Q.David Bowers
The Bank of New York, established in 1784, distributed a list of coins, their weights, and the accepted value at which various foreign gold coins would be received in payment. The New York Register, published in 1789, noted that "payments made at the bank must be examined at the time, as no deficiencies suggested afterward will be admitted." Many of the gold coins circulating were counterfeit.
It was considered unwise to accept a coin until it was pronounced genuine. Confusion arising from a wide variety of denominations, designs, and countries of origin aided counterfeiters. To this was added the problem of clipping (removing small amounts of metal from a coin's edge) and sweating gold coins.
It is believed that Ephraim Brasher was called upon to assay, test, and otherwise evaluate many of these foreign gold coins. Once this was done, apparently his counterstamp, usually in the form of the letters EB in an oval, was impressed upon each as a permanent iden-tification. Several specimens of EB-marked foreign gold coins are known today, including a rose guinea of George III, a quarter guinea of George I, and a half Joe of Joseph I which appeared in the James Ten Eyck Collection sale held by B. Max Mehl in 1922.
S. Decatur, in an article entitled "Ephraim Brasher, Silversmith of New York," (American Collector, 1938) asserted that "Brasher's reputation for probity was un-questioned; it was immediately recognized that his initials on a gold or silver coin was a guarantee of its purity." The same thought was earlier advanced by Howland Wood, writing in an article, "The Coinage of the West Indies with an Especial Reference to the Cut and Counterstamped Pieces," which appeared in the American Journal of Numismatics in 1914. Dissenting was Vernon 1. Brown, who in a 1964 article, "The Brasher Doubloon," which appeared in The Numismatist, questioned the theory as he found no evidence that other goldsmiths of the time performed such a service.
Ephraim Brasher served at one time as an assayer for the United States Mint. The American State Papers, Finance, Vol. 1, "Estimated Expenditures for the Year 1796," notes that a $27 Treasury Warrant was made out:
.. .in favor of John Shield, assignee of Ephraim Brasher; being for assays made by said Brasher, in the year 1792, for the Mint on sundry coins of gold and silver, pursuant to instructions from the then Secretary of the Treasury.
In petitions said to have been dated February 11, 1787, Ephraim Brasher and John Bailey appealed to the New York State Assembly for the right to produce copper coins. The Assembly Journal records that' 'The several petitions of John Bailey and Ephraim Brasher, relative to the coinage of copper within the state, were read and referred (to committee)."
The original petitions no longer can be traced. It is not known whether separate petitions were presented by Brasher and Bailey or whether they combined their efforts. It is known that Brasher did not always work alone, and at one time John Bailey was associated with him, as were his brother Abraham and George Alexander at various times.
In 1787 the New York Directory lists Brasher; s address as 77 Queen Street and Bailey's residence as 22 Queen Street, which indicates the possibility of a close relationship at the time.
On March 3, 1787, the committee appointed by the Assembly was "at a loss to determine the extent of the intended regulation, whether it was only to ascertain the value of the pieces now in circulation, or whether it was meant to extend to new coinage." It was argued that a new coinage would be subject to certain abuses. On March 15 it was resolved that a committee be appointed "to establish a coinage of copper in the state." By April 12th the intent of the bill apparently had been changed, for it emerged with the title "An Act to Regulate the Circulation of Copper Coins in this State." This legislation passed on April 20th.
Over the two month period from February 12th to the retitling of the Act on April 12th the legislators drifted from the original proposals for new coinage to legislation providing only for the regulation of existing coinage. In The Comprehensive Catalogue and Encyclopedia of United States Coins Don Taxay asserts that "possibly some or all of the doubloons were presented to the Legislature in order to effect a favorable verdict," as the size of the doubloon was identical to the planchet size for coining coppers. Walter H. Breen disagrees with the pattern theories and believes that the doubloons were actually made for circulation. In The Standard Catalogue of United States Coins (1954) Wayte Raymond proposed that a gold coinage was necessary for larger transactions during the 1787 era, and, therefore, the doubloon was minted for that purpose. Another theory purports the pieces were made as souvenirs.
In 1787 doubloons, which bear Brasher's surname in full as a signature, BRASHER, bear no mark of value. This was not an unusual situation, for when the United States Mint first produced gold coins in the following decade the pieces bore no mark of denomination. The same characteristics extended to numerous foreign gold coins then in circulation. The value of gold coins was determined by the metallic purity and weight. For this reason the countermark EB which appears on all known examples of the Brasher doubloon would have been a further indication of the coin's quality.
Probably dating from the same period is another type of gold coin attributed to Brasher, the so-called Lima doubloon which is a stylistic copy of an eight real piece of Philip V produced in Lima, Peru, 1742. The workmanship and execution of the Brasher piece are different and have been a subject of investigation. The two known pieces bear the full BRASHER signature and are countermarked EB.
Walter Breen, writing in 1958, noted that Brasher, circa 1787, may have made the 1742-dated pieces in order to have coins which would pass more readily in circulation than would examples of a new and unfamiliar design. A somewhat similar situation arose earlier when the Vermont copper coinage of 1785-1786 did not circulate readily as the design was not well known among the populace. The Vermont motif was changed to imitate the designs found on contemporary British halfpennies with which the population was familiar, and vastly larger numbers were subsequently made and successfully circulated. Breen writes:
Issues of any private mint would logically find more readily an unquestioning acceptance if they'd look like coins already in circulation. Pass a New York doubloon [of the distinctive 1787 Brasher design], with its strange design, and it would be looked upon with suspicion and possibly refused; pass a worn Mexican or Peruvian gold coin, or something enough like it, and it would be accepted with hardly a second glance after the clear ring and heavy weight are noted ... It is therefore safe to attribute such a motivation to Brasher. Now this man surely knew better than to make imitations of British guineas or other coins with a foreign ruler's name and titles. The seemingly anonymous Lima doubloons with their cabalistic initials must have appeared as a logical type for a private issue that would both match something already in circulation and not offend the patriotic sensibilities. Brasher's plainly readable signature on the coins would be an additional safeguard for anyone questioning the pieces ...