By some standards George T. Morgan’s career as an Engraver at the United States Mint was a bitter disappointment. Stuck in the Assistant Engraver’s position for over 40 years, he designed only one regular issue U.S. coin in a 49-year tenure, and succeeded to the Chief Engraver’s position only after his predecessor’s lack of imagination had caused coin design to be jobbed out of the Mint to more illustrious designers such as Augustus St. Gaudens and Victor D. Brenner. However, his one coin, the Morgan Dollar, is perhaps the best known U.S. coin today.

Born in Birmingham, England in 1845, Morgan attended the Birmingham Art School, and won a scholarship to the South Kensington Art School. He worked as an assistant under the Wyons at the British Royal Mint, and had the Wyon family not established a several-generation dynasty of engravers in the Tower Mint might have enjoyed a successful career there.

Morgan was brought to the Philadelphia Mint in 1876 as a “Special Engraver,” reporting directly to Mint Director Henry R. Linderman, whose office had been moved to Washington, DC, in 1873. Considering the Byzantine political system under which the Mint in Philadelphia operated in this era, with nepotism and political cronyism the order of the day, his action naturally makes one wonder what the 69-year-old Chief Engraver William Barber and his son, Assistant Engraver Charles Barber, thought of this arrangement.

The Barbers themselves had come from England and a family of engravers, and they no doubt thought that the precedent established by the Wyons of a son succeeding his father as Chief Engraver was a good one. However, Linderman was unhappy with the condition and appearance of the U.S. coinage in circulation, and he wanted someone new to try his hand at improving it.

During the Civil War, most U.S. gold and silver coins had disappeared from circulation, and either traded at barter rates or were shipped overseas. People tended to hoard their coins and to spend their depreciated “Greenbacks,” as the U.S. paper money issued to pay for the war were called because of their difficult to counterfeit green reverses.

At one point in the war, a U.S. $10 gold piece was worth over $35 in paper money. Fractional currency and new minor coins such as the bronze one and two cent piece and the copper-nickel three and five cent pieces met the needs of everyday commerce, as silver coins could only be had for change by paying a premium for them to money brokers.

By 1876 the U.S. Treasury had succeeded in getting its financial house in order to the point that it was able to pay out silver coins at face value for paper money, the increased mintage figures of 1875-77 reflecting this long-sought goal. However, much to the Treasury’s surprise, a flood of older silver coins soon hit the market. Even fractional silver coins dated before 1853, which had been pulled from circulation long before the war because they were about 7% heavier than the coins struck in 1853 and later, returned to circulation as huge silver discoveries in Nevada caused the price of silver to fall, making the coins worth more as face value than as bullion.

Linderman looked upon this flood of old, worn coinage and decided that it should be recoined, and that a new design should be used for the coinage. Apparently unimpressed with William Barber’s earlier Standard Silver patterns of 1869-70 and his blatant copying of various Seated designs by Gobrecht and Longacre in 1870-71, and perhaps influenced by the failure (though largely for reasons beyond his control) of Barber’s 1873 Trade Dollar and his 1875 Twenty Cents piece, Linderman brought in Morgan to create this new design.

In fairness it should be mentioned here that William Barber had created the stunning “Amazonian” silver pattern series in 1872 with its corresponding gold series that used the same reverse as the silver, and that his “Sailor Head” series used on various silver and gold patterns from 1875 to 1877 includes some of my favorite patterns ever struck, but apparently Linderman had it in for the Barbers. Had Linderman stayed in office until William’s death in 1879 he undoubtedly would have picked Morgan to succeed William, but he did not and Charles got the job.

The result of the 1876-77 competition (or “sweepstakes,” as noted pattern authority David Novoselsky calls it) between Morgan and the two Barbers was the creation of some of the most spectacular U.S. patterns ever struck, mostly in the half dollar size since that was the largest silver denomination being struck at that time (excluding the Trade Dollar, which by then was struck only for export) and it would show off the artists’ works to their best advantage.

The series is too extensive to detail here, but the reader is highly recommended to look them up in “United States Pattern, Experimental and Trial Pieces” by Dr. J. Hewitt Judd, the “Coin World Comprehensive Catalogue and Encyclopedia of United States Coins” by David T. Alexander and myself, or “United States Patterns and Related Issues” by Andrew W. Pollock, III.

Perhaps through bureaucratic inertia none of these designs was picked for a new fractional coinage by the end of 1877, and by then it was realized that the flood of older coins was simply too great to overcome. The Treasury bagged and warehoused tons of the older silver coinage, and paid it out as banks and merchants requested the denominations.

The production of dimes, quarters and halves fell off to a mere few thousand business strike pieces coined per year so that the Mint could justify selling these denominations in its Proof sets at a slight premium over face value, and did not return to normal levels until the surplus of dimes was disbursed in 1882, quarters in 1890 and half dollars in 1891. The design on these denominations was then changed to the familiar Barber head starting in 1892.

However, a blatant political power play begun in 1877 and enacted in 1878 set the stage for Morgan’s shot at immortality. On February 28, 1878, the Bland-Allison Act promoted by Representative Richard P. Bland of Missouri and Senator William B. Allison of Iowa became law over the veto of President Rutherford B. Hayes. In its final form, the Act required the U.S. Treasury to purchase between $2 and $4 million worth of silver per month on the open market and to coin it into silver dollars.

The political motivations behind the Act included the support of Western mining states which were being hurt by falling silver prices (caused in large part by their huge output) and an attempt to help farmers by inflating the money supply with the newly-coined dollars. In reality the dollars did not circulate well because of their weight and were largely supplanted by silver certificates, which in turn replaced other forms of currency and had little effect upon the money supply.

Shrewdly anticipating the bill’s ultimate passage, Linderman directed Morgan and William Barber in October of 1877 to prepare dies for a dollar coinage. Linderman chose one of Morgan’s half dollar designs for him to expand upon, and let Barber as Chief Engraver choose whichever design he wished to submit.

Barber actually created a new Liberty head for the second round of the competition, which contemporary numismatists (perhaps influenced by the Barber faction in Philadelphia) are said to have preferred over Morgan’s design, but with his patron running the Mint it was hard for Morgan to lose. After a few changes suggested by Linderman were made, the first Proofs of Morgan’s new dollar were struck on March 12, less than two weeks after the coin was authorized. The first coin struck was presented to President Hayes, despite the fact that he had vetoed the bill authorizing it.

Unfortunately, the new dollar dies were less than adequate. According to legend some ornithologist complained that the eagle shown on the reverse had eight tail feathers, whereas the eagle in nature always has an odd number of tail feathers. Also, the coins did not strike very well.

New hubs in what was hoped would be a better relief were made showing seven tail feathers, and several unused obverse and reverse dies were re-impressed with the new hubs and used. Although the eight tail feather reverse dies were ground down somewhat before being rehubbed, most (but not all) show remnants of anywhere from one to seven of the original tail feathers under the seven new ones. Common usage is to call these “7/8TF” dollars, although some purists insist that the “8″ part of that description is incorrect. As that was what was on the original design, it is what I personally choose to use.

However, the new hubs were in too low a relief, and a third set of hubs was made in late 1878. The most obvious difference is in the angle of the top feathering (or fletching) of the arrows in the eagle’s claw, and in the boldness of the eagle’s chest which was rather flat on the first two versions. Some of the leftover low relief 7TF reverses were used at the San Francisco Mint in 1879, and at the Carson City Mint in 1880, after which only high relief reverses were used through the suspension of coinage in 1904.

Linderman left the Mint due to failing health in late 1878, and Morgan was demoted to Assistant Engraver under the Barbers. Charles Barber assumed the position of Chief Engraver in 1879, and went on to design the Liberty Head five cents piece of 1883 and the Liberty Head or “Barber” Dime, Quarter and Half Dollar of 1892. Both engravers produced many Mint medals during their careers, and were influential in either the design or the engraving of several early commemoratives.

Barber died in 1917 in his 77th year, having seen his five cents piece replaced by James Earle Fraser’s Indian Head coin in 1913 and his silver designs replaced by Adolph A. Weinman Dime and Half Dollar designs and Herman MacNeil’s Quarter design in 1916. Only then was Morgan able to assume the position of Chief Engraver, in his 72nd year.

Because the U.S. Treasury had melted some 270 million silver dollars, presumably mostly of the Morgan design, in 1918 to loan the silver to Great Britain, the same quantity of dollars was to be recoined starting in 1921. Once a sufficient quantity of these was prepared, they were used to back the Series 1923 Silver Certificates.

Production of the Morgan design had ceased in 1904 due to the expiration of the authorizing acts and the huge stockpile of the coins on hand, and all of the dies and hubs had been destroyed by 1921. Morgan consequently set about recreating his 1878 design, but the relief of the coins was very disappointing. After some 86 million pieces of the Morgan design had been coined in 1921, production was halted to make the 1921 Peace dollar as a circulating commemorative marking the end of the First World War. This proved to be so popular that the design was adopted as the regular issue in 1922, though in a lower relief than the 1921 commemoratives.

Morgan died on January 4, 1925, and with him passed away a colorful era of old-fashioned engravers appointed by old-fashioned politicians. Though his replacements may use modern production techniques to produce coins that in some ways might be technologically superior to his prototype 1878 dollars, and certainly his 1921 dollar coins, the modern portrait series of coins leaves much to be desired. It is unfortunate that the U.S. Mint no longer has the position of Chief Engraver on its staff, or else we might see some new coins that are half as good as the pattern half dollars of the 1870s.

Republished with Permission by Harlan J Berk

Part 1-The Hiring of Christian Gobrecht

During a recent research trip to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, my research partner, Joel Orosz, had the excellent idea to call for the Robert M. Patterson personal papers. Three letters from Samuel Moore to Robert M. Patterson dated June, 1835 were located. At this time Moore was the outgoing director of the mint; Patterson assumed the Mint directorship in July, 1835. Patterson’s father had also been the Mint director, serving from 1806 to 1824. Tying the family knot even further, the incoming director Robert M. Patterson was the brother-in-law of the outgoing director Moore.

The first letter is dated June 16, 1835 and deals with the issue of hiring Christian Gobrecht as an engraver. Moore wrote to the Secretary of the Treasurer, Levi Woodbury, on the same day regarding the same issue. The Moore/Woodbury letter is largely reprinted in Breen’s Secret History of the Gobrecht Coinages. Between the two letters, it is clear that the outgoing director Samuel Moore dearly wanted to get Gobrecht hired into the Mint, which indeed occurred later in 1835. The first Moore/Patterson letter reads as follows (the second and third letters will follow in a subsequent edition of the E-Gobrecht).

Mint of the United States
Philadelphia, June 16, 1835

Dear Sir:
The necessity of having an additional Engraver in the Mint which has for many years been sufficiently manifest may be considered as imperative now, in order to supply the Branch Mints with the requisite dies [RandyWiley and Michael Fey, in separate articles in GJ #99, noted the situation of the New Orleans mint desiring additional dies]. Since the adoption of the Branch system I have had several conversations with Mr. Gobrecht to ascertain whether there is any hope of associating him with the institution – a mission I have long desired to accomplish. He is at present employed as an engraver of Bank Notes [multiple bank note proofs reside in the Christian Gobrecht personal papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania], but could, I perceive, be detached from that pursuit, if a timely assurance could be given him, of continued[?] permanent employment in the Mint, so that he could give due notice to the company now having claims on him. If he could receive the necessary assurance by the 10th or 15th July, it would enable him to devote his full attention to the Mint from the first January next [1836].

No provision was made in the acts of last session [of Congress] for a second Engraver here but all the Branches are left dependant on this source for dies [note Moore’s reference to a “second” , not “assistant” Engraver]. That another Engraver therefore must be assigned to the institution by act of Congress or in [unclear] of that engaged by print contract, is a matter of simple absolute majority and I therefore regard it as a thing virtually done in one of those ways. There is no diversity of opinion here, I think, certainly now at the Mint, as to the peculiar fitness of Gobrecht for the plans.

In a communication to the Department this day [Moore is probably referring to his letter to Treasury SecretaryWoodbury written the same day] I have suggested the strong expediency of adopting timely measures, in order that the commencement of coinage at the Branches may not be delayed for want of dies, and relying on my recollection of your opinion heretofore expressed in regard to Mr. G[obrecht], I took the liberty of referring to you presuming that you will certainly stop through Washington, and have an interview with the President [Jackson] and Secretary of Treasury [Woodbury]. Mr. Gobrecht could not I believe be secured on a less expectation than $1500, nor is it equitable that he should. In mentioning this in my letter to Mr. Woodbury I have taken occasion to impart again the views I entertain in regard to the inconsistency of the present Mint salaries.

Mr. Peale will be here in a few days [Peale had been dispatched in 1833 on a two year tour of Europe to study minting technology at the English, French and German mints]. Certainly, I think, by the [unclear, Moore seems to indicate a European departure of May 16th, expecting Peale’s return by the end of June]. He will have some good suggestions to offer, no doubt, on the subject of [unclear] dies, and Gobrecht has long had a desire to evince his powers in an effort of this character. I hope the spark[?] of the commencement of coinage under the Branch system may be [unclear] by something really beautiful.

On your arrival here you will be able to give an answer to Gobrecht, if it shall have been satisfactory to the President to authorize the requisite assurance in the case, and this will be in time for him to give the warning demanded by his current employment. I am in great regard,

Yours very truly
Samuel Moore

P.S. Afternoon – Mr. Peale has arrived.

The Samuel Moore Letters: Part II

In last month’s episode, the outgoing Mint Director, Samuel Moore, was found lobbying the incoming Director, Robert M. Patterson, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Levi Woodbury, to hire Christian Gobrecht as a second engraver. This month we look at the second letter of the series, from Moore to Patterson, dated June 26, 1835. At this point President Jackson has approved the hiring of a second engraver, and now Moore attempts to finalize the details of Gobrecht’s appointment.

“Received two days since from the Secretary of the Treasury a reply to my communication of the 16th [Moore had written to both SecretaryWoodbury and Patterson on July 16th, 1835] concerning the President’s [Andrew Jackson] approval of the arrangement therein recommended having in view the employment of another Engraver. A reply is enclosed.

The proposed grade of compensation being [unclear] approved by the President, I should feel at liberty to proffer specific terms to Mr. Gobrecht on which he would safely announce to his present employer the termination of their connection by the first of January [1836] relying on being from that period attached to the Mint at a compensation of $1500 [annually]. It seems, however, proper that this should be deferred until you arrive and especially I must first be assured that I have not misconceived your opinion in regard to Mr. Gobrecht before holding any further conference with him touching the employment in question. On this point please drop me a line – I know you can have his [unclear]. And if it shall be conformable to your impressions, I will acquaint him with the probability of his being invited into the Mint, and refer him thereafter to yourself.

The terms ‘assistant Engraver’ as employed by Mr. Woodbury without however appearing to lay any stress on them, as indicating a distinctive station. Certainly the conception of any inferiority of rank, would be very unsupportable[?] to Mr. G[obrecht] and this it will be proper to exclude which can easily be done. No inferiority in this respect was within my contemplation in the arrangement proposed. [The salient point here is whether Gobrecht was to be hired as "assistant" or "second" engraver - clearly it was Moore's intention that Gobrecht be hired as an equal to the current engraver William Kneass.]

It had seemed to me probable that during your [unclear] conferences with the Sec. of the Treasury at Washington he might acquaint you particularly with the views presented in my letter to him of the 16th [July], and this, notwithstanding the President’s prompt decision in regard to the Engraver, he will perhaps still do, if a convenient session[?] should occur. [Moore now moves on to unrelated points.]”

The Samuel Moore Letters: Part III

This is the third and last part of a series covering correspondence in June, 1835 from the outgoing Mint Director, Samuel Moore, to the incoming Mint Director, Robert Patterson, concerning the appointment of Christian Gobrecht as an Engraver to the U.S. Mint. Last time, Moore wanted to present the employment offer to Gobrecht but was awaiting final confirmation from Patterson. This third letter, dated June 27th, 1835 was written one day later. It reads as follows:

“Mint of the United States
Philadelphia, June 27, 1835

Dear Sir,
Yours of the 24th was received last evening [this letter apparently contained Patterson’s final approval of the offer to Gobrecht]. I called this afternoon on the Mr. Gobrecht who had not before heard of the approaching change here [Moore apparently refers to the fact that a new Mint Director will be soon appointed]. He looked concerned on its being [unclear, but the obvious implication is that Gobrecht desired the appointment and felt that his chances of receiving the position under Director Moore were favorable], but when informed of your appointment evinced the utmost gladness of heart.

Having stated to him the satisfactory terms[?] of the communication received from Washington in reply to my suggestions in regards to his being associated with the Mint, I referred the question to be adjusted[?] after your arrival [this possibly refers to the precise title which Gobrecht was to be granted at the Mint]. Render[?] no concern on account of a five days delay in your arrival. No inconvenience will result from it. I will attend to whatever shall require prompt action [Moore refers to the fact that Patterson was delayed in traveling from the University of Virginia to Philadelphia].

Yours truly,
[unclear]
Samuel Moore.”

Although Gobrecht’s appointment was to take effect January 1st, 1836, fate intervened. Chief Engraver Kneass suffered a stroke in August 1835, and the new Director, Patterson, requested permission from the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately hire Gobrecht as a second (not assistant) engraver. Gobrecht thus entered the Mint in September 1835. (See also Rare Coin Review, #126, November/December 1998, pp. 17-25.)

***********************************

[Editor's Addition - Bio]

MOORE, Samuel, a Representative from Pennsylvania; born in Deerfield (now Deerfield Street), Cumberland County, N.J., February 8, 1774; pursued an academic course and was graduated from the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia in 1791; instructor in the university 1792-1794; studied medicine and practiced in Dublin, Bucks County, Pa., and later at Greenwich, N.J.; spent several years in trading to the East Indies; returned to Bucks County, Pa., and in 1808 purchased and operated grist and oil mills at Bridge Point (now Edison) near Doylestown; later erected and operated a sawmill and woolen factory; elected as a Republican to the Fifteenth Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Samuel D. Ingham; reelected to the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Congresses and served from October 13, 1818, until his resignation May 20, 1822; chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs (Seventeenth Congress); appointed by President Monroe as Director of the United States Mint on July 15, 1824, and served until 1835; moved to Philadelphia, Pa.; became interested in the mining and marketing of coal and served as president of the Hazleton Coal Co. until his death in Philadelphia, Pa. February 18, 1861; interment in Woodland Cemetery.

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:

I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary’s approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that “shall admit the inscription thereon.” Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary “may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto.”

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary’s approval.

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.