Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Publius2, post: 4951624, member: 105571&quot;]As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is considerable disagreement regarding the status of the 1792 half dismes.&nbsp; The question revolves around the legality of the striking and whether it was or was not intended to be circulating coinage.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; I present only the briefest synopsis of these articles below.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; The authors’ arguments hinge upon the legality of President Washington’s authority to order coinage under the provisions of the Mint Act of 1791.&nbsp; Their argument is legal and has to do with the recess appointment authority of the President under that act.&nbsp; Under intent, they argue that the intent was to produce circulating coinage.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Other pattern coins of the year were struck in very small quantities.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Whichever date you choose, 1792 or 1793, they are primarily characterized as the start of Federal coinage in a Federally-owned and operated establishment.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Is this a distinction without a difference?&nbsp; Very possibly but a useful distinction nonetheless since the first coinage out of our first official mint is rather momentous in our numismatic history.</p><p><br /></p><p>As always seems to be the case, how you define something depends on how you want to look at it</p><p><br /></p><p>The Orosz/Augsberger article is available at the Newman Numismatic Portal at:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/583797" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/583797" rel="nofollow">https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/583797</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The Izydore article is not available on-line for reasons unknown to me.&nbsp; The Journal for years 2017-19 is not on the NNP.&nbsp; Unfortunate.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in