Featured What Were the First Coins Struck by the US Mint?

Quoted from this source: https://www.usmint.gov/learn/history/us-circulating-coins

"In 1792, during construction of the new Mint, 1,500 silver half dimes were made in the cellar of a nearby building. These half dimes were probably given out to dignitaries and friends and not released into circulation. The Mint delivered the nation’s first circulating coins on March 1, 1793: 11,178 copper cents."

Therefore the 1792 half dimes were the first coins struck by the US Mint.
BUT
The first business strikes made by the US Mint were one cent coins (the 1793 Flowing Hair/Chain Reverse).

So, in answer to the question, "What was the face value of the first coins struck by the US Mint?", the correct answer would be "half dime".
And as long as I don't specify or allude to business strikes, I'm correct.

(And I'm not going to get into the "half disme" naming discussion.)

Comments?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, the half dismes were struck by the mint but not at the mint (as it was being built at the time).

And they were struck under the supervision of the mint but not by the mint workers (because they weren't in business yet).

I'm picking nits - I think you're right that the half dismes were the first U.S. coins. My question is "where are the ~1200 that aren't accounted for???? Waiting for @paddyman98 to unearth one in Brooklyn.

 

I thought that Jefferson purposely circulated some of the half dismes. (Pause for research...) Ah, there it is, I have a memory like a rusty elephant. Evidence suggests Jefferson did indeed spend 1500 half dismes in 1792. So they were circulating coins produced by the US Mint and this ANA article at least therefore considers them business strikes.

https://blog.money.org/coin-collecting/history-of-the-1792-disme

(way at the end of the article)

 

Great article, thanks for the link.

 

NGC's description says "This date's survival rate is disproportionately high, as it was recognized as a significant issue by early coin collectors." If the article is correct about a second strike of 200-500, then the actual mintage was 1700-2000, not the 1500 widely published, since 1500 was only Jefferson's $75 worth.

 

I still consider the 1792 half disme to either be a pattern or more likely a private token made for Jefferson. I still don't see a way around the fact that the mint could not legally make precious metal coins at that time as the proper bonds had not yet been posted.

 

If I may ask a question not entirely unrelated to this discussion:

If one asks the question "What were the first coins struck by the United States", would the answer not be the 1787 Fugio Cents ??

As I understand it, these were not struck at an oficial U.S mint (since a US mint did not exist in 1787), but were struck by order of, and under contract to the United States.

PCGS seems now to think so, from what I have read.

 

That's my understanding.
And because of that I added a Fugio Cent to my US Type Set.
But "struck by the United States" would probably be more correctly worded "struck for the United States".
Semantics.

 

Given the fact that Jefferson had the cabinet level of authority over the mint, I consider the 1792 half disme to be the first U.S. coin that was made for circulation under the constitution. @Publius2 laid out the history very well.

 

True, the only required $10,000 bond posted at the time of the July striking of half dismes was by Mint Treasurer Tristram Dalton. The other officers that required a bond; assayer and chief coiner, did not acquire their bonds until 1793 and 1794. This point (among others) was outlined in an article in the John Reich Journal of December, 2019 by Richard A. Izydore which argued the pattern point of view.

A rebuttal was published in the same journal's April, 2020 issue by Joel J. Orosz and Leonard Augsberger. They argued that President Washington inquired of SoS Jefferson whether the present chief Coiner of the mint (Henry Voight) is properly authorized by the Resolution of Congress passed the 3d day of March 1791. Jefferson sent the request to Attorney General Edmund Randolph who replied that the President was authorized to make recess appointments and since Voight had been appointed when the Senate was in recess, and therefore not yet confirmed, the office of Chief Coiner was vacant and the President could not grant a temporary commission to Voight at Chief Coiner. I'm not going to go into the rest of the legal points of the rebuttal except to say that since there was no duly appointed Chief Coiner there could be no requirement for a bond.

The Chief Coiner and Assayer worked as recess appointment employees of the State Department until such time as they were bonded and approved by the Senate.

Whether any of us agree with either point of view is pretty much immaterial since the Attorney General of the time said it was the case and no one filed a lawsuit or other impediment to the decision.

One other point that I have not seen addressed anywhere with regards to the posting (or lack thereof) of surety bonds:

The Chief Coiner posted bond and received Senate appointment approval January, 1793 but the Assayer was not bonded and Senate-approved until April, 1794.

Now, we all know that the reason for the surety bonds was because of depositor's silver and gold that would be deposited with the Mint for coinage. And correspondence of the time indicates that is how the authorities of the time understood it. But nowhere within the Mint Acts of 1791 and 1792 is there any mention that the coining of copper was exempt from the requirement of a surety bond. If indeed, under a legal parsing of the Acts' wording, a surety bond was required to coin circulating copper coinage then the copper coinage of 1793 was illegal because the assayer was not bonded until April, 1794. And whatever silver coinage was minted until that date was also not legal coinage. Thus, Mr. Izydore's argument against the illegality of the 1792 half disme would also invalidate all US Mint coinage up to April 1794. I don't think anyone thinks that is true but I would be delighted to hear further discussion on this point.

Note that I don't agree with Mr. Izydore's point nor the extension of the logic as I've outlined it.

 

I agree. I think the logic is irrefutable that the "first coins" were the Fugio Cents. But it all comes down to how the question is phrased, doesn't it? Your phrasing, "What were the first coins struck by the United States?" is ambiguous. The word "struck by" can mean a physical action or an action for which the party is responsible. Why? Because the Fugio cents were not "struck by" by the United States but rather by a private coiner contracted to the United States government under the Articles of Confederation. The other ambiguity is the use of the term "first coins". That could mean trial pieces or patterns as well as circulating coins. So much of the discussion and disagreement attending to questions like this is due to poor wording and mistaken assumptions of agreement on terminology.

The, in my humble opinion, proper and unambiguous wording of the question that results in the answer "Fugio Cent" is:

"What is the first coin intended for and actually put into general circulation that was authorized and produced under the authority of the United States federal government?"

 

The arguments and semantics are interesting from the standpoint of the historical facts that are raised, which is educational. I'm wondering in all this whether intent can be considered a factor. Clearly (to me, anyway) Jefferson had his $75 coined intending to circulate them.

It reminds me of the arguments surrounding the 1856 FE cents. PCGS grades them MS but NGC does not. Same with the Fugio cents - were the Articles of Confederation really the same "federal" government? Pick a side, I guess.

 

Yes and no. They were not the same federal government but they were both the federal government over the same political union of states, the United States of America. Again, it goes back to nomenclature: When someone asks what was the first coin of the United States, do they mean under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution or both/either?

 

Thank you all very much for your answers and opinions.
Yes, I agree it all depends on how you ask and word the question.

I guess the only way to ensure you cover all possibilities is to have an example of each in your collection...(assuming of course you can afford it)............which leads me to ask, if I may, the following question, (hopefully @kanga will not mind since this is his thread):
Would one not have to add a "Continental Dollar" to a collection given these were considered for a very long time to be the first dollar-sized issues of the United States?

(I am aware of more recent discussions and findings around this coin which suggest it is more properly to be described as a token or medal struck for promotional purposes in Europe)

What are your opinions?

 

No matter what you say...I STILL WANT ONE

 

But without a duly appointed chief coiner there was also no officer that the metal could be turned over to for coinage.

Hadn't considered that, but the act does say the assayer " shall receive and give receipts for all metals which may lawfully be brought to the Mint to be coined; shall assay all such of them as may require it, and shall deliver them to the chief coiner to be coined." and that would only refer to gold and silver because copper was not brought to the mint to be coined. It was purchased by the government and coined on their own account.

PCGS USED to grade them MS or PF, now they only grade them Proof.

The Continental dollar "coin" was never an authorized issue and is mentioned nowhere in the records of the Continental Congress.

 

Which demonstrates how PCGS points whichever way the wind is blowing? They USED to designate the Fugio cents as colonials, right? Then they made a marketing splash about how they're now Federal Contract Coinage. I'm not expert enough to engage in an argument about that specifically, but it seems like things flop around with the TPGs depending on who bends their ear enough about it.

 

Featured!

 

For some number of years, there were arguments that the Continental Dollar was some kind of official issue of the US either as a pattern or a circulating coin. There was never enough evidence to even satisfy a claim as to where they came from much less the intent of the issue. But as you noted, more recent scholarship has, IMO, pretty thoroughly debunked that proposition in favor of the European token/medal genesis. If someone wants one of these very expensive items for their US Type Set, I wish them the best. But for myself this token/medal will not be on my accession list.