Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Newsletter of Medal Collectors of America
Volume 14 Number 5 June 2011
Board MembersJohn Sallay, President, [email protected] David Menchell, Vice President [email protected] Anne E. Bentley, Secretary, [email protected] Barry D. Tayman, TreasurerBenjamin Weiss, Webmaster John W. Adams David T. Alexander, [email protected] Robert F. Fritsch, [email protected] Margi Hofer, [email protected] Tony Lopez, [email protected] Scott Miller, [email protected] Ira Rezak, [email protected] Scarinci, [email protected] Michael Turrini, [email protected]
John W. Adams, Editor162 Farm StreetDover, MA, [email protected]
Barry Tayman, Treasurer3115 Nestling Pine CourtEllicott City, MD [email protected]
Benjamin Weiss, [email protected]
Editor of Collectors’ Guide, Dick Johnson([email protected])
Dues: $25.00 per year electronic, $55 per year hard copy
What’s New on Our Website! www. medalcollectors.org
MCA Calendar:
Members Meeting at Chicago ANA Convention - August 18th 3:00 pm
● ● ● ●
Contents:
From the Editor 2
The John Adams Franco-American Jeton Collection 2By Warren Baker
The First Ever MCA Medal 9
Book Review10
Letters to the Editor12
Vernon Section12
From the Editor
This issue of The Advisory is important in several respects. First, the lead article deals with Franco American jetons, a subject covered by many famous numismatists over the years. Our author, Warren Baker of Montreal, sums up the research done by his predecessors and then suggests a new perspective on the seminal issue for the series: is it an original or a restrike? His close analysis of each piece plows much new ground. The accompanying images are superb and, no doubt, will be saved along with the article by all who read it. Second, we introduce the first ever Club medal for Medal Collectors of America. Although the project is not yet complete, it is well launched. We are proud to introduce the parents of our medal, well-known sculptor Alex Shagin and veteran designer Gerry Muhl. These two have donated their formidable talents to the cause, assuring us of a great result at a bargain price. Finally, I need to introduce a new publications team comprised of Charlene Lopez, Tony Lopez and Bob Williams. They possess the technical expertise and design talent totally lacking in ye editor. We are fortunate indeed to have them shaping an end product that, I venture to predict, will have readers grinning from ear to ear.
1 The John Adams Franco-American Jeton Collection
By Warren Baker
I’m pleased to have had the opportunity of acquiring the fine Adams collection of Franco-American jetons. . The Ford collection of these jetons was long considered the best ever assembled of that series, and this was indeed an accurate statement. However, with Adams’ acquisitions at the Ford sale, it can now be claimed without fear of contradiction that the honor of the most complete collection in private hands belongs to John Adams. The most
extensive collection overall belongs to the Bank of Canada, with images thereof being available online. The Adams collection of Franco-American jetons contains every year of issue in original state, and most years include obverse variants, atypical of the one generally encountered and theorized to be the “true original”. This subject will be covered further along. ̵̵̵̵̵ ̵̵̵̵̵ ̵̵̵̵̵ ̵̵̵̵̵ ̵̵̵̵̵ ̵̵̵̵̵ ̵̵̵̵̵
Produced during the French and Indian War, (Canadians refer to it as the Seven Years War) the jetons have been the subject of debate for years due to the fact that so many obverse portraits have been combined with the reverses of the jetons. These pieces were produced annually from 1751 to 1758 but, by 1759, the tide had turned against France, and there was little incentive to produce a jeton for that year.
This interesting and complex series has the distinction of having been classified in works on North America numismatics in two ways. A section of C. Wyllis Betts work on historical medals of America (New York, 1894) has considered them of medallic interest, and Leroux in his 1888 and 1892 editions has included them among the tokens, the word jeton being the literal translation of token so therefore easily incorporated within the token series. This is not to suggest that there was any confusion by these worthies as to what status to assign the pieces. They are another category, unique to the North American series, and a spot had to be found for them in both works. Leroux appears to be the first to identify the different obverse types, but the illustrations are in many cases inexact. Breton described single obverse types in his 1894 work, but adapted the Leroux cuts in his 1912 “Popular Illustrated Guide.”
Zay’s descriptions, brief as they are, appear to me to properly describe “true” originals. The one exception may be the variety he describes with unsigned obverse of the 1751 jeton (Br. 510) which appears to exist only as a late 19th century restrike. It may, on the other hand be a correct assignment, and simply not
3
have come to the attention of Ford and others. Feuardent has catalogued the jetons in a manner which accepts only one obverse as original to the issue. He adds others, but considers them restrikes, or at least non-contemporary. Strangely, his “original” obverses frequently differ with those of the “Mercure”; the exceptions are the obverses for Br. 510, 515, and 519 which tally with those in the “Mercure”. His inclusion of the unsigned bust on Br. 514, though not the one assigned in the “Mercure” is the one typically found, and one I would assign as a “true original”. That author has also commented in his Preface that during the French Revolution the practice of striking medals and jetons of historical interest was replaced by the production of those that would appeal to the revolutionary ideals of the day.
As Michael Hodder suggests in his preliminary remarks on the jetons catalogued in the Ford collection, the series has confounded all those who have attempted to bring order to them. I am certainly one of those, and make no claims to solving the riddle. The Mercure de France with its engravings of obverses for jetons of each year should be the standard, but it is not always accurate, and with several obverses being so similar, it is something of a problem. If we are to accept the fact that only one obverse was used for the “true original” Royal jeton of each year, the series would be seriously decimated. Those not corresponding would be relegated to the status of restrikes by the purist, but virtually every numismatist has been more tolerant, and acceptant of the fact that 18th century pieces edged in the Castaing machine should be considered original. Frossard and Wayte Raymond in his cataloguing of the W.W.C. Wilson Sale have certainly accepted these 18th century pieces as “original”, but they in fact have accepted several of the beveled edge bronze pieces as original which I believe to be early to mid-19th century strikings. Cases in point would be Br. 511 and 513, represented in this collection. The Raymond plates of the Wilson obverses, for which halftones appear in some of the 1925 Wilson sales, were reproduced
by John Ford who had acquired the original plates from the Raymond estate. They are superior to the halftones, but tend to complicate the issue even more as many of those obverses must apply only to restrikes. Indeed I have noted obverses that appear repeated. These are Obverses U and W which appear identical, and an examination of pieces so identified in the Ford Sale seems to bear this out. Much has been made of weights, with lightweight silver pieces exceeding in value those in finer condition which are naturally heavier. Die rust has been another issue, and many of the pieces, including the “true” originals exhibit this feature. One of the obverses by J.C.R. (Joseph Charles Roettiers) is one used as early as 1733, as indicated by the illustration in the Mercure de France, so one might expect traces of rust on an obverse held for twenty-one years. But there is none! There is, in my opinion really no way of determining, in most cases, the contemporary or “true originals.” Copper jetons also vary in weight, but I believe that plain square edge pieces are original, though the same may vary in weight. Two bronze examples in this collection of the 1756 jeton (Br. 517), both from rusted obverse die, differ in weight by almost 30%, but I don’t make the determination that the thick piece is later than that struck on a thinner flan. Unlike coins, weight standards were not likely observed. In any event, there does not appear to be any way of proving much of what has been speculated upon.
The Mercure de France issues published in the months between March and May illustrate the various jetons struck by order of the King as New Year’s Day gifts. The jetons had, in effect, been struck in the preceding year; e.g., that of 1751 was struck in late 1750. Anywhere from ten to thirteen of these Royal jetons were struck; one only commemorates France’s American “Colonies”. A single obverse portrait is engraved in the Mercure, and this has given rise to the notion that this illustration represents the “official” obverse. This does appear to be the case for the jetons of 1751 (Wilson Obverse H in AE & AR plate, Wilson Obverse E in
4
pewter); 1752 (Wilson Obverse L in AE.); 1755 (Wilson Obverse U in AR.); 1756 (Wilson Obverse P in AE.); perhaps that of 1757 (Wilson Obverse U? in AR.) ; and 1758 (Wilson Obverse Y? in AE. and AR.). None of the engravings show the engraver’s signature, and the sketches are not exact depictions, but it does appear that these Mercure sketches are approximations of the main obverse type for the series of each year. In the case of the jetons of 1753 there are no entries in the Mercure for that year. The illustration for the first of the fur trade jetons (beavers building dam) shows an obverse different from the two normally accepted “true” originals. The Mercure portrait depicted is the cuirassed bust by Francois Marteau (Wilson Obverse W, Adams 22) , and though considered “original”, is slightly later than the Wilson obverses C and D.
[1] Br. 510. Indian princess, 1751. Sub Omni Sidere Crescunt. (They increase beneath every constellation.). Wilson Obverse H, signed D.V. for Jean Duvivier. Frossard 8; Feuardent 1559; Gadoury 100. AE. original. plain edge. 117.9 grains. about e.f., and if once cleaned, nicely restored to natural colour. Ted Craige, ex-Baker. Betts has only noted the rare variety with alligator (crocodile).
[2] Same as above. 105.9 grains. v.f. Ford XIII , AE lot 464.
[3] As above, but silvered. Gadoury 99. AE. 106.5 grains. e.f. ex-Ted Craige.
[4] As above. AE. with plain edge. 106.6 grains. e.f. ex Ford XIII, lot 462 where offered as original in AR. Not so, this is a silvered bronze piece.
[5] As above. Wilson Obverse D. AR. Restrike of the 1950s, the second last restrike from L’Administration des Monnaies et Medailles. 198 grains. unc. ex-Ted Craige.
[6] Br. 510. Betts 385. Indian with alligator, 1751. Catalogued as Wilson Obverse A, but is Wilson Obverse C in my opinion. Obverse and reverse unsigned. The feature distinguishing the two types appears simply to be the presence of a stop after the X in REX on Obverse A; no such stop occurs on Obverse C. variety. A fair amount of die rust occurs on the obverse of this piece, but I see none on the reverse. Not in Frossard or Wilson Collection, but the latter, in lot 380 contains a pair (copper and silver) of restrikes. Gadoury (Deuxieme edition, 2007) illustrates a similar jeton, i.e., same obverse and reverse. Ford Sale XIII, lot 457 shows a much later version of the same jeton, but with edge marked ARGENT, and on a much heavier flan (177.0 grains). This AR original jeton weighs 94.3 grains. reeded edge. ex-Ted Craige who considered it a restrike. John Adams and John Ford considered it to be original, and I agree, though it is difficult to ascertain whether it is not late 18th century. My opinion on the series is that thin flan, reeded, unmarked edges should be considered “original”, and that term I interpret to refer to 18th century pieces. Silver jetons of this era are not difficult to identify as such. Original. Very fine.
[7] Br. 510. Betts 385. Indian with alligator, 1751. Wilson Obverse U, but not in Wilson Collection, obverse signed FM in script for Francois Marteau; the reverse is unsigned; not in Frossard; Feuardent 1560 (no mention of rev. variant); Ford XIII, lot 465 for a similar piece. Gadoury illustration 108a. Slight obverse rust, as had the Ford piece. AR. original. 89.8 grains. reeded edge. . e.f. ex-Gadoury.
Wilson Obverse U & W appear to me to be identical. Clute theorizes that the crocodile variety, though not illustrated in the Mercure de France may have been rejected due to being too limited in geographical scope, crocodiles not being found in the Ohio valley nor the St. Lawrence River.
5
[8] Br. 511. Betts 387. Mule of two 1752 reverses,. incorporating the obverse of the Compagnie de Indes jeton, with the Mercury oversea reverse. Wilson Collection, lot 389 for a pair of originals in silver and copper; Frossard 18; Gadoury 110; Ford XII, lot 470 for similar piece, AE, early restrike. plain beveled edge. 129.7 grains. ex-Ted Craige. unc.
The denticles and border of Wilson lot 389 (obverse II) are remarkably similar to the above specimen. The Ford specimen, with similar plain edge, was more than 20% heavier at 162.7 grains.
[9] As above. Modern 1950s restrike in AR with plain edge and “argent” stamp. 194.5 grains. unc.
[10] Br. 512. Betts 386. Mercury over sea, 1752. Utrique Facit Commercia Mundi (He creates commerce for both worlds). Wilson Obverse L, see lot 389, obverse and reverse unsigned; Frossard 16; not in Ford Collection; Gadoury ill. of A.N.S. specimen. ae. original, plain edge, 113.6 grains. Apparently very rare; the Wilson specimen sold for $50.! This is the true, and possibly only original of this jeton,doubted by Blanchet, but generally matching with the Mercure obverse. It was, however, noted by Zay. v.f. Ex-Iegor.
[11] As above, unlisted obverse signed FM in script. Modern 1950s restrike in AR with plain edge and “argent” stamp. 187.4 grains. unc. [12] Br. 513. Betts 388. Sun over globes depicting the two hemispheres, 1753. Statis Unus Utrique. (One enough for both). Wilson Obverse S, signed FM in script for Francois Joseph Marteau; reverse unsigned (see lot 405 of the Wilson collection where this type sold in described as “Silver original, copper original and restrike.”; Frossard 22 who considered the piece to be original. An early restrike, likely of the same period as the bronze jeton, Br. 511
listed above. Gadoury lists several obverse types, but had been unable to establish prices on any. AE, plain, beveled edge, 130.7 grains. ex-Scott Barnes. e.f.
The exclusion of jetons of this year in the Mercure may indicate that none were issued, and that all known pieces are restrikes. The Ford collection did not contain a specimen.
[13] As above, unlisted obverse signed “M”. Modern 1950s restrike in AR. 191.0 grains. unc.
[14] Br. 514. Betts 389. Beavers at dam, 1754. Non Inferiora Metallis. (Not inferior to the precious metals). Described as from Wilson Obverse A, but is Obverse C in my opinion. The obverse is unsigned; reverse is signed C.N.R. for Charles Norbert Roettiers. See note to Br. 510, A/C obverse with alligator reverse. Frossard 33; Feuardent 1565; Gadoury 131; Ford XIII, lot 471, the sale example, considered by the cataloguers to be earlier than subsequent pieces aAR. original. 88.5 grains. lightly reeded. v.f-e.f.
[15] As above. Wilson Obverse D, signed J.C.R. in monogram for Joseph Charles Roettier; reverse as preceding. AR. original. 92.4 grains. reeded edge. unc., has been cleaned, but a rather stunning example. Frossard 32; Feuardent 1566; Gadoury 129. Provenance given as “C.G.B. FPL # 16 Jetons #432" Presumably, Coin Galleries Bulletin, Fixed Price List 16.
It is strange that the most typical, and clearly original obverses, Wilson Obverses C & D have not been mentioned by Betts.
[16] As above, 1950s restrike. AR. 192.4 grains unc.
[17] As above. Catalogued in Ford XIII as Wilson Obverse W, signed FM in script for Francois Marteau; reverse as preceding. Wilson Sale contains a specimen with this obverse in
6
AE. Not in Frossard; Feuardent 1568; Gadoury 140; Ford XIII, lot 476 (that specimen) AR. original. 111.0 grains. reeded edge. slightly rusted obverse. e.f. ex-John J. Ford Coll.
[18] As above, Wilson Obverse. Y. though John Ford noted a couple of minor differences. The obverse is signed R. filius in script for Joseph Charles Roettiers, fils; reverse as preceding. Not in Frossard; Feuardent 1567; Gadoury 144; Ford XIII, lot 477 (that specimen) AR. original. 94.6 grains. reeded edge. Rather rusted obverse die. v.f. ex-John J. Ford Coll.
I have carefully examined and compared Obverse W with U and can see no difference whatsoever. This is the obverse described by Betts.
[19] Br. 515. Betts 390. Argonauts vessel, 1755. Non Vilius Aureo. (Not less valuable than gold) Wilson Obverse J, signed FM in script for Francois Marteau. Frossard 36; Feuardent 1573; Gadoury 150; Ford Sale XIII, lots 478-480 for similar pieces. AE original. plain edge. 116.4 grains. v.f.-e.f.
[20] As above. Catalogued as Wilson Obverse U, (prob. same as W) signed FM in script for Francois Marteau; reverse as preceding. Frossard 34; Feuardent 1571; not in Wilson Sale; Gadoury 146. AR original. reeded edge. 94.6 grains. slightly rusted obverse. e.f. ex-Ford XIII, lot 485.
[21] As above. 1950’s restrike. Wilson Obverse X. AR. 186.8 grains. unc. 35.
Br. 514 and 515 both commemorate the fur trade in Canada. The beaver trade of the French colonies in America was the predominant source of revenue for France, and the beavers building a dam in the jeton of 1754 seem to be the start of a story, continued the following year with the jeton portraying a beaver pelt suspended from
the top of Jason’s galley. Indeed, due to the lack of hard currency and mistrust of paper currency, beaver was adopted as a medium of exchange,. In the Indian country many, if not most of the bills of exchange and promissory notes were “payable en castor”. The term “made-beaver” was early on introduced by the British as a standard of trade in which all goods were reckoned. This system endured almost to the beginning of the 20th century.
[22] Br. 516. Betts 391. Reverse of the preceding Argonauts jeton muled with Department of the Marine jeton (Neptune) of 1741. AR. original. reeded edge. 154.5 grains. e.f., both sides X cancelled. Not in Frossard; Not in Wilson Sale; Gadoury 159 who cites this specimen, sold at Ford XIII.
There is some controversy regarding the originality of this hybrid. None of the earlier writers dispute it, and Wayte Raymond “liked to call this the rarest of Canadian tokens”, according to John Ford. Feuardent called the piece “ancien”. The combination of these two reverses is not entirely without meaning if one recalls that the Department of the Marine administered the colonial finance prior to 1750 Br. 516, being a product of the 18th century, I consider to be “original”. Appearances of copper specimens have occurred in the following sales: Morris, 1912, sold for $27.50; Wilson, 1925, sold for $57.00 (described as “rarest of Canadian jetons”; Courteau, 1944, SOLD (the only French regime piece sold prior to the catalogue printing); Gibbs, 1952, sold for $45.00; Ford Sale XIII, lot 517, sold for $4025.00. The above appearances may all represent the same jeton. The Morris specimen was purchased by Wilson; the Wilson piece was purchased by Raymond (according to Ford) and sold at the 1952 A.N.A. where referred to as ex-Courteau, and purchased by John Ford which specimen sold for $3450. Other copper specimens known at Bank of Canada Coll., ex-Ferguson; A.N.S., ex-Tennant. I have a note
7
stating that two other specimens are privately owned, but cannot verify this today. In regard to the silver piece, I sold an e.f. specimen (weight 151.5 grains, reeded edge) for $7,500.about ten years ago, and note one other specimen in a private collection.
[23] [Br. 516. ] Wilson Obverse E. by Duvivier. Rev. Department of the Marine jeton, 1741. 1950s. restrike, ca. 1950 in AR. unc.
[24] Br. 517. Betts 393. Bees swarming across water, east to west, symbolizing the migration of Frenchmen to New France, 1756. Sedem Non Animum Mutant. (They change their homes not their minds) Wilson Obverse P, signed M for J. A. Meisonie. Frossard 43; Wilson Sale, lot 430; Gadoury 166. Ford Sale XIII, lot 490, this specimen. AE original. 88.4 grains. plain edge. Choice unc.
[25] As above. AE on a somewhat thicker flan than the previous specimen, 112.4 grains, a.u., little color.
Both pieces are struck from rusted obv. dies, and there is no difference in the state of die rust between either piece. This is the earliest of the copper pieces, and I know of only one other obverse type.
[26] As above. Wilson Obverse W. according to its offering in Ford XIII, lot 494, but, as previously stated there does not appear to be any difference between Obverses W. & U. Signed FM in script for Francois Marteau; reverse as preceding. Frossard 34 who states “plain edge”. Not so. Wilson Sale, lot 434. Gadoury unlisted. AR original. reeded edge.101.6 grains. Choice e.f.
[27] As above. Wilson Obverse Y. Signed R. Filius in script for Josph Charles Roettier, fils; reverse as preceding. Frossard 41; Wilson Sale, lot 433; Gadoury 161. AR original. reeded edge. 87.2 grains. v.f.-e.f. ex-Warren Baker.
[28] As above. AR reeded edge. 95.3 grains. e.f., a scratch through curls, opposite L. Ex-Roy Hughes, J. HoareAuctions, auction 32, lot 1460. 2/95.
2500.The last two Obverse Y jetons show some interesting variances. In the first case (no. 35) , the curls are flatly struck up, and a small amount of die rust occurs; the edge is deeply reeded, and “R. filius” is strongly struck up. The second (no. 36), shows the curls well struck up, but there is more die rust than the preceding; the edge is less deeply reeded, and “R. filius” is weakly struck up, yet this jeton is the heavier of the two. These anomalies demonstrate the complexity in determining precedent issues. Both exhibit features that can be interpreted as being either an earlier, or slightly later issue. As both are 18th century, I consider both original.
[29] Br. 518. Betts 394. Mars armed with uplifted spear and French shield, and Neptune with trident on a shell advance toward rocky shore at left, 1757. Parat Ultima Terra Triumphos. (The remotst land prepapres triumph) Wilson Obverse C. Unsigned obv. Frossard 33, who calls it “plain edge.” All original specimens that I’ve seen have a reeded edge, as does this piece. Feuardent 1578. Wilson, lot 434 also has plain edge; this piece tallies with Wilson, lot 435. Gadoury 170. Ford Sale, lot 498 (this specimen). AR original. reeded edge. 95.6 grains. coinage strike. e.f
[30] As above. AR reeded edge. 92.3 grains. medal strike. v.f.-e.f. ex-Jim King.2000.
[31] As above. Unsigned obverse, Wilson Obverse O. Not in Frossard who lists no copper originals; not in Feuardent; Wilson Sale, lot 436; Gadoury 171b. AE original. Plain edge. 106.2 grains. choice a.u. and rare, superior to the Ford specimen. ex-Hughes Sale, J. Hoare Auction, lot 1461. 2/95.
8
[32] As above. Wilson obverse Y. Signed FM in script for Francois Marteau. Not in Frossard; Wilson Sale, lot 437;not in Feuardent; not in Gadoury who only represents the medal strike.(174). AR original. reeded edge. 94.0 grains. coinage strike. e.f. ex-Ford Sale, lot 506.[33] As above. Wilson unlisted obverse. Signed R. Fil. for Joseph Charles Roettier, fils. not in Frossard; not in Feuardent; Gadoury 173a notes this specimen. AR original. Reeded edge. 106.1 grains. e.f. ex-Ford Sale XIII, lot 509, the only one known.
[34] Br. 519. Betts 395. A flock of eight sea eagles flying over the sea toward a rocky shore to left, view of fortified city in background, 1758. Eadem Trans Aequora Virtus. (The same valour beyond the seas.) Wilson Obverse Y. Signed R. filius in script for Joseph Charles Roettier, fils. Frossard 50 catalogues a restrike; Feuardent 1581, lists a copper piece only; Wilson Sale, lot 442 offers a pair of silver and copper originals. The subsequent lot offers the same types in restrike form. Gadoury 182 for coinage strike. AR original. reeded edge. 112.3 (grains. v.f.-e.f. ex-Ford Sale, lot 513.
[35] As above. Obverse unsigned, Not in Wilson or Frossard. Late 19th century restrike with unrecorded obverse. Not in Feuardent or Gadoury. AR plain edge stamped “argent” appears to be early 20th century. Matte surface. 163.5 grains.
[36] As above. Obverse V. Signed “R. filius” for Joseph Charles Roettier, fils. Not in Frossard, Feuardent, Gadoury. AR restrike on larger flan than preceding, but earlier, being late 19th century. plain edge stamped “argent”. 181.3 grains. ex-C.N.A. Auction, 1969, lot 22, and with an earlier ticket dated Dec. 24, 1918 which indicates it was purchased from Ottawa collector and dealer Henry Melancon
[37] As above. Modern 1950s restrike Wilson Obverse Y. Edge stamped “argent”. AR. 201.7 grains. unc. The vague image of a fort in the background on the heights of a rocky shore may have been intended to represent Quebec, the capital of New France.
[38] Betts 392. Mercury at seashore, his right hand to ear; behind him, enemy frigates bearing the ensign of Ireland and France sailing side by side. “Salus in Flvctib vs”; in ex. “Status Rervm.” Rev. Crowned Indian warrior with feathered girdle standing to left, with a bow in his left hand and an arrow in his right; his right foot is upon a crocodile. At right, a female seated upon a sea-horse beside the ocean, bearing in her right hand a Temple of Fame, and in her left a sceptre, and at her feet a cornucopia. AR. 34 mm. Frossard 52. AR plain edge. 34 mm. good ef. ex-Dr. Patterson.
Betts and Frossard have listed this with the jeton series, but it is a medal, albeit of a smaller size than the typical issues of the British and French. The Oswego “medal” would conform more to the definition of jeton, being only slightly larger, and produced by a French medalist. Indeed, Feuardent recognizes it in his “Jetons et Meraux”, but lists it under a small category titled “conquered countries” (no. 11478). The Mercury medal is by a German artist, and the subject relates to an invocation for peace between the two nations, as considered by George Parsons.
References cited or utilized:
Betts, C. Wyllys. American Colonial History Illustrated by Contemporary Medals. New York, 1894.
Breton, P. N. Popular Illustrated Guide... Montreal, 1912. Breton has duplicated the cuts used in Leroux’s 2nd edition.
9
Buckley, R. F. The Franco-American jetons-originals or restrikes? In C.N.J., Vol. 23, No. 2, February, 1978, pp. 53-56. Clute, Stanley. The Franco-American Jetons Re-examined. C.N.J., Vol. 26, No. 9, October, 1981. pp. 402-417.
Feuardent, F. Jetons et mereaux depuis Louis IX jusqu’a la fin du Consulat de Bonaparte. 3 vols. Paris 1904, 1907.1915 and 1 vol. plates. (Particularly vol. I, p. 117-118, and the volume of plates featuring obverses.)
Ford, John J. Jr. Coins, medals and currency Part XIII. Sale by Stack’s, New York, January 16, 2006. This sale includes Ford’s collection of French Colonial Coins and Tokens, and the jetons are represented from lot 457 through 517.
Frossard, Edouard. Franco-American Jetons. New York., 1899.
Leroux, Dr. Joseph. The Canadian Coin Cabinet. Montreal, 1888, and Montreal, 1892. Different obverse cuts have been used in the 2nd
edition which conform more to the actual portraits depicted on the jetons.
Mercure de France. Issues of 1733 and March to May, 1751-58.
Parsons, George M. The colonial jetons of Louis XV, and other pieces relating to the French colonial possessions in America, and to their conquest by England. Columbus, 1884.
Wilson, W. W. C. The important Numismatic Collection formed by the late W. W. C. Wilson Montreal, Canada... Catalogued by Wayte Raymond, sold at The Anderson Galleries, New York., November 16-18, 1925. Lots 378-447 represent Wilson’s collection of jetons. Some catalogues contain halftones of the various obverses used, and John Ford, who owned the original photographs produced copies in a limited quantity.
Zay, Ernest. Histoire monetaire des colonies francaises... Paris, 1892. Jetons pour les colonies de L’Amerique are covered on pp. 61-64.
The First Ever MCA MedalDesigner – Gerry MuhlEngraver- Alex Shagin
The Club is extremely fortunate in having a world class team volunteer to produce our first medal: The engraver of our medal is Alex Shagin. He was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) in 1947. He graduated from the Vera Mukhina School of Arts and Design, after which he took a position at the Leningrad Mint. There he designed medals for such important events as the Apollo-Soyuz space mission and the 1980 Olympic Games. Alex had quickly risen to the top of his profession but, in Russia, he felt that the political ambiance was stultifying his creativity. He moved to Los Angeles in 1979 (having first done the 1980 Olympic medals) and, from his shop in that city, he has been turning out a steady stream of notable art medals. These have won him acclaim at exhibitions in this country and Europe, typified by his winning the J. Sanford Saltus award from the American Numismatic Society in 1995. The designer of our medal, Gerry Muhl, brings similarly impressive credentials to the project. He studied history at S.U.N.Y. Cortland and did his graduate work at Syracuse University before entering the teaching profession from which he retired (at a young age) in 2000. A member of the Rochester Numismatic Association since 1977, Gerry has designed more than two dozen medals for that club, as well as other medals for other numismatic organizations. Not one to shirk his civic responsibilities, he has designed medals for the City of Rochester and for the University of Rochester. Indeed, a listing of all the medals
10
for which Gerry has been responsible would make an excellent piece for The Advisory. Thank you Gerry and thank you Alex; for taking us under your talented wings. Members will enjoy seeing the initial design of the first ever MCA Medal and will look forward to the opportunity of owning one when they become available.
Book Review
The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint (How Frank H. Stewart Destroyed –
And Then Saved – A National Treasure)(By Joel J. Orosz and Leonard D. Augsberger)
Joel Orosz has a “thing” for 1792 half dimes. This fervent interest led him to contemplate an article on John Ward Dunsmore’s iconic painting: “Washington Inspecting the First Money Coined by the United States”. In addition to this work, it seemed to make sense to include Edwin Lamasure’s “Ye Olde Mint”….but, then, what about the man who commissioned both paintings, Frank Huling Stewart, and what about the artists’ other works and what about their biographies (none having ever been written”) ? Moreover, it quickly became apparent that “Washington Inspecting” was factually flawed – “it represented a triumph of artistic license over historical accuracy”. The whole story cried out to be told right, not only the story of the paintings but the stories of Stewart and of the Mint itself. These stories were inextricably related and, together, represented a large chunk of the very foundation of U. S. Numismatics. Beginning to recognize the magnitude of the project, Orosz enlisted fellow author/researcher, Leonard D. Augsberger. Hand in hand, they set out on a four year odyssey, criss-crossing the country for original material which, thanks to relentless pursuing, they found in copious amounts.
To whet our appetites, the authors describe a comparable project in the 19th
century. As the golden anniversary of our Independence approached, it became apparent to the good citizens of Philadelphia that the location of the Declaration House, the place where Thomas Jefferson had penned the famous document, was no longer known. Great effort was applied to solving this mystery and the fact that the effort involved one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, as well as Dr. James Mease, a pioneer numismatist who, when active
11
in his medical practice, had worked alongside Dr. Benjamin Rush in combating the yellow fever epidemic of 1793. This clever Introduction sets the tone for the rest of the book: yes, the authors are out to solve mysteries but these mysteries are wrapped in important history.
Most numismatists know Frank Stewart as the author of “History of the First United States Mint”. Indeed most American numismatists own the book. However, with extreme diligence, the authors fill in the details of the man, his highly successful business, his patronage of art and, most important, his ownership of the building which had housed the original U. S. mint. To some, biography may be dull, but not when it includes a running account of a man’s courtship as taken from the diaries of his prospective bride, Rose. Readers come away knowing so much about Stewart that they can empathize with the dreadful dilemma he faced, torn between a desire to preserve history in the form of a building and the need to demolish it in order to make way for a growing business.
The chapter on “The First United States Mint” is particularly outstanding. Heavy sleuthing was needed to verify the exact location of the land and then the no-less-than-ten buildings that were erected on the plot. The layout begins with 1793 and is then updated to 1796 and 1817. To leaven the heavy use of schematics and real estate records, the authors provide biographies AND pictures of the early employees as well as all the mint directors. A real tour de force!
Collectors will enjoy the discovery during demolition of a cache of dies, including that for the 1811 half cent, the very one that ended up in the possession of Joseph Mickley. Also found was a pair of planchets for silver center cents, which were duly preserved in Stewart’s collection along with an array of oddments that would appeal more to the curiosity of the antiquarian than to the acquisitive nature of a numismatist. Particularly insightful is a discussion of the first press owned by the Mint, what it was and what it was not.
There are separate chapters for the works of Edwin Lamasure (“Ye Olde Mint”) and for John Ward Dunsmore (“Washington Inspecting the First Coinage”). The comparison between the versions of these scenes as rendered by the artists and the reality behind them took detective work of the highest order. The journeys of the original art works from creation to the present time are chronicled, as are the existence of sketches, reproductions and copies. Lamasure and Dunsmore were leading commercial artists of the day, yet these chapters represent the first credible biographies of the two, as well as the first appreciation of the corpus of their output.
In addition to the content, there are two extraordinary dimensions to the book. The first is the cornucopia of images – people, buildings and documents. However did they find them all? The second is the authors’ highly readable writing style. Often witty and always to the point, Orosz and Augsberger make us so comfortable that we readily forget the tedious searching that was required to get the job done. Their style make what was a Labor of Hercules seem like a walk in the park.
No book is perfect and, on this score we would note an occasional tendency toward overkill, the most notable being the entire chapter “Artworks Inspired by Frank H. Stewart’s Commissions”. To collect this information offered a challenge to the authors, but it distracts the reader from the main themes of the book. Also noted is a Preface that doesn’t really fit. Eric P. Newman has written for the Preface a scholarly and commendable primer on our early coinage. However, it does not provide a logical bridge to what follows, for which the publisher must take the blame. Having “gigged” Whitman Publishing, it is only fair to commend them for an outstanding job of book design; the layout and bordering of the photographs serves to knit together smoothly hundreds of images of varying age and clarity.
An absolute minimum of warts aside, “The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint” is a
12
major work, correcting countless pieces of misinformation and solving a lengthy list of longstanding mysteries, the whole of which offers up an entertaining and immensely informative set of insights into “one man, one Mint and two masterpieces of popular art.” There is no member of medal Collectors of America who can afford to forego owning this book. It is available from Whitman Publishing at the bargain price of $24.95.
Letters to the Editor
From: Clifford Mishler To: Adams, JohnSubject: Receipt of The MCA Advisory Dear John: Thanks for your note inquiring as to my receipt of the "Advisory." Congratulations and thanks for your superb performance in the capacity of editor over the past decade or so. Hope to see you at the ANA in Chicago, in the event our paths do not cross in the interim. Sincerely yours, Clifford
● ● ● ●
From: Roderic H. BlackburnTo: Adams, John
The Advisory comes though regularly, a delight to read.
Best Regards, Rod
PS. I have been asked (and have reason to want myself) about Julian's census of US Mint Medals: how many were struck of this or that.
Impossible to count them up by hand, so I scanned all the pages and created a database so I can look up such things. I have not heard if anyone else has done this, but I will be willing to handle inquiries if there is any need.
● ● ● ●
From: Leonard Augsburger To: Adams, JohnSubject: MCA Advisory
John- The latest format of the MCA Advisory is smashing. The content is equally appealing - you should retire more often! My best to Regina, who is probably the real brains behind this! I've re-upped for the print subscription. Such a production is more worthy of hardcopy than the virtual format.
Regards, Len
Admiral Vernon Medals
From: David Fanning To: Adams, JohnSubject: Vernon NLv 2-B
Dear John:
I just acquired an example of this rare Vernon type, but have a question for you about its rarity. On page 38 of your book, you list it as R8. However, on page 223, you state that five examples have been recorded. What is your best current estimate of its rarity? It's a neat piece.
Hope all's well with you and Regina.
Best, David● ● ● ●
Hi David - It is a neat piece and I can recall seeing only two. I will go back and check my
13
raw data but, I suspect, the R8 is correct and the "five" is a mistake. Well done!! John
● ● ● ●
From: David FanningTo: Adams, JohnSubject: Re: Vernon NLv 2-B
Thanks, John. Here are images of the piece:
[Sharp eyed David Fanning notes that this variety is listed as R-8 in the text of Medallic
Portraits of Admiral Vernon but 'five known' in the Census. Indeed, prior to this piece, I had seen only two examples. -Ed.]
● ● ● ●
From: Warren LloydTo: Adams, JohnSubject: Admiral Vernon
John - the collection has grown by one to 143 different, but I was not successful for NLv 2-B that sold on Ebay a few weeks ago. My bid of $444 was only the 3rd highest with it going for $463. Was a nice medal for wear, with a couple small holes. Guess at least 2 other collectors appreciated the scarcity of the medal. Last Saturday I went to my first coin show in over 7 months. Bought a few coins and a banknote for my other various collections, but did not come across any Vernon medals. However, I did talk with a dealer that has handled some. After I showed him your book and easily located NLa 1-A in your reference (a medal he has at home), he became interested in discussing the subject rather than just a response that he did not have any available for sale. Hopefully, it will lead to some future purchase. Finally, I started working on updating NeoCollect with your reference numbers. While I revised about 20 so far this week, I still have another 75 or so to do. I'm not just typing in your numbers...I'm also verifying my photos match up correctly. The MCA Advisory arrived, and once again great articles. Perhaps out of my collecting league, but I always enjoy reading about many areas. Also, sounds like a wonderful group of medals you are selling next January. In regard to the Advisory being sent out by computer...works for me. Another collecting club I belong to went that route a year or so ago. Warren
(Alert readers will note that Warren was bidding unsuccessfully for the very piece that, in the preceding letter, David Fanning has just acquired. Ed.)
14
15
