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

Edmund Randolph's legal opinion was that the President was operating under the Resolution of 1791, not the Mint Act of 1792 and could thus hire anyone needed to make a start at coinage. Thus, there was no actual need in July, 1792 for a Senate-approved and bonded "duly-appointed" coiner. BTW, Henry Voight received a temporary appointment as Chief Coiner on or about June 1, 1792.

Good point. However, the Mint Act of 1792 defines metal content for gold, silver, and copper coins. Albeit in much greater definition for gold and silver than for copper, understandably. Nevertheless, the assayer would be required in his duties to assay incoming government supplies of copper and to test the alloyed product of the melter and refiner to assure compliance with the alloying requirements of not only the gold and silver coinage but also the copper coinage. The Mint Act of 1792 lays out certain responsibilities of the Assayer but clearly not all. Would not the surety bond apply to the unstated responsibilities as well as those listed in the Act? It can be argued both ways but in reading history and the subsequent views and written records of those involved, it is apparent they believed the surety bond was only required for the function of the depositors' gold and silver.

Now, I think that in these very early days of trying to get something going, there were a lot of "let's try this and see how it goes" while making some effort to be as compliant with law as possible. There were also at the time many practices and assumptions that were implicit in the writing and execution of laws, such as the purpose and applicability of surety bonds. IOW, everyone understood that the surety bond was only for the purpose of avoiding fraud and to give PM depositors confidence that they were handing over their PM to honest and responsible individuals and thus surety bonds were not required for the government purchase and coinage of copper. An implicitly understood exemption but not explicitly stated.

According to the Attorney General of the United States at the time, Edmund Randolph, the mint in July 1792 was operating under the direct control of the President in accordance with the Resolution of 1791, not the Mint Act of 1792. There is a lot of argument about the legality of the 1792 half dismes that are made with respect to the provisions of the Act of 1792 but those provisions do not apply, at least according to the consulted legal authority of the time with respect to the appointments clause.

My conclusion from all this and much else that has gone unstated in this thread is that good-faith efforts were made by the officials to be legally compliant but that the July half-disme coinage was authorized to proceed with some winking at the letter of the law. That doesn't make the coinage illegal nor define its purpose as a pattern versus the intention of creating a demonstration project in circulating coinage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So far as I'm concerned, this quote by George Washington in his 1792 message to Congress settles the issue:

“There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dismes, the want of small coins in circulation calling for first attention to them.”

As the chief operating officer for the United States Federal Government at the time, I'll take his word for it.

But, if you want to argue for the 1793 Chain Cent, go ahead. This is an example of the Sheldon 4, the Periods Variety. My grade is Fine - 15. The NGC grade is VF-30.

 

Enjoyed the post and article thank you for sharing.

 

I love members that do my research. Thanks

 

This is the closest I got from early US Mint history. 1799 silver dollar.

 

Does anyone ever watch TV around here?

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/castle-season-6-episode-6-review-get-a-clue/

 

Just wanted to amplify what @Publius2 mentions: the John Reich Journal is a great resource. I'm a member of the John Reich Collectors Society and recommend it to those interested - but non members can also benefit from the Society, as the Journal is posted on the Newman Numismatic Portal. Here's the April 2020 article.

 

Great thread and I agree is reflecting current scholarship and debates on the subject as I have followed in the numismatic press the last few years. Given current scholarship I had to go out and get a Fugio cent, (plus ties to Ben Franklin), even though I don't really collect US coins anymore. I admit I do not own a 1792 half disme though. I would love to own one, especially one of the first 1500, given its connection to Jefferson whom I consider our greatest president.

 

Getting one of the first 1,500 is easy, if you have the money , because they are more common (1,500 versus and estimated 200 to 300). It's the early die state coins without the die rust marks. I bought this one, which is one of the "Jefferson pieces", circa 1993.



As for Jefferson's status as the greatest president, many would beg to differ. Jefferson's greatest accomplishment was the Louisiana Purchase. His second term was marred by a poorly conceived embargo of U.S. exports that did great damage to the economy with no measurable return.

But if you look at the history of most all two term presidents, their second term was often weaker than the first.

 

Yes, of course everyone can disagree or have different opinions. Maybe I should have said "greatest American who served as President". I view his contributions before and after his Presidency as well, like writing Declaration of Independance, donating his personal library twice, (once to form Library of Congress, second to found University of Virginia library), implementing decimal currency system, advocating for us to be first on metric system, even his advocacy of custard over ice cream. I simply feel, collectively, he did more for this nation in his lifetime than anyone else who also happened to serve as President, of course a very debatable point.

Concerning the half disme, I guess I just value 10 of my avatar coins over a vg half disme right now in my life. Its a pricey little thing to be sure.

 

Sorry, I have go with George Washington as the person who did the most for this country during his lifetime. If that had been no George Washington, there would have been no United States of America. He was glue that kept the Revolutionary War going, and he was the man who set the standard for the presidency.

Second to Washington during the American Revolution was Benjamin Franklin. His great contribution was getting the French to enter the war on the American side. If the French Navy had been around to block the British Army from fleeing Yorktown, the war might have continued.

Jefferson gets high marks for writing the Declaration of Independence which defined a great many of the values that set the goals for this nation. We are still working to achieve them. Jefferson's performance as Virginia governor during the Revolution was mixed. He can also be cited as the founder of the Democratic Party.

 

I just finished reading this book a couple of weeks ago, and highly recommend it. Well researched, well documented, and completely changed what I thought I knew about these coins. I always doubted the fairy tales about who donated the silver and who modelled for the coin... but this book proves without a doubt the true story of these fascinating coins!