Origins of 1841 Quarter Eagles and Similar Coins

During its first decades, the United States Mint was something of a hybrid government bureau. It began under the Secretary of State’s purview, then was transferred to the Treasury Department, where it was semi-autonomous. But it also had close ties and, occasionally, direct responsibilities to the Departments of War and State. In the midst of this bureaucratic assembly, Congress maintained, more or less, constant, if erratic, oversight and issued its own demands.

This situation occasionally left the Mint in an awkward position. The best known and most notorious was the production of national medals as ordered by Congress. The Mint did not have explicit or even implicit authority to design and strike medals. But Congress ordered several awards be made for military valor, Indian relations, and other purposes.

In the early nineteenth century, only the Philadelphia Mint had a screw press large enough to strike a 76-millimeter-diameter medal. To allow the Mint to do the work, the Chief Coiner and/or the Mint Director arranged for designs and engraving, and mint employees struck after hours using Mint equipment.

Everyone was paid for their time, and the Mint usually advanced sufficient metal to complete the project. There was no reimbursement of the Mint for equipment use, wear, or damage.

Eventually, this led to the removal of Coiner Franklin Peale in December 1854 and the authority to open a separate Medal Department.

The other circumstance, and the one leading to the 1841 quarter eagle debate, also originated with Congress.

According to Acts of Congress in 1806 and 1834, the Mint had “The duty of reporting to the [Treasury] Department the fineness and value of certain foreign coins…” [1] Until 1857, foreign gold and certain silver coins were legal tender in the U.S., and accurate exchange values between dollars and other currencies were critical to businesses. [2]

This report was usually completed each year using foreign coins pulled from bullion deposits, but without consistent assurance that the randomly selected coins were representative of foreign mintage quality. The required “Annual Reports on Foreign Coin Values” gradually became less annual as the variety of commercially imported coins increased and governments altered monetary policies with little prior notice.

As director, Patterson noted in 1839,

It may be remarked, that part of the coins mentioned, as the Crown of France, and the Spanish Dollar (except the unimportant issues of the Peninsula) have become obsolete; and that the Federal Republic of Colombia has been broken up; so that there is, properly, no longer any Colombian coinage. I may also advert to my last annual report, as containing specific information in regard to the gold coins of Great Britain, Portugal and Brazil. [3]

…Steps were taken last summer, to account with the Department for the coins and fragments transmitted to the Mint… I do not find that any account was taken of the value of the coins at the time of their receipt; and indeed, this was scarcely practicable, as many of them were new to us, and could only be determined by the assay. It would seem that the intention was to account for them in mass, after the object, for which they were sent, were fulfilled. I have therefore made the best settlement that could be arrived at, under the circumstances, and am satisfied that a just return is presented in the accompanying schedule. The amount will be placed to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, as of this date unless you shall otherwise direct. [4]

Patterson closed his letter by making a bold and eminently practical suggestion.

I would take the liberty to suggest that the want of new coins for the Annual assay, which has heretofore much embarrassed us, might be obviated by an order of the Department to Consuls or Commercial agents, resident in European and American Nations, to furnish annually, duplicate series of coins of the latest emissions. It was by a Circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, under date of August 31st, 1833, that the specimens were procured, which are herewith accounted for. The object might equally well be attained, if the Director of the Mint should be authorized by the Department, to make the request of Consuls, to forward such specimens to the Mint, to be charged by them in their accounts as usual, and to be placed to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States here, as soon as their value could be ascertained. This method would only be resorted to in cases where the coins could not be procured at home. [5]

The process anticipated that State Department Consuls would acquire two complete sets of current, or new design coins from their respective national posts. These would be sent to the Mint and charged as diplomatic expenses to the Consul’s accounts with the Treasurer of the U.S. Postage was negligible because the coins would be in diplomatic pouches already covered by the State Department. Patterson’s intent was repeated in a letter of May 4, 1840. [6]

Who Held the Coins in Their Accounts?

According to the 1838 Catalogue of Cabinet Coins, gold coins were held in the custody first of Adam Eckfeldt and then, beginning June 1838, by Melter & Refiner Franklin Peale. At the end of 1838, gold Cabinet coins were in account with the United States, while silver and copper remained directly with Peale.

Amount of an overplus which Mr. Peale had from 1839, as Melter & Refiner, for which he not being chargeable, but desires to place it in the Cabinet; whether this disposition can properly be made of it is not decided, but for the present is so used, and can be refunded and put to credit of Profit & Loss, upon receiving a new appropriation. $128.00

Cabinet gold coins, hypothecated with the Melter & Refiner, put in his custody, and to be redeemed by the next appropriation. $720.86.

Additional gold coins, hypothecated in the same way. $24.20 [7]

This seemingly confused situation was routine for the Mint and Treasury Department. Governing laws were outdated, incomplete and often confusing. What should have been a simple shifting of funds from the Cabinet collection appropriation to the Treasury Department. Things were further confused by Congress’ adoption of the “independent Treasury” concept, and economic disfunction from failure to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States.

Further, with official opening of the Mint’s “Cabinet of Coins, Medals and Ores,” Congress made annual appropriations specifically for acquisition of items for the collection.

As shown in the illustration above, Congressional funding began at $1,000 per year for 1839-1841, then dropped to just $200 in 1842 eventually leveling off to $300 for the next several decades. The only restrictions were that funds had to be spent on the collection itself, and not for other items such as display cases. [8]

Here we can glimpse the beginnings of a different, perhaps more logical and purposeful explanation for 1841 quarter eagles; and possibly for many of the superb Master coins (aka “proof coins” [9] populating the 1840s and down to about 1857. [10]

Background of 1841 Quarter Eagles.

What do we know about 1841 quarter eagles, regardless of whether made as proofs or made for circulation?

All available mint records report that no quarter eagles were struck in 1841.

This includes reports of coinage deliveries from 1832 through 1854. [11] The Director’s Annual Report to the President is likewise silent, mentioning only eagles and half-eagles coined at the Philadelphia Mint. [12]

Unlike 1840 where we have almost complete monthly gold reports (below), there are no such reports for 1841 in the archives. The Annual Assay Commission report is useless because in this era all gold coins from the same mint were melted together – a single assay was assumed to apply to all denominations.[13] The report of gold coins reserved for assay for 1841 show no quarter eagles were retained. [14]

There are no account journals showing proof coins made and who acquired them. This is because proof coins were included in ordinary coinage reports. They were not sold, but simply exchanged for the same coin in ordinary condition.[15] There was no profit and nothing for which to open and maintain an account

Numismatist John Dannreuther indicates that all proof quarter eagles from the 1840s were made with the same reverse die.[16] He also states that 1841 is the most numerous of the entire decade with “14 to 18 known.” [17]

Beyond these meager, mostly negative facts, 1841 Quarter Eagles have received several possible, implausible, and dubious explanations for their existence.

The most frequent scenario states that only a few of the known examples were made as proofs, and the same dies were used to make circulation strikes thus accounting for circulated pieces. [18]

Another speculation is “that someone specially ordered the 1841 quarter eagles for some special occasion and many of the recipients were non-numismatists, who either carried their souvenirs as packet-pieces or spent them.” [19] This supposition was expanded by an auction catalog lot description stating, “… your cataloger wonders if they weren’t distributed as prizes or gifts by a single generous benefactor to the demographic most likely to spend them: children.” [20]

Others are reported to have suggested the coins were produced for the inauguration of President William H. Harrison in March 1841.

Yet a further opinion is that due to poor striking quality of 1840 proofs, Chief Coiner Franklin Peale, tested the 1841 dies by striking a few pieces on ordinary, unpolished planchets using the proof dies. When this was successful, he then had planchets polished and proofs made. [21]

That’s a summary of present knowledge and speculation. Let’s get back to a few facts.

Return to Coin Acquisition

Patterson’s suggest was eminently practical, and Woodbury immediately gave him permission to contact American Consuls in search of current coins from other countries. Acquisition by Consular officers added a layer of official quality expectation and likely resulted in foreign mints providing proof or other ‘best quality’ coins to American diplomats.

…No objection is seen to the course suggested by you for procuring coins for assay at the Mint and you are, therefore, authorized to request foreign counsels to forward to this Department such specimens as you may require and which cannot be procured at home. The Consuls will receive credit in their respective account here for the cost of the coins received…. [22]

Although officially the coins were for assays required to create official lists of foreign coin values in U.S. dollars, Patterson had significant interest in expanding the Mint Cabinet. The coin collection might also have been part of attempts to raise the public profile of the Mint of the United States by attracting visitors, and exposing the populace to coins and medals from around the world.

With the Mint Cabinet of Coins inaugurated June 1838, on public view, and supported by a small annual grant from Congress, these foreign coins became a cheap source of new specimens for the collection. Foreign coins could be acquired at bullion value, and accumulated on Mint accounts as bullion. In 1839 we begin to see possible exchanges of sets of national coins between the United States and other countries, and requests by Patterson for foreign coins from U.S. Consuls.

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th inst., with the accompanying package, containing a series of the coins of the Netherlands, sent by Mr. Vandenbrock, Deputy Consul of the U. S. at Amsterdam. I had, before, received a letter from this gentleman advising this remittance, and conveying valuable information reporting the coinage of the Netherlands, in answer to a series of questions addressed to him by me, on the 22nd of April last. [23]

One of the earliest group of coins received included two complete sets of Russian coins in cases at a cost of $55.28 including shipment from St. Petersburg, Russia. Inclusion of cases indicates that either the Tsar’s government or the Consul (George M. Dallas) understood the coins to be more than merely assay specimens.

I have been requested by Robert M. Patterson, Esq, the Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to reserve two sets of Russian coins, and to remit them to his address with cover to your Department, and further, to charge the cost of them to the Government… [24]

Another early letter includes this extract regarding sets of Belgian coins.

I have now to state that I am forwarding to the Treasury Department via New York American Barge “Lucretia” Captain Andel Lewis, a second complete series of the decimal coinage of this country [Belgium], enveloped and addressed as you have directed me; on the inner envelope to yourself and on the outer to the Honorable to Secretary of the Treasury, the whole being under additional cover to the address of John J. Benedict, registrar, the United States Dispatch Agent at New York whom, I have requested to take charge of and forward the parcel to Washington with the least possible delay.
/s/ Thomas H. Barker, United States Consul, Antwerp. [25]

Additional sets came from Portugal, Hamburg, Brazil, Bavaria, China, Austria-Hungary, Jamaica and elsewhere. The sets are frequently mentioned in pairs with disposition usually to the Philadelphia Mint.

State Department diplomats were reimbursed by crediting the Treasurer of the United States out of the Mint’s contingent fund, with the fund “reimbursed by the coins themselves after the assay” was completed.[26] This arrangement was fine with Patterson and evidently Woodbury, but Treasury Department auditors, specifically the Fifth Auditor, sometimes rejected payment because there were no vouchers payable from remaining funds. [27]

There was no payment and little happened until May 1840, when secretary Woodbury insisted that the accounts be settled. Patterson replied,

In attending to this suggestion, allow me to state that at the time I made request of the Department for it influence in obtaining suites of coins from foreign countries (which was promptly accorded), it was proposed that the accounts of consuls , for the same, should be allowed and settled at the Treasury, to be refunded by the Mint. With this understanding, I have been delaying the settlement of such accounts, until they should seem to have been pretty generally rendered, so as to make but one statement of the transaction. Most of the Consuls addressed have now transmitted the desired coins, but only five specific bills therefor have been forwarded, viz.: those of the Consuls at Amsterdam, Hamburg, St. Petersburg, Copenhagen and Rio Janerio. In obedience to your direction, however, I now render an account for the bills just referred to, and beg to know what disposition to make of the money, which is a part of a special appropriation for Cabinet coins to be reserved at the Mint, and is in readiness to be paid. [28] Future accounts of a similar kind will be settled as they shall be received. It may be proper to add, that the Coins remitted from the Consul at Stockholm have been — and those from Leipzig are to be, — settled here, without passing through the [Treasury] Department. [29]

[Account of Consul’s Bills]

Mint of the United States, To the United States, Dr.
For amount of bills rendered by Consul at Amsterdam, for coins, $ 15.93
For amount of bills rendered by Consul at Hamburg, for coins, $ 63.63
For amount of bills rendered by Consul at St. Petersburg, for coins, $ 35.28
For amount of bills rendered by Consul at Copenhagen, for coins, $ 22.75
For amount of bills rendered by Consul at Rio Janeiro, for coins, $ 25.45
$183.04

May 4, 1840. [30]

It is now clear that Patterson intended one of the sets from each country for the Mint Cabinet and was going to use part of Congress special appropriation for that purpose. In a follow-on letter Secretary of the Treasury Woodbury commented that “it may be as well for you to remit to him your check (specie) for $183.04 which he can deposit to his credit…” [31] by August we find a response to a direct request for United States specimen (master) coins from the U.S. Consul in Leipzig, Saxony.

Your letters of July 25th and December 2 (1839) although a good while on their journey, were safely received together with the specimens coins therein referred to. They would have been acknowledged earlier, but that I was waiting to comply with your request for specimens of our coinage by sending those of the present year. The series of 1840 has but lately been completed, as we have been introducing some modifications of design and dimension, which caused considerable delay.

I have this day caused to be sealed up for you a casket containing [a complete set of United States coins]. [32]

In September the American Consul in Vienna, John George Schwarz, was sent a complete set of U. S. coins, plus specimens (i.e., examples) of coins from 1794 and 1795, and South American coins that were considered rare in Europe. These were in response to the Consul’s inclusion of extra coins for the Mint Cabinet along with the assay specimens. [33]

It appears that following diplomatic use of master coin sets, the practice became part of the repayment to Consuls for the cost of assay sets secured for the Mint. It was, after all, merely specie and it seems that some of the consular officers presented the American coins to national museums or collections, thereby promoting the prestige of the United States. The Mint received coins from Leipzig with a face value of 21.14 Rixdollar, which the director paid in specie using master coins.[34] The quote below shows Patterson’s reconciliation of the values of Rixdollars with the specie value of U.S. specimens, demonstrating the absence of any added cost of making master coins for this purpose.

I have this day caused to be sealed up for you, a casket containing:

In gold One Eagle (value ten dollars)
In gold One Quarter Eagle (value 2-1/2 dollars)
In silver One dollar
In silver One half dollar
In silver One quarter dollar
In silver Three dimes (or one-tenth of a dollar)
In silver Two half dimes
In copper One cent (or 1/100th of a dollar)
In copper One half cent

Total Dollars 15.16-½.

The gold and silver coins are all of the standard fineness of 9/10, the same as the French, and the new standard of florins in Germany. The weight of the Eagle is 258 Troy grains; dollar, 412-1/2 grains, the smaller coins being in proportion. (The French gramme, I may here remark, is equal to 15-435/1000 Troy grains.) The present standard of our coins, were fixed by a general Mint law, enacted January 18th, 1837. [35]

Notice that the shipment included two extra dimes and one extra half dime, or twenty-five cents total, and omitted the half eagle. Patterson explained in the next paragraph.

I have endeavored to adjust the amount, as to meet your bill of Rixdollar 21.14, which I believe to be it equivalent or very nearly so. In doing so, I was obliged to omit the half-eagle of five dollars; which is conformed in all standards and devices to the other gold coins. The casket, which you will perceive, was not intended for this series, but having it on hand, I have though it would answer the purpose of a packing box as well as anything else…. [36]

The additions and omissions were intended to bring the U.S. coin face/specie value as close as possible to coins provided by Consul Dr. Johann Gottfried Flügel,.

As for the cost of making master coins, there was really no additional expense other than the few extra minutes required to polish dies and strike the pieces on the large medal press. All materials and labor was covered by normal appropriations and routine operation.

With several active numismatists inhabiting Philadelphia, and others visiting, the special pieces made by Eckfeldt and Peale could not long remain a “secret” –– if they ever were secretly or surreptitiously made.[37]

Matthew Stickney was introduced to William Du Bois at the Mint on May 9, 1843 by collector J. H. Morris of Philadelphia.[38] Within a month, Du Bois notified the collector that he would soon “strike some of the pieces you requested,”

After a good deal of effort, I think I have things in train to strike some of the pieces you requested, and I am promised them sometime next week. You have no idea of the difficulties in the way, on account of an entire change in standards, and in the system of coining. You will have to give the workmen five dollars which, with the intrinsic value, will be the whole cost. I presume ten dollars in all will cover the whole. [39]

Paying the workmen five dollars is a clear indication the Stickney had requested not only master coins but other pieces that would have to be re-struck from original dies during afterhours.

With an additional five dollars required to cover metal content, it was clear that Du Bois was involved in more than merely acting curator of the Mint Cabinet. A month later some of the pieces had been struck, but “[I] am waiting for one or two more, which will have to be struck,” was Du Bois’ note to Stickney. [40]

The wait was not long. A letter dated July 12 from Du Bois arrived on Stickney’s desk. It is significant to our primary subject on multiple counts including master coins, restriking, exchanges and the view of the U.S. Mint toward these activities

Dear Sir,
After an unexpected delay, which it was out of my power to avoid, I have at length sealed up a box of specimen coins, which I expect will leave here tomorrow morning, by Hatch & Co’s express, and which you may look for the day after tomorrow. Though you have had to wait some time for it, I trust you will feel well satisfied with its contents; indeed, I could not undertake to make up another such parcel.

It contains the following:

1. Two dollars of 1843, which I think are going to be scarce.
2. One half dollar of 1843
3. Two quarters of 1843
4. Two dimes of 1843
5. One half dime of 1843
6. One half-cent of 1843 (scarce).[Items #2-6 are bracketed “Chiefly Master-coins.”]
7. One dollar of 1804. This I was obliged to take out of the Cabinet, where these
happened to be a duplicate. It is out of the question to get a piece struck from dies earlier than 1837, since they are of a different standard, both weight and fineness, and no planchets are made.
8. Half cent of 1793, perfect; this I got from old Mr. Eckfeldt who has two or more, I believe.
9. A dollar of 1838, with flying eagle. A very scarce coin.
10. Two half dollars of 1838, with [flying eagle]. These have been struck this day, after a good deal of effort on my part, and you my prize them as very rare pieces. I do not believe that one of them ever went out of the Mint before. The collar and die were both broken today in striking a very few 5 pieces.
11. One half dollar of 1839, of a die which you never saw before, nor did I, until today. The die was made by Mr. Kneass, the late engraver, since deceased. A very few pieces were struck; I don’t think I could get another, except for the Cabinet, where there is none as yet.

The above makes 15 pieces, value $6.75. I paid three dollars for striking No. 10, the rest is for the box, etc. You have no ideas of the difficulty of getting anything done out of the common routine here – every one has his work to attend to and cannot be taken off. I should despair of ever getting another piece struck of former date. I think it not unlikely that for my pains in the matter you will be willing to spare me a few pieces of your Roman coin, which I want for myself. Such as you can easily spare (one of each sort) in pretty good presentation, will be very welcome. I shall not be unreasonable in my expectations; if you cannot spare any, it is of no consequence, and if you can spare a parcel, it will be agreeable. If you have any that you wish to sell, please to state the kind and price. Whatever you care to send, please forward by the same conveyance that takes this parcel, unless you have a private opportunity. [41]

Du Bois states that the value was $6.75 which is the face value of the silver coins; the half cents dated 1843 and 1793 were not included either because they were not a legal tender or their copper content was of trivial value.[42] Of this amount the 1843-date coins, except the dollars, were identified as “chiefly Master coins” suggesting they were similar to pieces prepared for diplomatic use and official exchange with other countries’ museums.[43] As current year coins they were worth face value although Du Bois notes the dollars “are going to be scarce.” [44]

As with other master coins from at least 1834 forward, the pieces are priced at face value – a clear indication that these “specimens” were considered part of regular coinage and not distributed at a premium or for private profit. [45] This also helps us understand why there are no Philadelphia Mint records of master coins struck: the coins had no special status or financial accounts. There was no reason to maintain a Mint Treasurer’s account for something that had no special value. Thus, master coins were evidently included in regular coinage totals. This method was continued into the twentieth century by rolling proof coin piece counts into total piece counts for each year.

Documents relating to master coins for diplomatic and museum exchange occur throughout mint archives for the 1840s and 1850s. The trend after 1839 is for increasing use of the sets, sometimes including gold, to exchange for similar sets of national coins and for foreign and ancient coins that were available from business and private sources. Diplomatic use focused on opening or supporting newer State Department contacts such as this mission to China.

It has occurred to us that among the articles which it would be expedient to send to China by our Minister, it would be well to include a complete set of the coins issued during the present year. On consultation with the President he concurs in the idea, and if you see no practicable difficulty, I desire you to have such a set prepared and placed in a neat case to be presented to the Emperor of China. Mr. [Caleb] Cushing will depart in about a fortnight, and of course they should be ready before that time.
Yours respectfully,
John Canfield Spencer,
Secretary of the Treasury [46]

The Mint’s bill for the set was $22.50 including Eagle, half eagle, quarter eagle, silver dollar, half dollar, quarter, dime, half dime, cent and half cent. [47] The case cost $3.10 which means the two copper pieces were simply not counted as legal tender.

Private exchange to augment the Mint’s Cabinet included individuals, Consuls acting as individuals, and even corporations. A notable series of exchanges took place with the East India Company. Patterson first wrote to Thomas Horsfield at the East India Corporation in hopes of acquiring antique Oriental coins from a private collection sold to the company.

I beg leave to ask of you a renewed favor, on behalf of this institution.
Having ascertained, from the recent work of Professor Wilson, [48] that the Hon. East India Company have come into possession of the whole of Mr. Mason’s [sic – Masson] collection of antique Oriental coins, amounting to many thousands of pieces, I have entertained the hope that a few specimens might be obtained for our Cabinet.

The kinds most desired are, those of the Greek princes of Bactria, Barbaric Bactrians, and Indo-Scythian kings of Cabul [Kabul].

We can offer in return, a suite of Master coins of the U.S., our national medals, or the price in money; together with our thanks to the Hon. Court of Directors and yourself, or whom may have the charge of this matter. [49]

It took a while for the letter to be acknowledged by Patterson was evidently pleased to receive a note on March 8, 1845 stating that a group of ancient Bactrian coins had been sent to him, and the East India Co. museum would like to make the proposed exchange. [50] The package included more than forty ancient coins from Bactria and associated satraps – certainly a prized addition to the Cabinet. [51]

In his reply, director Patterson acknowledges receipt of “antique coins” and describes the medals and master coins (1845 date) sent in return.

James C. Melvill, Esq.
Secretary,
East India Company, [London]
Sir,
I have had the honor of receiving your letter of the 8th ulto., which has been preceded by the package of antique coins, to which it refers. For this very valuable and interesting accession to our Cabinet, I tender my thanks to the Hon. Court of Directors, and to the gentlemen (including yourself), who have taken part in furthering my application.

Herewith is transmitted a package of medals and master coins of the U.S., which I beg may be accepted for the Company’s Collection. It contains the medals, in copper bronzed, of Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Q. Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler; the only Presidential medals that have been struck. Their uniform reverse is the emblem of amity with our Indian tribes, to whose chiefs they are presented.

The coins are a complete series of the present year.

I am very respectfully,
Your faithful servant.
R.M.P. [52]

Yet another exchange for ancient coins occurred with Prof. John Torrey of Columbia College (now Columbia University) in New York.

You may recollect that on the occasion of your visit to the Mint in February last, you left a small parcel of ancient coins for our inspection and intimated that perhaps they might be spared, wholly or in part, for the Mint Cabinet. Our assayers find that most of them are desirable for that purpose, and wish me to negotiate the matter with you. The pieces they ask for are 29 in number, chiefly Parthian and Persian, of the Arsacian [Arsacid Dynasty] and Sasanian dynasties, with a few Greek and Roman, of less rarity.

In a public and extensive collection, they will form an interesting and necessary part; by themselves, they will be incomplete, and comparatively useless. We hope therefore that you (or your son, if he is the owner) will accept in lieu of them the accompanying casket, one of which contains a set of gold, silver and copper coins of the U.S. for 1843, and the other a selection of European silver coins.

[If] The pieces not desired, are returned. Please inform me whether this exchange will be acceded to. [53]

In a follow-up letter Patterson states that similar offers are made in other cases including one that is pending.

We knew, at the same time, that they were not to be had in the way of sale. The least we could do therefore, was to offer the compliment of a set of our own coins, with a few others of the most interest. The transaction is not to be considered as a bargain, by any means. It is such an offer as we should make in any similar case, and as such, we expect to make shortly to a gentleman who has it in his power to furnish us with a suite of electrotype copies of Roman medallions; for which we intend to offer him a set of American medals. [54]

It appears that throughout the 1840s a similar process occurred annually. Consuls were asked to provide the Mint with two sets of coins (or possibly only coins whose specifications or designs had changed). One set was consumed in destructive assay to fulfill the obligation to prepare tables of foreign coin values. The second set was given to the Mint Cabinet for eventual public display.

To pay for the coins money came from two sources. The assay coins were paid for from the Treasury Department through its normal handling of diplomatic representative accounts. The Cabinet coins were paid by transfer form the Congressional appropriate in support of the Mint Cabinet collection. This was usually made by sending proof coin sets, or individual proof coins equal in exchange value, to the Consular post involved in the transaction. In some instances, such as China, the State Department paid for complete proof coin sets. At times and in different circumstances, such as Sweden or the East India Corp., exchanges took place through other avenues.

1841 Quarter-Eagle and Other Proof Coins

Based on available documentary evidence, it is the author’s opinion that 1841 quarter eagles, and most other proof coins of the 1840s were part of the duplicate set exchange with other countries described above.

One set of coins was destroyed during assay and valuation, and the second set was put into the Mint Cabinet collection. Any excess pieces – coins of date no longer needed – were issued along with coins of the current date and eventually entered circulation. This required no specific accounting since circulation and proof coins were counted at their nominal value.

Further, the origin of coin requests from official diplomatic Consuls probably encouraged countries to respond with the best quality pieces they could produce. This encouraged reciprocal behavior by the U.S. Mint is sending proof specimens back to the Consuls.

To be clear, the author feels this applies to all denominations including cents and half-cents [55] from about 1839 through 1850.

by Roger W. Burdette
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved.

Follow-on Research

To assist in verifying the author’s opinion several follow-on investigations are necessary.

• First among these is a deeper examination of proof coins known for the 1840s as described in John Dannreuther’s reference book.
• Second is a complete year-by-year search of Mint correspondence for the 1839-1850 period and extraction of all Consular or similar coin exchanges.
• Third is examination of NARA RG84 “Records of Consular” posts for all countries named in RG104 Entry 1 documents.
• Fourth involves examination of the United States coins in foreign national or mint collections to determine which pieces came from the United States by exchange and if those pieces are proofs. This includes confirmation of U.S. proof coins from the 1835 to 1850 period previously reported elsewhere.
• Fifth these data have to be analyzed and correlated with RG104 Entry 1 to determine if there is a correlation, and
• Sixth, compare these results to expert opinion regarding the quantity of each date and denomination known to exist in proof format.

Citations