HAMILTON AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE U.S. MINT.CONTINENTAL CONGRESS BOARD OF TREASURY. An Ordinance for the Establishment of the Mint of the United States of America; and for Regulating the Value and Alloy of Coin. [New York: 1786.]

Printed broadside, bifolium leaf, 324 x 190 mm. Framed with small coin.

Rare broadside announcing the establishment of the United States Mint. The act, dated October 16, 1786, declares that establishes the offices of Assay Master to certify value, Master Coiner "to execute the business of coinage," and Paymaster "who shall be the Treasurer of the United States for the time being."

The Articles of Confederation granted states the right to mint their own coinage, which undermined the new nation's financial abilities. Alexander Hamilton's vision to rescue the young country's finances included establishing public credit and a national bank-and establishing a national mint. In the fall of 1786 the Board of Treasury submitted the present ordinance to Congress, where it was immediately approved. However, Hamilton could not complete the project until 1792, during his term as Secretary of the Treasury, when Congress passed the Coinage Act-establishing both the mint and the U.S. Dollar.

Most bibliographers assume this broadside was printed in New York during the brief period (1785-1790) when the U.S. Capitol was located there, though there is some question whether it might not have been printed at John Dunlap's press in Philadelphia. Evans 20074; Sabin 57509; Streeter Sale 1042.

Rob adds:

Bonhams Fine Books and Manuscripts Junior Specialist Tim Tezer writes:

Tim added:

Wayne alerted me to this item on Monday, October 10. My quick reaction was that it was areplica and didn't look right. I compared this to the known fakes illustrated in 1792: Birth of aNation's Coinage. It did not match any known fake or any genuine coin in the census.

On Tuesday morning I sent Wayne my reaction for publication in The E-Sylum. I declared that itwas a copy and that the lettering was too thick. Later in the day Wayne informed me that it wasin an NGC holder as a VF-35. That made my original opinion look very foolish. I asked Wayneif he could get the certification number.

On Wednesday, I got the number, 551258-001. That is a valid number verified by NGC. I alsogot a better photo for the obverse. I made a composite of the October 12 photo next to the October 11photo. I was amazed at the different appearance on two photos of the same coin. The thickness ofthe letters on the October 12 photo looked right for a legitimate coin.

On Thursday, October 13, I got a new set of photos including the back. The image quality wasvery poor. Again, I tried to match that to a coin in the census. There were coins that were similarbut I couldn't find diagnostic marks for a match.

Eventually I realized that I had another resource. We had gotten a list of NGC certificationnumbers for 1792 half dismes prior to publication. Cert number 551258-001 was issued on July31, 1998. Thus, it could not be any coin with a different number sold since then. The coin wasnot previously in the census and brings the number known up to 192. Actually, there are stillother pieces known but we have not seen photos to establish unique identifications.

Initially I told Wayne that I thought staff at the auction company would know what the coin wasand their brief comment showed that it had no value. A comment on Wednesday indicated thatthe cataloguer ran out of time to check.

A 1792 half disme in an NGC VF-35 holder realized $92,000 in 2008. [Heritage 9/18/2008, lot1555] The initial estimate from the auction company for the document was $10,000 to $20,000.They have now raised that to $20,000 to $30,000.

What owner would consign a coin worth $90,000 for an auction with an estimate of $10,000?One possibility is that the consignor is an heir with no understanding of the value. It is areminder that we should all let our heirs know the value of our holdings.

I will be very interested to see the result of the sale.

It reads as if Alexander Hamilton was involved with the Congress of the Confederation's Mint Ordinance of 1786. He was not, and didn't put his ideas on the Mint comprehensively into writing until his famous Report on the Establishment of a Mint some five years later.

The description also says that The only things wrong with this statement are:

1. Hamilton did not at any time work on the 1786 Mint Ordinance, or its failed implementation.

2. The Mint Act of 1792 was passed by a new Congress, created by the new Constitution, which completely superseded the old 1786 Mint Ordinance.

3. Hamilton did very little to establish the Mint beyond writing his famous report in 1791. Thomas Jefferson took the lead on the Mint's establishment, and Washington formalized the structure in October 1792, in which the Mint Director reported to the Secretary of State.

This is a neat framed collection, but it conflates two very different historical events. The Ordinance headline and broadside belong to the Confederation in 1786. Washington, Jefferson, and the half disme belong to the Constitution in 1792.

To read the complete lot description, see:
HAMILTON AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE U.S. MINT.(https://www.bonhams.com/auction/27609/lot/33/hamilton-and-the-establishment-of-the-us-mint-continental-congress-board-of-treasury-an-ordinance-for-the-establishment-of-the-mint-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-for-regulating-the-value-and-alloy-of-coin-new-york-1786/)