1

The Newsletter of Medal Collectors of America

Volume 12 Number 9 October/November 2009

Board MembersJohn Sallay, President, jsallay@comcast.netDavid Menchell, Vice President dmenchell@aol.comBarry D. Tayman, Secretary/TreasurerJohn W. AdamsDavid T. Alexander, davida@stacks.comRobert F. Fritsch, bobfritsch@earthlink.netScott Miller, wheatabix@comcast.netIra Rezak, ira.rezak@med.va.govDonald Scarinci, dscarinci1@aol.comMichael Turrini, emperori@juno.comBenjamin Weiss, Webmaster

John W. Adams, Editor99 High Street, 11th floorBoston, MA 02110john.adams@canaccordadams.com

Barry Tayman, Secretary/Treasurer3115 Nestling Pine CourtEllicott City, MD 21042bdtayman@verizon.net

Benjamin Weiss, Webmasterbenweiss.org@comcast.net

Website: medalcollectors.org

Editor of Collectors’ Guide, Dick Johnson(dick.johnson@snet.net)

Dues: $30.00/Year $50.00/2 years

What’s New on Our Website!

CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE EVERY MONTH

From the Editor 3

Summary of MCA Board Meeting 3

Of Mosquitoes and Elephants(by Lev Tsitrin) 4

The Anthony Wayne ComitiaAmerican Medal (by Tony Lopez) 6

Letters to the Editor 17

2

3

From the Editor

This issue is graced by articles fromLev Tsitrin and Tony Lopez, two authorswhose energies and analytical insights uplift usall. Read, imbibe and re-read these twooutstanding pieces. Therein is much to belearned.

Last week, we were privileged to visitthe Maine Historical Society located inPortland, Maine. The hospitality wasoutstanding and the collections, which includean example of the original Dunlop Declarationof Independence, contain much to recommendthem. These I intend to cover in detail at a latertime. For now, suffice to note that the ComitiaAmericana’s include a virtually complete set ofcast copies. We mention these because thetechnology employed—white metal (probablylead) cast and then bronzed—is relevant to theLopez article later in this issue. Thetechnology employed together with the accessto original medals to act as a matrix combine topoint directly at the U.S. Mint. Copying by theMint, whether by casting or electrotypingwould be a fertile field of study for someenterprising member of our club. These copieswere ordered and made with the best ofintentions. Though spurned by some, they areattractive collectibles in our opinion.

Summary of MCA Boardmeeting, October 15, 2009.

Board meetings

The Board agreed to meet quarterly byconference call, in addition to the fullmembership meetings held twice a year at theNYINC and ANA conventions.

Membership meetings for 2010

38th Annual New York InternationalNumismatic Convention, January 2 -10, 2010

(Waldorf Astoria Hotel, 301 Park Avenue, NewYork City)

The MCA meeting will be at noon onSaturday, January 9. Ben Weiss will speak on“Medallic History of Religious and RacialIntolerance: Medals as Instruments forPromoting Bigotry.”

A.N.A. World’s Fair of Money, August 11-15,2010, (Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA)

The MCA annual meeting is plannedfor Thursday, August 12 at the MassachusettsHistorical Society (MHS) from 3 to 5 PM intheir Dowse Library. This allows time for themembers to enjoy the Society’s numismaticmaterial that will be on exhibit throughout thepublic areas. John Adams and Anne Bentleywill speak on the Comitia Americana medalsand John’s new book on Admiral Vernon andhis medals.

The Sundman Lecture series will alsooccur at the MHS on Thursday from 9 to 4.Arthur Fitts has kindly agreed to schedule anymedal presentations before our meeting startsso that members can take advantage of a fullday of medal-related activities.

MCA Oral History Project

Tony Lopez will serve as editor of the projectand is busy finishing up a back-log of recordedinterviews. There are four complete seriesavailable athttp://www.medalcollectors.org/ORAL%20HISTORY/Page%201.html with more to come.The board wishes to encourage moreinterviewers to step up and solicits names ofpotential interviewees.

Membership survey

The Board is working on a survey to ask ourmembers where they would like the MCA to goin the future.

4

Don’t forget

Webmaster Ben Weiss reminds themembership to send him their announcementsand articles for the web. His e-mail isben@benwiess.org

Of Mosquitoes and Elephants(by Lev Tsitrin)

A purchase of what once was anexcellent cast of one of Matteo de Pasti’s well-known large medals of Isotta degli Asti with anelephant on the reverse, ruined when someonedecided to improve it by giving it a nice coatingof black oil paint, provided an impetus for agood deal of reading, during which I wassurprised to learn that there was somewhat of adifference of opinion among the experts as tothe artistry of the famous elephant reverse.

While the chief modern authority onMatteo de Pasti, Dr. Pier Giorgio Pasini, goesinto ecstasies over it, describing it withunsurpassable eloquence as “one of the mostimpressive representations of animals on aRenaissance medal, with its bold and fluiddesign, massive in its modeling yet sensitive tothe subtle details of the skin, a natural andheraldic figure, it sits voluminously withprecision and harmony in a flat space, a carpetof grass and a background of sky…”, thesomewhat more prosy (though not any lesscompetent) George Hill, the doyen of allstudents of the renaissance medal, refers to ittersely in his 1905 book on Pisanello as mere“sturdy, if not very successful elephant.”

If I were asked before I got my ownexample of it, I naturally would have been inHill’s camp – if for no other reason than on asheer Aesop’s principle that “the grapes aresour.” But now, just as naturally, I gravitatedtowards Pasini’s view – after all, isn’t it betterto have “one of the most impressiverepresentations of animals” than a “not verysuccessful” one? Conflicted by the authorities, Idecided to conduct an independent

investigation of the question – as independentas the rather obvious conflict of interest wouldallow.

To evaluate de Pasti’s success or failurein depicting the elephant, it was helpful to firstunderstand his intentions in placing an image ofthis animal on the reverse of the medal ofIsotta, one of many mistresses, and later a thirdwife, of Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta, amid-fifteenth century mercenary based inRimini, and a great patron of renaissance artists– whom he patronized less for the love of art,than for purposes of self-aggrandizement.Rimini’s church of St. Francis, afterSigismondo had it beautifully renovated, hashis full name inscribed all over it. In a trulymonomaniacal manner, it is spelled out in hugeletters both on the façade, and on entrancearches to every chapel, so much so that now itis known only as “tempio Malatestiano” – thetemple of Malatesta. Than, of course, there areportrait medals of Sigismondo (two byPisanello on top of over a dozen by Matteo dePasti – including those with the much-admiredreverse of his castle, the Rocca Malatestiana),and quite a few of Isotta. All his commissionswere firmly centered, to use the Beatles song,in “I Me Mine,” his “I” being that of a bullywith an immense ego and a rather oversizeview of his own power.

And this is where the elephant, a bigand powerful animal, fits right in – quite apartfrom having been the Malatesta family emblemfor many generations. “Elephas Indus culisesnon timet” – “The Indian elephant fears nomosquitoes” – this motto of supreme arrogance(the more accurate, though admittedly lessliteral, translation would have been theintimidating “don’t you mess with me”) –accompanies elephant images made forSigismondo’ brother and nephew, according to“The Currency of Fame,” and there is littlereason to doubt that Sigismondo alsosubscribed to the sentiment. He was, after all, afierce professional soldier whose troops foughteither for pay, or to advance the perceivedpolitical advantage of the master whose

5

alliances constantly shifted, in accordance withthe perceived direction of political winds. Theelephant must have been to him a symbol ofoverwhelming power, of the power that couldplow through any resistance, whether it camefrom an army or a woman, from the church orthe people, the power to crush all oppositionwith no more effort than an elephant needs towalk through a swarm of mosquitoes. Onesuspects that he imagined that this powerindeed was his, and that he was the bigelephant needing to fear the small fry likefellow-condottieri Federico de Montefeltro andFrancesco Sforza, or pope Pius II, or king ofNaples Alfonso I, not more than so manymosquitoes. In the context of the Isotta medal,the charging Malatesta elephant also serves assymbol of his ownership of better things thanthe others do (including the beautiful Isotta),and thus, of his personal superiority.Inscriptions on his church, and depictions ofthe castle on his portrait medal declared, loudand clear, “I have the finest church, and I gotthe strongest castle,” and the Isotta medal(inscription on the earlier version of whichdeclares her to be Italy’s paragon of beautyand, believe it or not, of virtue) adds to this listof “I Me Mine” achievements “and the prettiestgirl in Italy is mine too – and don’t you messwith ME!”

Now that we have a not unreasonableidea of what Sigismondo’s elephant stood for inhis mind, it is time to compare that image to theactual animal. One wonders how the Malatestaswould have felt if they had a copy of “TheLarousse Encyclopedia of Animal Life” andcould read how “in spite of its thickness andharness, elephant skin is very sensitive to insectbites and readily chaps under exposure to thesun. Wild elephants therefore bathe frequently,afterwards rolling in the mud.” So much for“Elephas Indus’” disdain for “mosquitoes.”

False symbols blind. It would have beenfar better for Sigismondo to learn that even an“Elephas Indus” has to treat mere “culises”with circumspection, if not respect. Perhapsthat lesson would have helped him to curb his

propensity for arrogance and treachery, and theresulting civility, faithfulness to his promisesand open-mindedness would have helped himto do better than he eventually did – for in theend, the enemies he made proved not mere“mosquitoes” to his “elephant,” but biggerelephants than he himself was, and greatlyreduced his territory and power.

As to Matteo de Pasti, he made amistake, too, if he thought that the elephant hewas depicting was “Elephas Indus.” Myknowledge of elephants being limited to what Ilearned, when a kid, from Rudyard Kipling’s“Just so Stories,” I did not realize that Indianelephants are quite distinct from African ones,the two species being readily distinguishable bythe form of the forehead (“arched” in Africanversus “concave” in Indian), the difference inthe trunk (“two triangular appendices or “lips”on the tip of the trunk” in the African speciesversus just one in the Indian) and the relativesize of ears (“large” in the African versus“small” in the Indian). Now, de Pasti’s elephanthas a perfectly symmetric, half-moon-shapedtip of the trunk of an African elephant, and verylarge ears (encyclopedia’s picture of an Indianelephant shows ears that are, relative of theprofile of the head, about half the size of dePasti’s elephant’s).

Interestingly, the way de Pasti’s animalmoves, gives every appearance that he wasworking from life, that he actually saw anelephant (“The elephant walks with an amblinggait. The two right feet move forward together,then the two left” – precisely as in the medal.)He could have seen it in a menagerie – anelephant is apparently recorded in Florencevery close to the time of Matteo de Pasti: JohnHale’s book “Renaissance” reproduces acontemporary engraving of a giraffe presentedto Lorenzo the Magnificsent by the emissary ofEgyptian Sultan, with a comment that “Lorenzodonated the giraffe to Florence’s famedmenagerie where, only two blocks from thePalazzo Vecchio, Florentines could also seecaged bears, an elephant or a den of lions.”Such diplomatic gifts of exotic animals must

6

have been given to other powerful Italian stateslike Venice, too. Some two centuries later,Rembrandt saw an elephant in Amsterdam, anddrew it. Admittedly, ships were bigger in theseventeenth century than in the fifteenth, andperhaps could have transported an elephantmore easily; but on the other hand, Italy is somuch closer to Africa, making transportation,especially of just an elephant cub, easier.(Mantegna painted some elephants for theseries of “triumphs of Caesar” some fifty yearsafter the Isotta medal, but those were hardlydone from life – their trunks are so thin andround, they look just like ropes.) Perhaps, dePasti worked from a really good drawing orpainting. However it may be, Matteo’s elephantis a rather convincing beast.

But in the end, what follows? Is Pasiniright, or is Hill? Is it a good depiction, or a so-so one?

The answer to the question of artistryseems far less important than the much biggerquestion this medal poses. Does factualaccuracy matter? Does it make any differencewhether Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta basedhis worldview on the proud notion that “theIndian elephant fears no mosquitoes” when infact he should have humbly minded the factthat “even the African elephant needs to becareful around insects”?

I think the answer is “yes” – realitydoes matter – even if in our present-day,“politically,” rather than “factually,” correctworld we no longer think so. As to the medalitself – well, it is what it is. Unlike the hardfacts of this world, the beauty is merely in theeye of the beholder.

The Anthony Wayne ComitiaAmericana Medal (by Tony Lopez)

Revolutionary War General AnthonyWayne, well known by his legendary title as“Mad Anthony” Wayne, was one of the mostdedicated soldiers in the American militaryfight for freedom against the rule of KingGeorge III. His important contributions to thecause of liberty on the battlefield began at thebreakout of the Revolutionary War in 1775when the 30 year old Wayne was chosen by the

7

Continental Congress to raise one of fourregiments of militia in Pennsylvania.

Wayne fought gallantly at the Battle ofTrois-Rivières, (Three Rivers, Canada) despitethe fact that he was seriously wounded in theleg during the battle. In recognition of hisleadership, General Philip Shulyer put thenColonel Wayne in charge of the Americanforces at Fort Ticonderoga. On February 21,1777, Wayne was promoted to Brigadiergeneral. Wayne led troops in the battles atBrandywine Creek, Germantown, andMonmouth, and served with Washington atValley Forge.

The disastrous Battle of Paoli, inMalvern, Pennsylvania, was fought onSeptember 21, 1777. In defeat, the Americancommander General Anthony Wayne suffered237 casualties after a night attack by BritishMajor General Gray under General Howe’scommand. Known as the “Paoli Massacre”, itwas believed that Wayne’s forces were caughtsleeping, resulting in 53 killed, 113 wounded,and 71 soldiers missing or captured. After thedefeat, Wayne demanded his own Courtmartial; which took place as he requested.Despite Wayne’s belief that he should becastigated and suspended, thirteen members ofthe court ultimately ruled that Wayne had infact acted with dignity and honor in theengagement. They ruled that Wayne “didevery duty that could be expected from anactive, brave and vigilant officer, under theorders which he then had. The Court do acquithim with the highest honor."

A careful study of the eventssurrounding the battle indicates that theAmerican forces were more disorganized thansurprised; it was clear they were not sleeping.The description of the battle as a “massacre”was created in part by contemporarypropaganda that the British troops bayonetedawakening troops seeking quarter; the fact thatthe British actually took American prisonersindicates this version of the viciousness of theattack may be fictional. Of the 71 missingsoldiers, many could be attributed to desertions.

Given the numbers, the Battle of Paoli was anAmerican defeat for Wayne, but hardly amassacre.

Bayonets and Bravery – the Battle of StonyPoint

The historical significance of thedecision to return the courageous Wayne tomilitary service was demonstrated on July 16,1779 in the Battle of Stony Point. Stony Pointwas a fortified British stronghold which stoodon a 150-foot promontory on the Hudson River,across from Fort Fayette at Verplank’s point,between which the British used the Kings Ferryto cross the Hudson River. Stony Point wasreferred to as “Little Gibraltar” by the British,and was a defensive peak on a peninsula whichjutted into the Hudson River, surrounded bydeep water and marshes. The British defense atStony Point, commanded by LieutenantColonel Henry Johnson, was designed to beimpregnable, both with its natural physicalobstructions, ramparts and fortifications, and itsdefense by 625 Redcoats, in two lines of 300soldiers; the outer line had seven artillerypieces; the inner line was defended by six moreguns.

The Defenses at Stony Point forcedWashington to fortify his American defenses atWest Point on the Hudson, just a few milesnorth of Stony Point. The forces at Stony Pointnot only threatened West Point, they defended

8

New York City twenty four miles south, andprevented the American forces from travelingdown the Hudson to defend the Connecticutcoastal towns which were being harassed byClinton’s troops. In order to move forward inthe military cause for independence,Washington knew that he must defeat theBritish troops occupying Stony Point.

Washington and Wayne devised aningenious and brilliant strategy for attackingthe forces at Stoney Point, requiring greatcourage and skill by the Continental forces.Approaching the promontory in the middle ofthe night under cover of darkness, using an eliteforce of only their most experienced and besttrained troops, a 1000-man force was split intotwo columns; a group of 700 men led byWayne would approach through the sandbarfrom the south, the other 300 man columnwould approach from the north at the KingsFerry Bridge. Each column had an advanceparty of 150 men, led by Major John Stewartfrom the north and Lieutenant Colonel FrancoisLouise Teisseidre de Fleury from the south. Athird smaller column would attack from thewest as a diversion. In order to guarantee thatneither of the larger columns was detected, theyapproached Stony Point with only fixedbayonets or pikes, and their muskets unloadedto insure that they were not accidentallydischarged, giving away the surprise attack.The American forces included artillerymen

intended to use the British guns to fire upon thegunboat and defenses at Verplank’s point.Leading each advance column were 20 men –their “Forlorn Hope” - who carried nothing butaxes to cut through the British fortifications.

The American troops were headed for ahand to hand battle against impenetrable Britishfortifications, artillery, and gunfire withnothing to carry out their night assault but theirbayonets and bravery. After an 8-hour, 15-milemarch from Fort Montgomery through themountains undetected, the three columnsapproached Stony Point in darkness through themarshes at low tide. A little after midnight, theBritish sentry noticed moving figures in thedark, and fired shots, signaling the beginning ofthe battle. The “Forlorn Hope” quicklychopped through the British abatis and the twoAmerican columns began pouring through theouter walls of the British fortifications,undetected.

To the West, the American centerdiversion line, headed by Major HardyMurfree, began firing. The British, in a state ofconfusion, defended the center line, andreturned fire. Colonel Johnson beganorganizing his troops to defend the westernattack from the center, falling into Wayne’strap, unaware of the larger numbers ofAmerican infantry looming at his flanks andrear. The inner defenses of the British lineswere quickly breached from all sides by theundetected influx of the American infantrymen.French Colonel de Fleury was the first to crossthe British Lines, and personally tore down theBritish flag. Shortly after DeFleury and hisadvance troops attacked, Stewart’s menbroached the British lines from the North. In aclose-quarters battle that lasted barely 15minutes, the British could not mount a defense,and were completely overrun by the swift andaggressive attack of bayonet wieldingContinentals from all sides. The Americans, ina tradition that would credit them through mostof the conflict for freedom from British rule,gave quarter to any soldier who surrendered. Inthe morning, the American artillerymen used

9

the British guns to fire upon the surprisedBritish defenses at Verplank’s point, whobelieved the discharge of cannon was a sign ofBritish Victory.

Wayne received a wound to his headearly in the assault which at first appearedhorrific and mortal, but which fortunatelyturned out to be a graze from which he quicklyrecovered. The victory at Stony Point was thelast American Victory in the north, and mostimportant, represented a turnaround in thefortunes of the American military effortsagainst Britain, boosting much neededAmerican morale at a critical time. The Britishsuffered casualties of 63 dead, and 74wounded, who were among 546 taken asprisoners, including the British commander,Colonel Johnson. Wayne also impounded 15pieces of artillery and the other British stores atStony Point.

The next morning, General Waynedispatched a note to his commanding officerGeorge Washington that “The fort andgarrison, with Col. Johnson, are ours. The menbehaved like men determined to be free.” Thevictory at Stony Point had avenged Wayne’sdefeat at Paoli, and vindicated any questionsabout his tactical skills as a Militarycommander. In a historic coincidence, Wayne’sdefeat at Paoli had also come from soldierswielding unloaded muskets with bayonetsfixed; General Gray had used this tacticinstructing his British soldiers to attack any onewho fired a weapon. Wayne’s incorporation ofthe same strategy to accomplish hisoverwhelming and quick victory at Stony Pointmust have added to the satisfaction he felt inavenging Paoli.

There is no definitive evidence as tohow Wayne received the “Mad Anthony”nickname, but it was later popularized byauthor Washington Irving. It has been generallyheld that Revolutionary War General “MadAnthony” Wayne gained this “Mad Anthony”sobriquet because, according to theEncyclopedia Britannica, of his “tacticalboldness and his personal courage in the field.”

The name is also attributed to Wayne’sinsightful but seemingly crazy plan for theattack at Stoney Point against fortified artilleryand gunfire with only bayonets. In fact, Waynewas rather cautious and a highly skilledstrategist on the battlefield, and while he led histroops from the front lines, was not as crazy orreckless in battle as the pseudonym implies.Wayne did have a hot temper, and was wellknown for his angry outbursts at hissubordinate officers, so perhaps “MadAnthony” was a reference to Wayne’s harshdemeanor. One folklore version gives creditfor the nickname to a spy named “Jemmy theRover” who was jailed, and pegged Waynewith the “Mad Anthony” moniker when Waynethreatened to flog him instead of assisting withhis release. When hearing of Wayne’s threats,he responded that "Anthony is mad! He must bemad, or he would help me. Mad Anthony, that'swhat he is. Mad Anthony Wayne."

Wayne Awarded a Congressional ComitiaAmericana Medal

For his leadership and fortitude in theAmerican Victory at Stony Point, the youngUnited States Congress awarded AnthonyWayne a gold medal known as a ComitiaAmericana medal (for Congress of America).The leaders of the two advance lines, ColonelFrancois Louise Teisseidre de Fleury, andMajor John Stewart, were also awardedComitia Americana medals, to be struck insilver. During the Revolutionary War, a total ofonly eleven Comitia Americana medals wereawarded by congress. The fact that three ofthose eleven medals were awarded for theBattle of Stony Point is indicative of theimportance of the battle to the American cause.

The United Stated did not have a mint,or any other means to strike medals, so the dutyto arrange for the design and striking of themedals first fell upon Benjamin Franklin, whowas in France to advocate for the Americancause with the Court of Louis XVI. The ParisMint had the resources and skill to strike the

10

medals. Franklin, a true Francophile, perhaps toa fault, first arranged for the design and strikingof the de Fleury medal. He deferred to theFrench Colonel, perhaps for diplomaticreasons, and ignored the obvious protocol thatde Fleury’s commanding officer AnthonyWayne should have had his medal designed andstruck first. Franklin also ignored this etiquetteand failed to have several other medalsawarded by Congress completed, including themedal awarded to the Commander in Chief,George Washington.

Having completed the silver medal forde Fleury, Franklin demonstrated hisindifference regarding the medals to beawarded to the remaining recipients. Franklinarranged for the engraver, DuVivier, to simplytake the dies for same Stony Point medaldesigned for de Fleury, remove de Fleury’sname, and replace it with Wayne’s andsubsequently Stewart’s names to strike theirmedals. This was apparently done, and themedals for both Wayne and Stewart werecarelessly struck with the de Fleury design in1780. Franklin’s apathy concerning theimportance of the awards is further establishedby the fact that he kept those two Stony Pointmedals for four years, waiting until August of1784 to have them delivered by Henry Laurensto their intended recipients.

The location of these two originalDuVivier medals arranged by Franklin to bestruck for Wayne and Stewart is unknowntoday. The original silver medal for de Fleuryhas long been claimed to be a silver examplefound by a boy in a garden in New Jersey in thenineteenth century. This implausible piece offolklore has been regurgitated by numismatistsand authors for nearly a century; a fairy-talejust recently and thankfully condemned in JohnAdams and Anne Bentley’s opus ComitiaAmericana and Related MedalsUnderappreciated Monuments of our Heritage.For all practical purposes, the current locationof the de Fleury medal is also unknown.Perhaps a careful examination of the 5 knownde Fleury silver examples cited in the Comitia

Americana census and their provenance couldreveal whether one of them is in fact thatawarded to de Fleury.

While there is no written evidenceindicating this, it appears that the originalWayne and Stewart medals by DuVivier andFranklin were unsatisfactory; in the late 1780’sboth medals were later redesigned and struckagain by the Paris Mint under the direction ofThomas Jefferson. Perhaps Jefferson wasunaware that the two Stony Point medals hadbeen completed by Franklin in 1780. In 1789,DuVivier and Dupre were busy with otherprojects for Jefferson, so the duty ofredesigning the Wayne (and Stewart) medalwas given to the competent engraver Nicolas-Marie Gatteaux.

The Obverse of the Wayne medal features theallegorical image of America as an IndianPrincess presenting a laurel wreath and a crownto Anthony Wayne. Surrounding is the legendin Latin “ANTONIO WAYNE DUCIEXERCITUS” and below an exergual line isthe inscription “COMITIA AMERICANA”(The American Congress to Anthony Wayne,General of the Army). Signed “GATTEAUX”above the exergual line below Wayne’s feet.The Reverse has a central vignette showing thebattle scene at Stony Point; the Britishfortifications on a precipice; the Americancolumns approaching. The detailed design alsoshows an erroneous depiction of Americanartillery in the foreground ready to fire; thedesigner obviously did not know of theimpressive stealth of the American forces.Surrounding the battle above is the misspelledlegend “STONEY-POINT EXPUGNATUM”(Stony Point stormed) and in exergue theincorrect date “XV JUL MDCCLXXIX” (July15, 1779 – should be July 16 as the attack tookplace after midnight.) Signed “GATTEAUX”on the exergual line at left.

The original gold medal measures 54mm and was brought with Jefferson to Americaaboard the Clermont on his return from Europe.Jefferson delivered the medal to President

11

Washington on March 21, 1789, when hereported as Secretary of State. The gold medalwas forwarded by the President to AnthonyWayne 4 days later, on March 25, 1779, alongwith this letter:

Sir,You will receive with this a medal

struck by order of the late Congress incommemoration of your much approvedconduct in the Assault of Stoney(sic) Point-andpresented to you as a mark of the high sensewhich your country entertains of your serviceson that occasion.

This medal was put in my hands by Mr.Jefferson; and it is with singular pleasure that Inow transmit it to you.

I am,Sir,With very great esteem,Your Most Obed. Serv.G. Washington

The original gold medal presented toWayne by Washington was consigned by theWayne family in 1978 to Sotheby ParkeBernet, where it was hammered for $52,500 tothe Pennsylvania Sons of the Revolution. (JohnJ. Ford Jr. was the under bidder.) It is currentlyon display at Independence Hall inPhiladelphia. Sadly, it is among only five ofthe eleven Comitia Americana medals awardedwhose location is known; the GeorgeWashington gold medal is at the Boston Publiclibrary, Horatio Gates gold medal resides at theNew York Historical Society, the NathanielGreene gold medal is at the Rhode IslandHistorical Society and the silver medal awardedto John Eager Howard is in the collection of theMaryland Historical Society. It is indeed tragicthat others of these priceless historic artifacts ofthe military struggle which formed our nationare missing or mislaid.

The whereabouts of the original Waynedies used to strike the Gatteaux ComitiaAmericana medal are likewise unknown.Medallic impressions struck with those original

dies are exceedingly rare, and effectively non-collectible. Other than the original gold medal,the census of Wayne original medals inComitia Americana records only 5 otherexamples; two in silver, two in bronze, and anobverse splasher. Only one example, inbronze, exists in private hands.

The United States Mint created copydies of the Wayne medal in 1887 to strikemedals to meet collector demand. Medalsstruck from those dies are easily differentiatedfrom the originals by the dissimilar font styleand slightly different placement of the letteringin relation to the designs. Collector demandwas not great, and US Mint restrikes were notstruck in large numbers; in R.W. Julian’sMedals of the United States Mint 1792-1892the mint records show only 47 Wayne medalsstruck in bronzed-copper between 1888 and1904. These US Mint restrikes very rarelyappear in the marketplace. The US Mintrestrike from John J. Ford’s collectionauctioned in 2006 realized $1,150.00

A New Discovery

In the December 2008 issue of theMCA Advisory, a medal with a “cordedborder” was pictured, along with a copy of ane-mail I had sent to John Adams regarding themedal. Excited about the find (from the fuzzyeBay picture in the listing where I bought it, Ihad no idea that it had the corded border) Imistakenly described the medal as a DanielMorgan (Comitia Americana) medal in that e-mail. The design of the medal pictured wasclearly not that of a Daniel Morgan. Castbronze and silver plated, the medal is in fact thedesign of the gold Comitia Americana medalawarded by the US Congress to GeneralAnthony Wayne for the Battle of Stoney Point.

In Comitia Americana, page 196, in thechapter dedicated to the Libertas Americanamedal, Adams-Bentley include detailsregarding a “corded border” Libertas medalunder the heading of “Unusual Pieces”.Adams-Bentley make reference to an important

12

1996 article in the CNLF Colonial Newsletterwhere medal expert and numismatic authorMichael Hodder had researched and writtenabout this same corded border LibertasAmericana medal.

According to Comitia Americana thespecimen pictured in the Colonial Newsletter isnot a struck medal, but rather “a cast takenfrom a matrix of an earlyish die state”. Inlooking at the design characteristics of thecorded Libertas medal, it does appear to matchthe struck medals from the earlier die statesseen on the struck Libertas medals. For thisreason the corded Libertas medal was generallypresumed to be of contemporaneous late 18th

century manufacture along with the Libertasmedals struck in Paris at that time, which itmatches in detail.

Hodder noted the important fact that thediameter of the corded Libertas medal waslarger than the standard struck Libertas medals;49.3 mm vs. the usual 47.5-48 mm size. TheComitia Americana census lists ten struckLibertas Americana medals with diametersranging from 47.4-48.0 mm, indicating that thediameter of the medals is consistent with littlevariance. The slightly greater diameter of thecorded Libertas allows for the size of theadditional corded design feature, which isplaced on the surface of the medal’s obverseand reverse designs between the inner and outerrims.

In considering the history, qualities andcharacteristics of the corded Libertas medal,and lacking any contemporary explanation forits existence, Hodder conjectured that masterFrench engraver Augustin Dupré may haveexperimented with the use of a special cordeddesign collar, strategically placed to hide thetelltale obverse rim die-break seen in exergueto the lower left of the “4” in the date “4 JUL1776.” This obverse die-break is the primaryauthenticating die characteristic seen on allgenuine Libertas Americana medals. InComitia Americana, Adams-Bentley concurthat the strategic placement of the cordedborder appears to support Hodder’s

conclusions, but they then focus on theimportant question as to why the corded design,if it is in fact a prototype design, was not placedinto production. They believe, (and I wouldagree) that the corded border design wouldhave detracted from the extraordinary beauty ofthe Libertas medal, and thus Dupré (andperhaps Benjamin Franklin as well, or both)chose not to use it in their final design.

From the scant records known, thecorded border Libertas medal appears to beextremely rare, perhaps unique. It was notactually pictured in Comitia Americana. I amunaware of any auction records for an exampleof the corded border variety of the Libertasmedal. Most medal collectors, even those whoare specialists in the Betts and ComitiaAmericana series have never owned, or evenviewed an example. The John J. Ford, Jr.collection did not include an example of thisrarity in his extensive holdings.

The MCA Advisory has recently focusedadditional attention on the “corded border”Libertas Americana medal. This interestbegan when the MCA membership wasfortunate enough to have an example of therarity actually pictured in the September 2008issue of the MCA Advisory. The issue includeda Letter to the Editor from numismatist DennisTarrant, along with the photograph of anexample of the elusive corded border LibertasAmericana medal. Tarrant requested anyinformation and input by MCA membersregarding the unusual medal’s origins. Tarrantspoke with me regarding his medal, and hasinformed me that his medal is in fact the sameone shown by Hodder in the CNLF article,indicating the possibility that the cordedLibertas medal could be unique. Tarrant’spictured specimen also measured 49.3mm, andaccording to him “appears to be cast in silverand is certainly antique.”

In an unusual and noteworthycoincidence, shortly after this renewed interestin the corded border Libertas medal wasregenerated both by its inclusion in ComitiaAmericana, and the MCA Advisory, along

13

comes the new discovery of an Anthony Waynecorded border medal. The corded Waynemedal, similar to the corded Libertas medal, isalso cast and, silver-plated, with a slightlylarger diameter than the original Wayne medal,and the corded design feature is placed betweenthe inner and outer rims of the medal.

Most significant, from the pictures ofthe corded Libertas medal and this newlydiscovered corded Wayne medal, the designand placement of the actual corded feature onboth medals clearly matches. Visually, whencomparing the two medals, the similarities areso great that there can be no question that theyshare a common origin.

[That the one medal is thought to beof silver and the other silver-plated strikesus as intriguing. We offer to run specificgravity tests if the owners are willing.—Ed.]

In my December 2008 published letterto John Adams revealing the discovery of thecorded Wayne medal; and again wrongfullyincorporating the idea that the medal was aDaniel Morgan (vs. Anthony Wayne) medal, Ihad also mistakenly made the inaccuratecomment, ”Strange that this medal is Dupré’sother masterpiece.” Both the LibertasAmericana medal and the Daniel MorganComitia Americana medals were designed andengraved by Dupré, and so I mistakenly madethis common Dupré association between bothcorded medals. My “masterpiece” commentwas, of course, a back-reference to the existingtheories about Dupré’s possibleexperimentation with the corded design collaron the Libertas Americana medal. If this medalwas actually a Daniel Morgan medal, then itsdiscovery would have strongly supportedtheories about Dupré’s experimentation withthe border, and the idea that the corded Libertasmedal was a cast prototype. But it is not.

This new corded medal discovery wasnot one of Dupre’s medal designs; the Waynemedal was engraved by Gatteaux. As anAnthony Wayne medal by Gatteaux, previousconjecture and conclusions regarding Dupréand the corded Libertas appear to be

invalidated simply by the fact that the Waynemedal was not designed by Dupré but by fellowFrench engraver Nicolas-Marie Gattéaux. It isnoteworthy that the original Wayne medal alsodid not have any major die breaks on its rimwhich needed to be corrected and redesigned,so the mutual use of the corded border is notlikely to be related to the famous Libertasdiebreak.

The existence of this newly discoveredcorded border Anthony Wayne medal, whichmatches the corded border design of theLibertas, is helpful in attempting to uncover theongoing mystery of the true origin of thecorded Libertas, and now both of these unusualcorded border medals. Here are two similarlycorded medals; matching the medal designs oftwo different Monnaie du Paris engravers;Gattéaux and Dupré. With previous theoriesabout the Libertas corded border medal versionbeing an experimental piece designed orcreated by Dupré now invalidated, how do weaccount for these corded border medals?

If the medals were not created only byDupré or Gattéaux, and were not designed tocorrect the appearance of damage to the dies onthe struck medals, then what was their origin,age, and purpose? Other than MichaelHodder’s discussion of the subject, I have donean extensive search to locate any reference toeither corded medal in the preceding twohundred years since the medals were struck,and have come up empty handed.

I know of only one example of eachmedal, and having condemned previoustheories that the corded design was created tocorrect die damage, looking at only singleexamples of each medal does not allowcomparisons with possible varying states oftheir manufacture. The corroded condition ofthe corded Wayne medal causes some difficultyin comparison, but it does reveal the silverplating, and bronze core.

Comparing the matching qualities of themedals may shed light on answering some ofthese questions. Both medals are cast. Bothmedals share the corded border, of course, and

14

their diameters are slightly larger than theoriginal diameters of the struck medals. Thelarger size appears to be just enough toaccommodate the additional width of thecorded design, while maintaining the designelements of the original medals in their originalsize.

The MCA Advisory indicated that theTarrant Libertas medal had only a cordedborder on the obverse; in fact there is a cordeddesign on both sides if you look carefully at theimages, and this was confirmed to me byDennis Tarrant. The reverse in the scan fromthe September 2008 MCA Advisory actuallyappears to have the corded design but it is worndown making the corded design difficult todiscern.

Dennis Tarrant and Michael Hodderboth note that the corded Libertas exhibits thediebreaks seen on a genuine original LibertasAmericana Medal. The newly discoveredAnthony Wayne corded border medal alsoexhibits the characteristics of the originalmedals struck from original Paris dies; thelettering style and placement matches that ofthe original medals. It seems logical; therefore,that whoever produced or had these cordedborder casts created must have been inpossession of both an original LibertasAmericana, and an original Anthony Waynemedal (or the dies) in order to make the moldsor matrix for the central designs of these twocorded border medals – before adding thecorded border design to the molds.

Given the extreme rarity of originalWayne medals, one could attempt toextrapolate the time frame and limited numberof manufacturing locations or individuals whocould have had access to both medals to createthese casts. It seems simplest to presume thatthe Paris mint was the source; they had both thedies and the medals at their disposal to createthese corded casts. I am unaware, however, ofany contemporary casts produced at the Parismint, or any evidence of the manufacture ofcast medals in their manufacturing processes.The Paris mint was striking, and not castingmedals during the late eighteenth and earlynineteenth century.

[The U.S. Mint also had access tooriginal medals (they borrowed from theWebster set) and they made casts ofCOMITIA AMNERICANA designs toorder—Ed.]

Ultimately the discovery of thisAnthony Wayne cast and corded border createsmore questions than answers. It does, however,bring us closer to the truth as to the origin ofthese unusual and rare finds. For now, theirorigin remains a mystery, and my researchcontinues.

15

16

17

Letters to the Editor

Dear John:Hank Spangenbergers’ sad tale about

trying to sell Liberatas bronze medals, remindsme of my purchase. I was in Paris in 1960 andbought from a female dealer, MadameKapamigi (not sure of the spelling) for 200New Francs ($40.00) a lovely AU silverLiberatis. Do you think its value has increasedover the years? It was sold to Ted Craige about1975.

Best,

George Fuld

Dear Editor,I would like to share my concerns with

those who truly love the traditional medal-making and will be willing to participate in acollective effort t o preserve the knowledge, theskills and methods of this rare art form.

The fact that art appreciation classes areno longer included in the public educationprograms could be one of the reasons why wesometimes pay more attention to the pedigreesand prices than to the aesthetic value of ourcollectibles.

So, here is my challenge to those, tooshy to discuss the specifics of style andexecution of their numismatic gems who justpassively subscribe to the assumption that “thebeauty resides in the eye of the beholder” anddon’t believe that we can objectively “weighand measure” our medallic masterpieces basedupon their artistic merits.

A short list of useful “tools” of moreintelligent approach to the aesthetic “judgmentof Paris” would include:

the knowledge of the rules ofcomposition (you bet!);

the basics of anatomy (no kidding!); the linear perspective (what for?);

the art of lettering (do you meancalligraphy?);

the psychology of perception (whybother?);

some understanding of metallurgy andchemistry (who cares?) and, of course;

substantial familiarity with history andart history.These days, when the steady output of

both, official and private minting turned into anendless stream of crude imitations of the olderworks as well as incompetent efforts “to add amodernistic touch” to the art that has a greatchance to follow many other traditional craftson their way to the extinction.

With my several decades of continuousexperience in the business of deliveringnumismatic products to the collectors wellrecognized by the prestigious awards andcommissions (I am one of a few remainingactive Recipients of ANS S. Saltus Award andthe ANA Excellence in Medallic At Award) Ican sincerely expect that my offer to volunteeron such a project would be met with someunderstanding and support from our fellowmembers of MCA who believe in preservationand dissemination of knowledge as one of themost important aspects of our hobby activities.

Should we try together to bring such anidea to life by lets say next annual meeting andshare some of our discoveries with thenumismatic community? It may in a positiveway influence the process of issuing of ourcontemporary commemoratives so they don’tlook like “made by a committee” and are moredesirable than the “jewels of the crown.”

Thanks.

With my best,

A. Shagin, Sculptor

[An artistic ignoramus though I be, countme in. Are there others? Ed.]

18

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

Date: ......................................................................................................................................Name: ....................................................................................................................................Mailing Address:Street: ....................................................................................................................................City: .......................................State: .....................................Zip code: ...............................Telephone (Work): ...........................................(Home): ......................................................Email: ....................................................................................................................................

QUESTIONAIRE

How did you learn about the MCA?

What are your collecting interests?

What would you see highlighted in MCA publications?

For volunteers: I am willing to devote time to the following MCA projects:

DUES: $30.00 PER CALENDAR YEAR (Includes a subscription to monthly publications of theMCA advisory)

Please send completed application and payment to:

Medal Collectors of Americac/o Barry Tayman

3115 Nestling Pine CourtEllicott City, MD 21042

Or email completed form to: bdtayman@verizon.netMCA WEBSITE: http://www.medalcollectors.org