1831 Half cent - Pattern or regular issue? 1 1

[Bignubnumismatics]

I am currently researching/have researched the 1831 half cent for a paper. 
 

before I present any of my findings I’d like to get a feel for what everyone thinks the 1831 half cent is.

[DWLange]

There is no general agreement among experts. Unworn pieces seem to be all or mostly proofs, but there are quite a few worn ones that tend to suggest currency strikes, too. Mint records are of no help in settling the matter.

[Bignubnumismatics]

On 8/19/2022 at 2:30 PM, DWLange said:

There is no general agreement among experts. Unworn pieces seem to be all or mostly proofs, but there are quite a few worn ones that tend to suggest currency strikes, too. Mint records are of no help in settling the matter.

There is no smoking gun in mint records, but they certainly point towards a direction. It’s all conjecture at that point, unfortunately. Really only thing to ‘settle’ it would be precedent set by other similar issues. Unfortunately, I think the most similar coin in nature is the 1856 flying eagle, which has the same problems.

[Zebo]

Circulated proofs?

Edited August 19, 2022 by Zebo

[Bignubnumismatics]

NGC , I think , thinks they are all circulated proofs, PCGS states that there are proof & business. They were struck from the same dies, hard to really tell based on the usual diagnostics.

On 8/19/2022 at 6:35 PM, Zebo said:

Circulated proofs?

 

[RWB]

What suggests a "pattern piece?" What's different from former designs and why do you think that was done? How many 1831 half cents are known? Pattern pieces prior to 1836 are extremely unusual.

Can you describe how a proof (aka "master coin") were made in the 1820s-30s ? Your can't really prepare an article without knowing how processes operated and what differed between "master coin" and production coin.

Will help in any way I can.

[Zebo]

On 8/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, RWB said:

What suggests a "pattern piece?" What's different from former designs and why do you think that was done? How many 1831 half cents are known? Pattern pieces prior to 1836 are extremely unusual.

Can you describe how a proof (aka "master coin") were made in the 1820s-30s ? Your can't really prepare an article without knowing how processes operated and what differed between "master coin" and production coin.

Will help in any way I can.

I believe there are about 20 known. Not many.

[Zebo]

On 8/19/2022 at 6:39 PM, Bignubnumismatics said:

NGC , I think , thinks they are all circulated proofs, PCGS states that there are proof & business. They were struck from the same dies, hard to really tell based on the usual diagnostics.

 

I tend to side with NGC then.

[RWB]

On 8/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, RWB said:

What suggests a "pattern piece?" What's different from former designs and why do you think that was done? How many 1831 half cents are known? Pattern pieces prior to 1836 are extremely unusual.

Can you describe how a proof (aka "master coin") were made in the 1820s-30s ? Your can't really prepare an article without knowing how processes operated and what differed between "master coin" and production coin.

This is still open for response. Here is Ron Guth's comment (spelling corrected):

"Ron Guth:

The 1831 Half Cent is the source of great debate in the numismatic community. One camp calls this a Proof-only [sic. "master coin"] date; the other says that some 1831 Half Cents were released into circulation.

Mint Reports show a mintage of 2,200 1831 Half Cents. However, records from this period are known to be incorrect, with mintages often reported in the wrong year. Those who claim that some were made for circulation point to this mintage figure and the fact that a high percentage of the known population exists in circulated condition. To date, no one has come up with a convincing, high-grade circulation strike, but there are several pieces that are clearly circulated Proofs (sic].

Those who support the Proof-only theory dismiss the official mintage figure and they claim that all of the circulated examples started out as Proofs. However, they are unable to explain why so many of the coins exist today and why so many of them are in circulated condition. No other Proof [sic] Half Cents of this era follow this pattern, but the 1831 shares a close kinship with the 1841 Quarter Eagle (another source of considerable debate over its true status as a Proof [sic] or a circulation strike)."

Edited August 21, 2022 by RWB

[Bignubnumismatics]

On 8/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, RWB said:

What suggests a "pattern piece?" What's different from former designs and why do you think that was done? How many 1831 half cents are known? Pattern pieces prior to 1836 are extremely unusual.

Can you describe how a proof (aka "master coin") were made in the 1820s-30s ? Your can't really prepare an article without knowing how processes operated and what differed between "master coin" and production coin.

Will help in any way I can.

Moore wanted Kneass to revamp the half cent design for both aesthetics & for the new equipment the mint was due to receive after the visit from France. Many design elements were altered, most notably the bust itself and the denticles. Why would Kneass work on a die so much on a denomination that was unwanted and unneeded if it were to only be a circulating coin?

Thus, they were struck with the intent to test out both equipment & new design elements.  
 

~25 coins are known 

Master coins were produced with specially burnished planchets struck slowly on polished dies.

proofs prior to 1840s used the same dies for proof & circulating examples. With a mintage of only 2,200 coins (of which none were known to be delivered unless they came with the 154,000 in 1833 with the 1832 & 1833 half cents) even if there were two types,  proof vs business , the two would be identical other than the burnished planchets. 
 

the mint did not receive any new kegs of new copper planchets until 1833 (discussions and ~26 (I forget the actual number, I have it written down somrwhere with the rest of my notes) kegs were delivered to Moore from the Crocker bros in 1832 but they weren’t used until the following years. They must have used leftover planchets from 1829, so even when burnished, I doubt the quality was high. These blanks were sitting in wooden kegs for two years in Philly.

[Bignubnumismatics]

I had that written down for a while and then just now found out it didn’t save.

[CaptHenway]

On 8/19/2022 at 5:54 PM, RWB said:

What suggests a "pattern piece?" What's different from former designs and why do you think that was done? How many 1831 half cents are known? Pattern pieces prior to 1836 are extremely unusual.

Can you describe how a proof (aka "master coin") were made in the 1820s-30s ? Your can't really prepare an article without knowing how processes operated and what differed between "master coin" and production coin.

Will help in any way I can.

I've got nothing. 

Are we sure that they were struck in 1831? Just speculating wildly here, I could see the Mint beginning the production of the 1832's with a very limited press run very late in 1831 because they had run out of the denomination and that press run going into the Mint Report as 1831 half cents, and then later when collectors saw that entry but they could not find any such coins the Mint obligingly making a few back-dated Proofs for the collectors. Again, this is wild speculation.

[Bignubnumismatics]

On 8/21/2022 at 6:20 PM, CaptHenway said:

I've got nothing. 

Are we sure that they were struck in 1831? Just speculating wildly here, I could see the Mint beginning the production of the 1832's with a very limited press run very late in 1831 because they had run out of the denomination and that press run going into the Mint Report as 1831 half cents, and then later when collectors saw that entry but they could not find any such coins the Mint obligingly making a few back-dated Proofs for the collectors. Again, this is wild speculation.

My personal belief is that they were struck in 1832. Mint records show that no half cents were delivered until 1833, which included coins struck in ‘32 & ‘33. Same hub was used for 1831 & 1832 but that’s what I would expect in any first year issues. 
 

Back dated proofs are accounted for already (different reverses).

The 2,175 that aren’t accounted for were likely melted for copper in intermittent years between suppliers. 

[Zebo]

On 8/21/2022 at 4:39 PM, RWB said:

Those who support the Proof-only theory dismiss the official mintage figure and they claim that all of the circulated examples started out as Proofs. However, they are unable to explain why so many of the coins exist today and why so many of them are in circulated condition.

With a 2,200 Mintage, wouldn’t you expect more than 20-25 1831 half cents to survive? 

[RWB]

On 8/21/2022 at 6:10 PM, Bignubnumismatics said:

[See bold face entries, below.]

RE: Moore wanted Kneass to revamp the half cent design for both aesthetics & for the new equipment the mint was due to receive after the visit from France. Many design elements were altered, most notably the bust itself and the denticles. Why would Kneass work on a die so much on a denomination that was unwanted and unneeded if it were to only be a circulating coin?

Thus, they were struck with the intent to test out both equipment & new design elements.

"Only a circulating coins" seems to imply that at that time master coins were somehow really special. This is not the case. They were made to show a proposed design in its full detail, as a guide top further adjustment, for the nacent Mint Cabinet, or for a special person. Working dies were all made by the Chief Coiner's Dept., not the Engraver.

RE: Master coins were produced with specially burnished planchets struck slowly on polished dies.

Dies were polished with jeweler's rouge or lime. Polishing (not burnishing, which is using a polished tool to smooth the surface) of planchets was done only when several master coin pieces were required such as the original proof half cents of the 1840s. The speed of strike was as close to identical as the workmen could make - however, master coins were struck on a larger press than normal. Half cents and cents were made on a smaller press as were quarters. The coiner could have used either a half dollar press or the larger medal press (as used for 1836 dollars).

RE: proofs prior to 1840s used the same dies for proof & circulating examples. With a mintage of only 2,200 coins (of which none were known to be delivered unless they came with the 154,000 in 1833 with the 1832 & 1833 half cents) even if there were two types,  proof vs business , the two would be identical other than the burnished planchets. 

This is not consistently true but it is the most common case. The director's annual report made in January 1832 clearly shows 2,200 half cents delivered to the Treasurer in 1831.

RE: the mint did not receive any new kegs of new copper planchets until 1833 (discussions and ~26 (I forget the actual number, I have it written down somrwhere with the rest of my notes) kegs were delivered to Moore from the Crocker bros in 1832 but they weren’t used until the following years. They must have used leftover planchets from 1829, so even when burnished, I doubt the quality was high. These blanks were sitting in wooden kegs for two years in Philly.

Crocker sent the mint "a small parcel of copper planchets for your inspection" on October 30, 1832. These were the first. Dir Moore replied Nov 10 that the weight was good, "the diameter of the planchets are found a little too large for the collars." In April 26, 1833 Crocker sent 99 lbs of planchets which could be tested, and also said they were ready to accept bulk orders. Suggest you look at The Boulton & Watt Archive and the Matthew Boulton Papers from Birmingham Central Library incl correspondence and business records, NARA RG104 E-96 & 97 for starters and Account journals (referenced in E-96-97, and E-19, E-42, E-45, also E-1 general correspondence for 1829-1834, etc. Richard Doty's book on Matthew Boulton.

Edited August 22, 2022 by RWB
corrected spelling

[Bignubnumismatics]

The 2,200 were accounted for as minted, but not delivered.

Standard practices for the mint changed in the early 1830s (1829-1835)  as to how they reported mintages (which is why there is the mess with that half cents in the first place). Every quarter they would deliver coins to the treasury and report how many were struck , not how many were delivered. This is why there is such a disparity between reported mintages. Half cents had reported mintages much higher than what was actually coined. 

 

 

[RWB]

On 8/21/2022 at 9:36 PM, Bignubnumismatics said:

1) The 2,200 were accounted for as minted, but not delivered.

2) Standard practices for the mint changed in the early 1830s (1829-1835)  as to how they reported mintages (which is why there is the mess with that half cents in the first place). Every quarter they would deliver coins to the treasury and report how many were struck , not how many were delivered. This is why there is such a disparity between reported mintages. Half cents had reported mintages much higher than what was actually coined. 

1) Wrong. The report shows coins delivered to the Treasurer from the Chief Coiner during 1831, but does not ensure they were all produced that same year.

2) Silver and gold coins were issued from the treasurer to depositors as soon as ready. Accounts were recorded daily and reported monthly or quarterly depending on what the Treasurer U S wanted. However, copper coins were delivered to the Mint Treasurer several times a week, but only issued to the Treasurer U S Agent in Philadelphia. The Agent shipped them out to banks based on pre-paid orders. Again, date on the coin/year of manufacture was not important. The Treasury Agent during this time was also the Mint Treasurer and was paid a 1% commission on all copper coins he distributed. This was reported quarterly to the Treasurer US.

The sequence of custody of copper coins for this period was: Boulton and/or Crocker to Mint Treasurer to Chief Coiner to Mint Treasurer to Treasury Dept Agent to buyer. Copper account books were kept by weight. 2,200 half cents weighed 26.4 lb Avd (385 oz T). Accounts are not always clear about which weight system was being used. Copper, not being a precious metal, was shipped to the Mint by the long ton of 2,200 lbs.

PS: The first (and possibly only) request for half cents after 1831 was May 11, 1832 (reply May 16) for $2,000 to a customer in NYC.

Some questions to think about ---

What are your information sources? Can you divide them into documented facts, documented assumptions, hearsay, speculation, fabrication? How much of each do you have in your draft? Is your article a summary of what is presently known/assumed, or does it present new information?

What do you understand these terms to mean:  issued, delivered, distributed?

Edited August 22, 2022 by RWB

[Bignubnumismatics]

 

 

 

 

[Bignubnumismatics]

On 8/22/2022 at 9:17 AM, RWB said:

1) Wrong. The report shows coins delivered to the Treasurer from the Chief Coiner during 1831, but does not ensure they were all produced that same year.

2) Silver and gold coins were issued from the treasurer to depositors as soon as ready. Accounts were recorded daily and reported monthly or quarterly depending on what the Treasurer U S wanted. However, copper coins were delivered to the Mint Treasurer several times a week, but only issued to the Treasurer U S Agent in Philadelphia. The Agent shipped them out to banks based on pre-paid orders. Again, date on the coin/year of manufacture was not important. The Treasury Agent during this time was also the Mint Treasurer and was paid a 1% commission on all copper coins he distributed. This was reported quarterly to the Treasurer US.

The sequence of custody of copper coins for this period was: Boulton and/or Crocker to Mint Treasurer to Chief Coiner to Mint Treasurer to Treasury Dept Agent to buyer. Copper account books were kept by weight. 2,200 half cents weighed 26.4 lb Avd (385 oz T). Accounts are not always clear about which weight system was being used. Copper, not being a precious metal, was shipped to the Mint by the long ton of 2,200 lbs.

PS: The first (and possibly only) request for half cents after 1831 was May 11, 1832 (reply May 16) for $2,000 to a customer in NYC.

 

Some questions to think about ---

What are your information sources? Can you divide them into documented facts, documented assumptions, hearsay, speculation, fabrication? How much of each do you have in your draft? Is your article a summary of what is presently known/assumed, or does it present new information?

What do you understand these terms to mean:  issued, delivered, distributed?

All of my information is coming from primary sources, Mint documents, letters of correspondence, and the coins themselves.

[DWLange]

During the period of the first U. S. Mint (1792-1833) the coinage figures were reported in a manner that is confusing to researchers today. In addition the Mint had a practice of utilizing dies until they failed, regardless of the date they bore. Incoming Mint Director Robert M. Patterson prohibited the use of obsolete dies around 1835, though the Mint's figures are still subject to interpretation, as it operated on a fiscal year rather than the calendar one. As Roger noted, the dates these coins bore was irrelevant to the Mint's accounting, making it difficult to be certain of how many coins were produced for specific dates.

[RWB]

On 8/22/2022 at 12:59 PM, Bignubnumismatics said:

All of my information is coming from primary sources, Mint documents, letters of correspondence, and the coins themselves.

There appear to be too many mistakes for some of what you've posted to come from primary sources. If you want help, send me a PM and we can take a look at what you have and where it came from. (A "coin" is an historical artifact embodying results of processes and materials; not strictly a primary source.)

Edited August 22, 2022 by RWB

[RWB]

From mid-1795 copper coins were issued by the mint treasurer to the Treasurer of the US. From 1800 forward, the Purveyor of Public Supplies did this from his office in Philadelphia. He sold them to banks with the government paying transportation, insurance, packing, etc. by water plus 1% to the Treasury Agent. This continued to 1812 when the position was abolished. Treasury stopped most distribution beginning in Nov. 1811. The Agent approach was revives in 1816 but with the Mint Treasurer doing this and collecting a separate 1% commission. A New York City shipping agent was engaged in 1821 with several companies doing this. When Crocker Bros. won the Mint planchet contract in December 1837, they also forwarded kegs of coins in addition to those sent by the Mint Treasurer, NY forwarding Agent, and the Bank of the United States.

[CaptHenway]

I am perfectly willing to accept the theory that the 1831 coinage was from 1829 dies, but I don't think that anything can be proven at this late date.

[Bignubnumismatics]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:47 PM, CaptHenway said:

I am perfectly willing to accept the theory that the 1831 coinage was from 1829 dies, but I don't think that anything can be proven at this late date.

1831 half cents were definitely not created from 1829.

1829 half cents are of the first type, while hubs for 1831 and onward half cents were reengraved by Kneass.

1829 half cents also do not have true denticles, as collars were yet to be used in half cents (see 1828 dimes).

[DWLange]

That's not what Tom was saying. He said that PERHAPS 1829 dies were used for the currency half cents MADE in 1831. That would not be unusual for the frugal U. S. Mint.

[Bignubnumismatics]

On 8/24/2022 at 8:14 PM, DWLange said:

That's not what Tom was saying. He said that PERHAPS 1829 dies were used for the currency half cents MADE in 1831. That would not be unusual for the frugal U. S. Mint.

My apologies Tom.

That could be, but I would find it unusual. They had a surplus of them already( 900,000) in the treasury, with many going to the melting pot as well. As RWB pointed out above, the only order for half cents in this era really was a $2,000 order. Other letters to Moore show bankers specifically requesting they not be sent copper coinage (just half dimes and dimes).

With the mint happenings it is definitely possible though.

 

[RWB]

Communities, and the banks within them, needed small change: cents, half dimes and dimes. Many bank requests are for that combination of coins. The basic problem was that the Mint did not coin silver for its own account as it did cents so it officially had no small silver coins to distribute if they legally could. However, Moore and Patterson made occasional exceptions for distant rural banks and the feisty Postmasters who carried considerable influence. In an instance I recall, a Bank in rural Ohio got abut $50 in cents and the same amount in half dimes and dimes - everything was packed into one  keg and shipped at Treasury expense (which was only for copper coins). The director made sure to insure the keg for only the cent value, telling the Bank Cashier that the rest was at his risk.

[Bignubnumismatics]

On 8/24/2022 at 8:58 PM, RWB said:

Communities, and the banks within them, needed small change: cents, half dimes and dimes. Many bank requests are for that combination of coins. The basic problem was that the Mint did not coin silver for its own account as it did cents so it officially had no small silver coins to distribute if they legally could. However, Moore and Patterson made occasional exceptions for distant rural banks and the feisty Postmasters who carried considerable influence. In an instance I recall, a Bank in rural Ohio got abut $50 in cents and the same amount in half dimes and dimes - everything was packed into one  keg and shipped at Treasury expense (which was only for copper coins). The director made sure to insure the keg for only the cent value, telling the Bank Cashier that the rest was at his risk.

I believe it was a keg of cents + a bag of half dimes & Dimes to Norwalk Ohio. Not very far from where I live and I visit regularly so I hope to find the keg one day, lol.

[RWB]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:24 PM, Bignubnumismatics said:

I believe it was a keg of cents + a bag of half dimes & Dimes to Norwalk Ohio. Not very far from where I live and I visit regularly so I hope to find the keg one day, lol.

Yes, that's the example I was thinking of. There are others with almost identical requests.

It was impossible to provide small change for the citizenry if parts were not publicly distributed.

[CaptHenway]

Here's another wild speculation. In what quantities were Half Cents normally delivered from the Coiner to the Mint Treasurer and/or from the Mint Treasurer to the U.S. Treasurer? Was it a nice round number, like 10,000 pieces, or a round dollar amount, like $100.00, or what? I know that in later years the Mints likes to deliver things in nice round number when possible to simplify the bookkeeping, but I have no idea what things were like in 1831.

When the Mints did that, it meant that they had to carry some odd numbers of struck coins on the books as either planchets or bullion or work in progress or whatever until they had enough pieces to hit that magic number for a full bag or a full keg or whatever was customary. Then those previous year coins got quietly mixed in with the newer year coins and issued. There is the well-accepted story that all of the BU 1893-S Morgan Dollars came out of a BU bag of 1892-S dollars that needed about 30 (?) pieces to top it off. I think I have proven that 700 leftover 1872-S dollars (not enough to fill up a bag) were issued in 1873 and recorded as 1873-S coins that never existed.

So, 2,200 1829 Half Cents (not enough to fill up anything) could have sat around for a while waiting to be issued with 1830 Half Cents that never happened and then with 1831 Half Cents that never happened (except for Proofs) before the Coiner got tired of looking at them and the odd amount got pushed out the door.

 

I can't prove a word of it, but it's plausible.

 

TD