CRAIG SHOLLEY ON THE CONTINENTAL DOLLARS

PREV ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE FULL ISSUE PREV FULL ISSUE

V20 2017 INDEX E-SYLUM ARCHIVE

The E-Sylum: Volume 20, Number 46, November 12, 2017, Article 17

Craig Sholley submitted these thoughts on our ongoing discussion of the origins of the Continental Dollar coins. Thank you! -Editor

I have been following with great interest the controversy concerning the Continental dollars and have discussed at some length with my good friend Rob Rodriguez, so my commentary will come as no surprise.

The issue I have with the proponents that these are a U.S. issue is they have yet to address the 600 lb. gorilla in the room: there is NO contemporary American documentation stating that these pieces were struck in the U.S. The U.S. documentation that does exist, the Pennsylvania Gazette and the New York Journal notices of 1776, merely note the proposal to strike coinage, not an actual striking, and make no mention of dollars or pewter. The Gazette notice is particularly weak as it states "We hear it is proposed..." Thus, it is nothing more than a RUMOR OF A PROPOSAL.

The London accounts are the only ones that say that a mint was established by Congress and coins were struck. We'll ignore the fact that this may well be nothing more than a story getting distorted over time and distance and get to the salient point. If the one wishes to convince me that the London accounts are correct, then show me documentation of where the mint was and that dollars were struck (any composition) or show me the authorizing legislation. Without contemporary American documentation, preferably from a Philadelphia source, then all the proponents have is some very shaky circumstantial tales, with "circumstantial" probably being too strong a word to describe these stories.

It is an axiom that the proponents of a theory must provide firm proof of the theorem or it must be considered void, however the proponents of the "U.S. struck" theory have consistently failed to do so. In fact, it is actually those arguing against that have provided contemporary American documentation that they WERE NOT struck in the U.S. in the form of Du Simitiere's statement. This statement is further corroborated by Dryander.

Regardless of whether one wishes to believe these statements or not, the simple fact is that both of these gentlemen were in a position to have knowledge of the subject and thus their statements cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. It is now up to the proponents to provide equally strong contemporary assertions that the pieces were struck in the U.S. or their theorem is then twice voided and well on it's way to becoming a numismatic black hole.

"Interpreting" bits and pieces of stories and attempting to stitch them into support will not serve. The time for the proponents to provide solid, direct, substantive documentation is long past due. Like the current generation is so fond of saying, "Video, or it didn't happen."

"Dryander" is Jonas Carlsson Dryander, librarian to Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, who cataloged the Banks collection.

I spoke with Craig and Rob in person at this week's Whitman Baltimore Coin Expo. See my Numismatic Diary elsewhere in this issue for more on the topic from Rob and Tony Terranova. -Editor

I would like to add clarification to the exhibit I provided for last week’s issue. After publication, I sent the exhibit identifying the 2-C Continental Dollar to my colleague Maureen Levine. She responded that she and Eric Newman had done the same thing in their Numismatist article, “18th-Century Writings on the Continental Currency Dollar Coin,” on pages 43 and 44. I did not recall their doing this; thus, I can honestly say that I corroborated their identification.