1792 half disme – new documents found

[disme]

For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in the August 15 issue of Numismatic News.

These documents show, for the first time, the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck. 

The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year 1792 is now a little less certain.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, disme said:

For those interested in the 1792 half disme coinage it is perhaps worth mentioning that new documents from 1792 have recently been found and will be published in the August 15 issue of Numismatic News.

These documents show, for the first time, the President’s role in this coinage and the legal basis by which the coins were struck. 

The documents also raise the question of just when the Mint was founded; the year 1792 is now a little less certain.

Thank you. And, as one who dislikes hype, I smiled when I read your understated "..it is perhaps worth mentioning..". 

[DWLange]

The U. S. Mint was established by the Act of April 2, 1792. That's never been in question, so perhaps you meant something else?

[disme]

5 hours ago, DWLange said:

The U. S. Mint was established by the Act of April 2, 1792. That's never been in question, so perhaps you meant something else?

No, I meant just what I said. Until a few weeks ago, when the documents were found, I would have agreed that the Mint was founded as of April 1792. I think you will find these documents of interest. 

[RWB]

Excellent!

 

"We don't know what we don't know."

[physics-fan3.14]

Well, you're veiled non-answers aren't really shedding any light on anything. I realize you're trying to drum up interest in your article, which I can appreciate. 

Until then, I suggest we either table this discussion until new information is revealed, or you tell us what you found... because this discussion is going nowhere. 

[BillJones]

With no access to the article in the "Numismatic News," all of this is useless.

[disme]

16 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Well, you're veiled non-answers aren't really shedding any light on anything. I realize you're trying to drum up interest in your article, which I can appreciate. 

Until then, I suggest we either table this discussion until new information is revealed, or you tell us what you found... because this discussion is going nowhere. 

When one submits an article for publication there is an implied ethical arrangement whereby the material is not published elsewhere in advance. The print publication becomes pointless when that is done. Numismatic News mails their issues about two weeks in advance of the cover date so the issue in question should arrive well before August 15.

The point of the advance notice was merely to notify those persons interested in the 1792 half disme that new material would be published. Even if I was free to discuss the findings in advance it would require considerable time and wordage to properly explain the matter and I see no point in writing something twice. Some of the material is rather complicated but quite a few individuals on both the NGC and PCGS forums have good background knowledge for 1792.

The advance notice was not to publicize the article itself but rather the new material. And there really is a question of the Mint’s 1792 founding date. Those who read the article will no doubt take both sides of this particular question and I will be interested in seeing responses from those who are well acquainted with the 1792 material already published.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I fully understand, disme, I'm not knocking you. I'm just saying that speculation on our part as to what you've found, and discussion about it, won't really do us much good until we can read your article. 

[BillJones]

I don't know why he bothered with this post in the first place before the article was published. All he's done is drum up frustration. At any rate I don't subscribe to Numismatic News, so I guess I'll hear about this one via the grapeline.

[MarkFeld]

44 minutes ago, BillJones said:

I don't know why he bothered with this post in the first place before the article was published. All he's done is drum up frustration. At any rate I don't subscribe to Numismatic News, so I guess I'll hear about this one via the grapeline.

Personally, I appreciated the heads-up and am not at all frustrated by it. While I don't subscribe to Numismatic News either, at least now, I will know to be on the lookout for the information from other sources.

[Afterword]

I am surprised by some of the reactions to the opening post. It would seem some find the prospect of new data concerning the subject somehow threatening. 

 

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, Afterword said:

I am surprised by some of the reactions to the opening post. It would seem some find the prospect of new data concerning the subject somehow threatening. 

 

I didn't see the posts that way. Only that a couple of posters didn't appear to like hearing about the forthcoming information, without also having at least relatively quick access to it.

[e1cnr]

I suspect I will never own one, but find them interesting and always on the lookout for things most people do not even know what look like

 

guess the grade of this snagged pic

[Afterword]

3 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

I didn't see the posts that way. Only that a couple of posters didn't appear to like hearing about the forthcoming information, without also having at least relatively quick access to it.

A requirement of instant gratification? I suppose that is possible. 

[RWB]

Advance notice of articles like this is always helpful. It gives everyone the opportunity to be alert to new information.

[BillJones]

18 hours ago, e1cnr said:

I suspect I will never own one, but find them interesting and always on the lookout for things most people do not even know what look like

 

guess the grade of this snagged pic

My grade would be VF details, scratched. It's sharper than the one I have, but my piece has fewer marks. Given that the graders sometimes "go easy" on these coins, this one might have a straight grade.

[Zebo]

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2017/07/researcher-concludes-1783-quint-first-us-coin.html?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Lyris&utm_campaign=DigitalEdition

Says a lot

[RVR]

Here is the link to the Numismatic News article containing the ground-breaking 1792 half disme research by R.W. Julian.

1792 half disme

 

[physics-fan3.14]

2 hours ago, RVR said:

Here is the link to the Numismatic News article containing the ground-breaking 1792 half disme research by R.W. Julian.

1792 half disme

 

Is this the article that Disme references in the OP? That is a very intriguing tale indeed! I think arguing 1791 vs 1792 really comes down to semantics, but the story of these coins is fascinating. 

[PocketArt]

Nice work R.W. Julian!  Interesting research, and article- thanks!  

[Conder101]

I need to do some more thinking about this, but so far I don't see how this would change the status of the 1792 half disme.  I do agree that it give good evidence for the mint being founded in 1791.  The founding is in 1791, the laws under which it is to operate are 1792.

[RWB]

Very nice research! A tip of the ol'e deerstalker to ye!

[BillJones]

What a wonderful article! Thank you for sharing it with us. It provides with a much better understanding of Washington's role in the coin, which was not as hands off as some have led us to believe.

The mintage comments that the July coinage might have been as much as 1,700 to 1,800 pieces leaves some questions as to who supplied the silver. Did Jefferson commit more than $75 of his $100 withdrawal from the Bank of the United States, or did someone else provide the extra funds? Could the silver used in the coins have been prepared for coinage at the time that Jefferson provided the silver? In a mintage operation it is impossible to submit $75 and get $75 worth of half dismes in return. There is always a small amount of metal lost in the coinage process and there is always "web scrap" left over from the planchet punching operation.

Also who might have supplied the silver for the 200 to 300 pieces that were probably made at the mint in the fall of 1792? The die state evidence seems to point to the existence that coinage.

We will probably never know the full story about the 1792 half dismes, but the additional information and speculations about what did happen make these coins even more intriguing.

[disme]

On August 2, 2017 at 8:41 AM, BillJones said:

In a mintage operation it is impossible to submit $75 and get $75 worth of half dismes in return. There is always a small amount of metal lost in the coinage process and there is always "web scrap" left over from the planchet punching operation.

Also who might have supplied the silver for the 200 to 300 pieces that were probably made at the mint in the fall of 1792? The die state evidence seems to point to the existence that coinage.

We will probably never know the full story about the 1792 half dismes, but the additional information and speculations about what did happen make these coins even more intriguing.

The points made by BillJones & others are well worth noting. As mentioned above it was not possible to bring $75 in silver to the temporary Mint and receive back 1,500 half dismes. A point is reached where it is no longer possible to obtain planchets from the left-over silver. Without additional silver it is doubtful that more than, say, 1,200 half dismes would have resulted from the original Jefferson deposit.

It is likely that Mint Director Rittenhouse provided the necessary extra silver; he was in fact a relatively wealthy person. There is also little doubt that a fair number of pieces (beyond the 1,500 furnished Jefferson) were made, perhaps two or three hundred.

The pieces made in the fall of 1792 were likely also done with Rittenhouse’s silver; merely as a guess, perhaps two or three hundred were made at that time.

[Conder101]

6 hours ago, disme said:

There is always a small amount of metal lost in the coinage process and there is always "web scrap" left over from the planchet punching operation.

Yes and the web scrap is melted down, recast, rerolled and more planchets punched out,  and then that scrap is melted etc until there isn't enough left to punch out a single planchet.  Yes there will be some loss, and in order to counter that they add a small amount of silver to the initial melt so that they will be able to return the full amount to the depositor.  And the mint recovers the small amount or silver that they added.  There will be a tiny amount of loss through vaporization of the silver during the melting process.

 

This was one of the problems the mint had during their early years.  Each deposit was handled separately through these multiple remeltings before they could move on to the next deposit.  That resulted in long delays before depositors could get their coins.

[disme]

10 hours ago, Conder101 said:

This was one of the problems the mint had during their early years.  Each deposit was handled separately through these multiple remeltings before they could move on to the next deposit.  That resulted in long delays before depositors could get their coins.

Silver and gold deposits, except for one known instance, were always mixed and individual deposits not kept separate. That exception was the silver used for the 1794 dollars. 

[BillJones]

39 minutes ago, disme said:

Silver and gold deposits, except for one known instance, were always mixed and individual deposits not kept separate. That exception was the silver used for the 1794 dollars. 

It was a much later period, the gold that went into the 1848 CAL. quarter eagles was also not mixed with any other consignments. That's the reason the mint director at the time gave for the delay in completing the project.  

[disme]

1 hour ago, BillJones said:

It was a much later period, the gold that went into the 1848 CAL. quarter eagles was also not mixed with any other consignments. That's the reason the mint director at the time gave for the delay in completing the project.  

BillJones is correct. Two exceptions.