interpreted as "contracted" or is there a legally binding agreement on record?

 

Clubs that have have their publications posted on the portal typically don't include the most recent issues, the whole idea being to have people join the organization rather than just get the publications for free on the portal. I am sure that at some point in the future more editions will be posted, but probably not closer than about three year to the present years issues. The 2020 issues are probably a special case. Apparently due to the virus they could not be printed in hardcopy form and were just electronic only. This made it easy to post to the portal as no scanning would be required.

But he said that in November and the half dismes had been struck in July with nothing else having been produced since then, and nothing else was produced for another .

I agree that 1,500 pieces is too large for it to have been a pattern, and the fact that Jefferson supplied the silver and they were all turned over to him also argues against that.

I also agree that Washington had the authority under the Mint act of March 3, 1791 to appoint the chief coiner, as the office was vacant (and no chief coiner no bond), but as soon as Voight was appointed to the office it was no longer vacant and now the Act of April 2, 1792 would apply and now a bond WAS required. So at the time the half dismes were struck the chief coiner was legally required to have posted a bond which was not yet posted. So the "coins" could not have been legally issued. On the other hand if you consider them to be private tokens made for Jefferson, there isn't a problem.

 

This is some rabbit hole.

 

I'm a member of the John Reich Society and I have received my paper copies of the Journal this year (2020). I cannot explain why 2020 is on the NNP but 2017 through 2019 is not.