Featured Interesting 1798 S-176 large cent with undertype

What a cool piece of history! It makes sense that we would use Boulton’s token coinage for planchets when given the opportunity. They were high quality and it would have saved the mint workers a good deal of time.

I can not help but wonder if that token ended up at the US mint more deliberately than might be expected. It is no secret that Boulton was in contact with numerous people in an attempt to secure a contract to strike US coins. This was never approved in part because Jefferson argued that the striking of US coins in a foreign country was a violation of our sovereignty. I wonder if this token found its way to the mint as part of a “salesman sample” used in an attempt to persuade Congress to approve the contract. This went on for several years, but it hit a dead end at every turn. It was even suggested that Boulton should move his equipment to the US to strike the coins. This proposal ultimately went nowhere. It seems like plenty of opportunities existed for this token to have deliberately ended up at the Mint.

I can also see how this token may have ended up at the mint accidentally. Eventually, Boulton did provide the needed planchets for our copper coinage. I suppose this Druid could have found its way into one of the planchet shipments and the mint workers may have decided to try it out. This would make sense given that Boulton's first shipment arrived in 1797 and was closely followed by another in May of 1798. Given everything that was going on at the Soho Mint at the time (i.e. reconstruction, English contract transitions, negotiations to set up foreign mints, etc.) it seems plausible that he did not exercise the same degree of oversight when fulfilling the planchet order. The chaos occurring at the Soho Mint paired with Boulton's rocky relationship with the US suggests that the possibility of a rogue token finding its way into the planchet shipment is at least somewhat plausible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I got to tell you guys, especially @Jack D. Young, @Conder101, @Coinsandmedals and other contributors to the discussion that these posts are better than some of the bestseller historical fiction and non-fiction books I read. I benefit from and am intrigued by so many of your posts. Thank you.

Steve

 

I wonder how many more un-discovered EAC there are
out there waiting to be found?

 

This is absolutely fascinating! Great write-up and definitely deserving of its featured status!

 

I really enjoy when you post

 

I picture your old copper collection like @Kentucky. 's icon with the duck

 

Posted this one in a group specializing in Conder Tokens and received this response:

"Wow, a very cool item indeed! The token would have been a decade old, and not easy to circulate in England or Wales anymore, as the Soho Mint coinage would have started in 1797. We know Boulton was supplying the Philadelphia mint with planchets at times, and the mint overstruck cut down Talbot, Allum & Lee tokens for half cent planchets, so something like this could conceivably have been purposely done as a way to test out potential planchet stock if the mint needed it. Of course, no way of knowing that unless records are located, and there is equal chance that it was accidentally made when a token somehow got into the supply of planchets".

 

That is truly an amazing piece, and an incredible and interesting history to go along with it!

What I think is the most amazing part of this hypothesis and the coin itself, is that if indeed it was a single rogue strike over token, that it has A) survived and B) was found by someone knowledgeable enough to know to keep it.

Makes me wonder how many half cents are out there that were struck on tokens, but nobody knows, or noticed. Could be a fun hunt for a cherrypick!