The first regular coins minted by the federal government with its own machinery and within its own building, were the 36,103 Chain cents struck at the Philadelphia Mint, March 1-12, 1793.  The dies for these four obverse and two reverse combinations were cut by Henry Voigt.  Coinage halted after a twelve day run because the Mint ran out of coin planchets.  

Voight was Chief Coiner, and considered the most able man available for the job.  However, his blacksmith and mechanic skills, appropriate for the striking of coins, were very different from those skills needed for the hand-cutting of steel dies.   Thus, his coin designs were kept quite simple.   Once the layout drawings had been completed, imparted to the die blanks by transfer wax, and incised by hand, an apprentice could then safely enter lettering and numerals.

The Mint did truly need the services of a Chief Engraver but no qualified candidates were available.  No one had yet been found with the skills for making device punches.  These skills were, of course, necessary for the mass production of dies needed for the striking of millions of substantially identical coins.  

This die making stuff was tricky business.  If the head of Ms. Liberty was to have any appreciable relief (and it could not have been much, given the small hand-powered coin presses then in use), then the reverses had to be of a simple, open layout with plenty of blank space in the central areas.   The chain device was an obvious reference to the chains on the Continental fractional currency of February 1776, the Continental tin patterns of 1776, and the Fugio cents of 1787 though now with the issuing authority spelled out as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Use of the decimal fraction 1/100 reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the decimal system and attempted to reach the then large class of people who could recognize numerals but could not read words.  Jacob Bay, a resident of Germantown, PA, had been making letter punches full-time for the Mint since December 1792.  Either Bay or Voigt could have easily cut a link punch to create the chain design.

The choice of the chain device, however, appears to have been ill-timed.  Many people deplored any attempt to associate liberty with the chains of slavery.  Not many people believed that the links of the chain represented the unity of the United States.  Dr. William Sheldon was somewhat fond of quoting a certain unnamed critic who alluded to “Liberty in chains.”

The obverse of the very first United States coin was certainly not above criticism.  As Walter Breen remarked on a number of occasions,  “despite extremely fine lines, the hair on Ms. Liberty’s head looks disheveled, then connoting failure of respectability and either madness or savagery.”   Carlile Pollock’s oft-quoted 1796  comment was also less than complimentary: “. . . a plough and a sheaf of wheat would be better than an idiot’s head with flowing hair which was meant to denote Liberty, but which the world will suppose was intended to designate the head of an Indian squaw.”   Dr. Sheldon even got in on the fun when he cited an anonymous gibe at the “wild squaw with the heebie jeebies.” 

The border of our beloved 1793 cents consists of a plain, raised lip without beading.  This plain border either did not strike up very well, or it wore down too fast, or maybe both.  Thus, beads were added to the Wreath cent and half cent dies.  Without this significant change, the coins probably would not have stacked.

The metallurgical knowledge of the day was most certainly lacking.  Thus, die steel was of poor quality.  Coinage dies did not last very long.  One needs only review the mintage records of the era and to look at the price progression of the Chain cents to confirm this fact.  

Breen believed that of the 36,103 Chain cents minted, that probably only 5% (1500-2000 coins) survive in all grades.  Most of the survivors are low grade because of the wear caused by the inadequate borders on the coins.  The story and history of the very first Federal-issue coins is quite interesting and appealing to the inquisitive minds of serious numismatists.

In closing, I would add the following exclamation point to this brief review of the 1793 Chain cents.  Less than one week after the coins first appeared, The Mail and Claypoole’s Daily Advertiser, two of Philadelphia’s newspapers of the day, ran the following story.  It was quickly copied in other papers up and down the East Coast:

The American cents . . . do not answer our expectations.  The chain on the reverse
 is but a bad omen for liberty, and Liberty herself appears to be in a fright.  May she not justly cry out in the words of the Apostle, “Alexander the coppersmith  hath done me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works!”

For the first time (but not the last), bad press and bad publicity forced the United States Mint to abandon an adopted coin design, and unintentionally create a rarity in the process.  Students and collectors of early American coins are the beneficiaries of this situation and story.

Check back in early July, 2013 for the summer edition of Numismatic Commentary.  I always try to choose interesting topics to explore . . .topics that will make you a better informed and more successful collector/investor.  Feel free to contact me by email at john@johndirnbauercoins.com, or visit with me at a coin show, to suggest topics for this missive.

References

*Q. David Bowers, Colonial and Early American Coins, Atlanta: Whitman Publishing, LLC, 2009.

*Walter Breen, Complete Encyclopedia of  U.S. and Colonial Coins, New York: F.C.I. Press, Inc  and Doubleday, 1988.

*Joel Orosz and Leonard Augsburger, The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint, Atlanta: Whitman    Publishing, LLC, 2011.

*William H. Sheldon, Early American Cents, New York: Harper, 1949.

www.johndirnbauercoins.com