Walter Breen
Despite this document, it is highly doubtful that Eckfeldt invented this hardening process. In a 1798 letter to Matthew Boulton, Boudinot asked for help with this process. While no record remains of Boulton's reply, in a follow-up letter from 1799, Boudinot thanked Boulton for the instructions, noting that "we have hitherto practiced the same principles .... (Letters sent from Elias Boudinot to Matthew Boulton, July 10, 1798, and April 22, 1799. Record Group 104, entry 3) It would seem that, rather than Eckfeldt inventing the hardening process, this method was common knowledge. Also, despite this writer's assertions to the contrary, the coinage for several years following Eckfeldt's hire still showed considerable cracking and die life was still relatively short.
While immersing the die was the best method to achieve a uniform and higher hardness, it placed a very severe shock on the forging. Any internal defect (forging seams or cracks, voids, etc.) would cause the die to fracture. The problem of the dies cracking and bursting during the hardening process was therefore due to the process exposing internal defects in the die rather than the one suggested.
The "spray process" of hardening would, however, have placed far less stress on the die and allowed one with even some relatively significant defects to make it through the process. The die would later fail in use, but at least it could be used for some amount of time. Many dies of this period show exactly the sort of cracking that would be expected if this were the case; they failed early, showing large, deep fractures, often bisecting the die.
The die breakage problem was, therefore, not due to the hardening, but rather the forging process. While the Mint would later revert back to the immersion process, the spray process was effective in getting the Mint through its initial problems. (For a full discussion, see Sholley, Penny-Wise, March 1996.)
Coining by Screw Press
The Mint used manually operated screw presses for its coining operations from its inception in 1792 until mid-1836, when the steam-powered presses gradually replaced them. While no detailed drawings or descriptions remain, a fairly good idea of their original design and operation can be constructed from Mint records and other contemporary sources.
In discussing the origin of the Mint's screw presses, it is first necessary to dispel one of the most enduring myths of United States numismatics; this being the "Droz Presses." (The following theory was first proposed to this writer (Craig Sholley) by R. W. Julian, April 1994.)
Stewart was the first one to propose that the Mint's original presses were supplied by the noted Swiss die-sinker and engraver Jean-Pierre Droz, whom the United States had unsuccessfully tried to hire as the first director of the Mint. Stewart based this conjecture on a 1792 letter between Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Pinckney, the United States minister to England, and a misstatement by Mint Director James Ross Snowden in his 1860 numismatic work.
In the 1792 letter quoted by Stewart, Jefferson relates: (Stewart, pp.31-33)
... Mr. Short was therefore authorized to engage Drost [sic] to come over, to erect the proper machinery and instruct persons to go on with the coinage; and as he supposed this would require but about a year, we agreed to give his a thousand Louis a year, and his expenses; the agreement was made, two coining mills, or screws, were ordered by him, but in the end he declined corning ...
Following the quotation of this letter, Stewart offered the speculation. (Stewart, p.33)
It is probable that the two coining mills ordered by Drost [sic] are those which Voigt mentioned in his now missing account book as having arrived from Europe, September 21, 1792.
Stewart's reference to Voigt's first account book is based upon Snowden, who is the only author to directly quote this now missing set of records. In this work, Snowden states: (James Ross Snowden, The Mint Manual of Coins of All Nations, Philadelphia, 1860, p. 99.)
The coining presses (three in number), which they were obliged to import from abroad, arrived at the Mint on Friday, the twenty-first of September; and under the date of the twenty-fifth of September, the same book from which we have before quoted states that...
Taxay picks up Stewart's speculation as fact, and unfortunately repeats it without reference making it appear as though he is quoting directly from the account book. Taxay also adds yet a third mythical press, this one by Eckfeldt, to account for the third press. (Taxay, p. 73.)
The Mint began with only one very small screw press, which had been built by Adam Eckfeldt. Two larger presses were sent from abroad by Droz, and arrived on Friday, September 21.
This all appears very neat and tidy, however there are serious problems with the "Droz hypothesis" and it falls apart under careful examination.
First is the fact that Snowden makes no mention of Droz or France as the source of the presses; only a nebulous reference to "abroad." (Snowden did not reference any of the Droz correspondence, so he may have been repeating ancient Mint rumor or he may have been speculating on his own.) Furthermore, it is apparent from Snowden's wording that he is not quoting directly from the account book at this point. Last, the number of presses, three, is not consistent with the Jefferson letters; most likely Snowden injected this number to agree with the Elias Boudinot 1795 report on the Mint which implies that there were three presses. (Stewart, p. 60. The wording of Boudinot's report is open to interpretation. Boudinot stated: "The three presses when completed ... " [emphasis by the author]. It is therefore the author's opinion that Boudinot was referring to the new presses from Samuel Howell & Co. (See Stewart, P: 178, warrant for Feb. 2), and not those currently in operation. Boudinot's report is also the basis for the current thinking that there were "three original presses". However, three presses in 1795 does not necessarily mean that there were three presses in 1793. The archive records are unclear as to exactly how many presses the Mint obtained in 1793. There may have only been two, or there could have been more than three. See the following footnote on the Harper presses.)
From the lack of direct quotation and the inconsistency with the Jefferson letters, the account book said nothing about the source or number of the presses arriving, but likely only gave a brief notation of the date.
Also, a careful reading of the letters concerning Droz shows that he never supplied the presses. They were ordered from him, just as he was hired to be the Mint's first director, but he never supplied the presses just as he never came to the Mint.
Particularly interesting is a passage in a letter from our minister in France, William Short, to Thomas Jefferson on October 14, 1792: (Taxay, p. 56.)
Hitherto when I have pushed him [Droz], which was very often, to lose no time in executing the machines which were to be made here, he always answered that he had several articles to complete first ... It would be unsafe however I fear to count on him.