I do metal detecting in NE Florida and several years ago I found a 1783 Georvis Triumphos. As I understand, these were minted after the second Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 to recognize George Washington’s victory (the name means George Triumphed). It was designed and minted in England where a great deal of controversy originated. The coin was supposed to have Washington’s bust on the obverse but the face shown more resembles King George III WHO LOST THE WAR. On the reverse is Liberty but she looks more like Brittania and she stands behind a gate intended to represent the 13 colonies but actually appears to be a gondola of a hot air balloon. (The theory is it’s to recognize the French contributions to our war. The began lighter than air flights in 1783. As a former hot air balloon pilot, I agree it looks like a gondola). The coin was known to have been used in Virginia, Georgia and Jamaica. My find and a second in St Augustine prove its use in Florida as well. This is the only Washington commemorative actually minted in 1783. Later ones carry the date but were made years later. My question is: Since this was made immediately after we officially became our own country, would this be considered to be America’s first coin?
The answer to that question would depend on how one defines "America's first coin". I would think that to qualify for that designation certain criteria would have to be met. And depending on who you ask those criteria could and almost certainly would vary greatly ! For me, there would be only 1 - America's first coin would be the the first coin minted by the US mint.
I don't know the answer to your question. But I do want to go metal detecting with you! What a sweet find.
Agree criteria would change. I am accepting of the new theory that the Fugio cent is the first coin. It was minted by the design and under the authority of a central US government to our specifications. Problem to me with your definition Doug is not all countries feel the need to operate their own mint. However, if they contract with another mint to strike a coin to their design, specifications, and is legal tender in their country is that not a coin of that country? If so, the need for striking at a certain mint is taken away.
To me it wasn’t minted by the US Mint so no, it’s not the first American coin. Your coin is believe to have been struck to commemorate the American Victory in the Revolutionary War. It is considered a Token. Obverse: Portrait bears a strong resemblance to England’s King George III, it is believe that this portrait was used because the creator of this token did not have a likeness of George Washington to work with. Inscription reads: GEORGIVS TRIUMPHO Reverse: Goddess of Liberty behind a framework of 13 bars and fleur-de-lis. Holding an olive in her right hand and staff of liberty in her left. Legend reads: VOCE POPOLI (“By the Voice of the People”) 1783.
That's the thing about definitions - isn't it ? By your definition why wouldn't the Continental Currency and/or the Nova Constellatio Patterns, (of which there were several), all of which predate the Fugio Cent, qualify as America's first coin ? They all meet your definition. That's kinda why I choose the definition that I do, it's a concrete definition with no ambiguity. With pretty much everything else there is ambiguity. And there are others beyond those I mentioned, that some would argue qualify as being America's first coin. But the definition I choose, it's nailed down with absolutely no room for argument because there was only 1.
Addressing only this part of the Post, the piece you present is not officially a first coin. I understand the introduction of the coin into the Americas shortly after we became a separate country from England. If that was the basis of consideration, then that Trophy would have to be extended to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and their establishment of a Mint in Boston in 1652. That was accomplished without the consent of England, and England was not even notified. It was strictly done to fuel commerce in North America. The Congress of Confederation gets a shout-out for the award of the Trophy, because in Feb. 1782, this Congress authorized the establishment of a Mint in the United States by Resolution, and authorizing the first general circulation of a coin in the U.S., which led to the Fugio Cent being produced in 1787. BTW, it was modeled and based on the Continental Dollar. The Coinage Act of 1792 of course established the authorization of the first Federal U.S. Mint. So........
And I would give the honor to the Fugio cent as it was contracted for and by the government. We did not have a mint yet and so contracted the production of our first coin. You may want to drop "legal tender" out of that as the Fugio was not legal tender (Neither were the half cents and large cents struck by the first US Mint. It doesn't have to be legal tender to be a coin.) Except the Continental Currency and Constellatio patterns were not officially authorized by the government. And in the case of the Continental Currency pieces may have been made in England after the end of the war in 1783.
Mostly agree. Base metal coins usually are legal tender to a degree, (that can be not as precise as our definition but could include acceptance of payment by the government), due to their intrinsic value not equaling the amount the government intended them to circulate at. Without some kind of mandate for use, the population would simply value them at bullion value, ruining the intended purpose of facilitating trade. However, in the case of the fugio, it was intended to be used in an existing coinage system, hence legal tender not being required. I think my original post was more answering Doug if a country created a new coinage system with a third party mint, the government would have to do SOMETHING to have all coins circulate at intended value. I guess this argument is not nearly as strong or make as much sense today with no circulating pm coins competing with base metal ones.
If we define "america" as the national government of a formally unified country comprised of the former English colonies, then no such entity existed before the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. And the first coin authorized and struck by that national government with the intent of circulation as money was the Fugio Cent. It matters not that it was a contracted mintage, it's still a federal issue. So, I agree with the recent numismatic redesignation of the Fugio as a US issue and not a Colonial and the first "American" coin. Other patterns, tokens, and private/state issued items did not have the imprimatur of money intended for general circulation and authorized by an act of the Federal government. I grant the point about the definition of a "coin" and other such ambiguous issues and that is why I defined my terms first.
Awesome finds, and fascinating piece of history. For me, the fact that they were minted in England make the OP's coin not really an American coin. I'm not ready to dive into the Fugio debate.
