Eric Newman < choses numismatiques 6 messages David Gladfelter < Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:15 AM To: Eric, hope all is well on your end. I am looking forward to your and David Fanning’s article revealing the source of the 18th century cambist you have. Glad that project was not forgotten. It has been a while since you presented the problem. Also letting you know that the Andrew Bradford invoice requesting reimbursement for the engraving work done by John Peter Zenger for the Province of New Jersey is now in the ANS collection, via Tony Terranova and myself. Elena Stolyarik was happy to have it. David. < Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM To: Dear David: I am told that the article on the source of the foreign exchange publication is now at the printers for The Asylum. It drove me nuts for a while and therefore belongs there. Thank you for mentioning it. As you well know things take time to solve. It is very thoughtful for you and Tony to place the Zenger item with ANS as the gift has such a broad scope of importance beyond its connection to numismatics. Thrive. Eric [Quoted text hidden] David Gladfelter < Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:01 AM To: Indeed it does take time to solve our puzzles, as well as the cooperation of other minds, even over several lifetimes. The case of the St. Patrick coppers is just one example. Which reminds me – another connection between the State Bank at Camden and one of its possible surrogates has come to light. The third series of notes of Reeves and Whittaker, listed by George Wait under Cumberland Works, ## 451 and 452, has this promissory language: “(We promise to pay) In Specie or Bank Notes at Camden near Philadelphia at N. Davis’ Store”. The notes are dated at the end of 1828. The president of SBC at that time was Richard M. Cooper, member of an influential South Jersey family, whose family name is continued today in the Cooper Hospital and health care system. Prior to becoming the bank president, and while serving as such, Richard Cooper was postmaster of the Cooper Ferry post office and held that office until 1829, at which time the name of the post office was changed to Camden. Cooper also kept a store at the Cooper Street ferry and also operated the ferry. (The simultaneous wearing of all these hats in those days was apparently not prohibited either by conflict of interest laws or by banking ethics.) Nathan Davis was for many years Cooper’s deputy postmaster and was his successor in office. Cooper put Davis in charge of the store. Davis is still listed as a merchant at the Federal Street wharf, 2 blocks to the south, in the Camden section of the 1852 Philadelphia city directory. The bank building was located at Second and Cooper streets, about a 2 block walk from the ferry. In 1827 it issued a series of notes of only the 1.00 denomination (Haxby G6); these are the only notes of that denomination issued until the 1840s. (A few survive, I have a proof and an issued note.) This bank never issued a 2.00 note; Haxby G4 and G16 are not known to have ever existed. Its 1812 charter, which also created 5 other banks, prohibited issuance of any notes below 3.00, but this restriction was repealed a year later. But Reeves and Whittaker issued both 1.00 and 2.00 notes in the late 1820s, in 3 series, with serial numbers in the hundreds. The first series of R&W notes (unlisted in Wait) was payable in specie or SBC notes at the Market Street Ferry in Philadelphia (probably the western terminus of Cooper’s Ferry). The second series (dated late 1827-mid 1828, also unlisted) was payable in specie or SBC notes at 106 Market St., Philadelphia. I have not yet been able to determine what was located at that address; it was not the bank’s Philadelphia branch office. Fairman Draper Underwood & Co. printed SBC’s 1827 1.00 notes. Give you one guess who printed all 3 series of the R&W notes. You’re right! FDU also printed the later 1.00 and 2.00 notes of the Union Works of Chatsworth, N. J., issued in the same period. These notes have promissory language identical to those of the first 2 issues of R&W, and nearly identical designs, and were payable at the works’ Philadelphia office. I have not yet learned where that office was, nor have I found any connection between the Union Works (a Richards family enterprise) and SBC. As Alice would say, it gets curiouser and curiouser. Geez I feel like an investigative reporter piecing together Mafioso associations. FYI and comment? David. From: [mailto: Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:42 AM To: Subject: Re: choses numismatiques [Quoted text hidden] < Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:03 PM To: Dear David: I am fascinated by your comments about the State Bank of Camden notes and the private manufacturing business operation issues. How and why did Haxby list non-existent notes as he was very careful? I understand that Haxby is or has been revising his publication and wonder if you are in contact with him. Why don't you think about asking him what changes he has made to his early New Jersey listing and tell him what you know? I am sure he has detail on the private issues even if he excluded them from his bank note list. Perhaps Waite did not list the private notes because they were not issued by banks or corporations and were just scrip? In any event I would be appreciative if you would send me photocopies or other copies of all of the different notes you have or know of from the two private New Jersey manufacturers of the second and third decades of the 1800s. Thank you for following up on this fascinating subject. Eric [Quoted text hidden] David Gladfelter < Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM To: Eric, Haxby with help from Walter Allan, Neil Shafer and others did a tremendous job in publishing the 4-volume obsolete catalog and we are very fortunate to have it. For all that, he was not as careful as you might think. He made assumptions. In the case of New Jersey, his listings of what he calls NJ-1 are pure fiction. There never was such a thing as “State Bank of New Jersey” with six “branches.” The State Bank at Camden, State Bank at Trenton, State Bank at New-Brunswick, State Bank at Elizabeth, State Bank at Morris and State Bank at Newark were all independent banks, although they were chartered in a single legislative act. What we call the “generics” are what Haxby lists under NJ-1, however, there never were “generic” 1.00 and 2.00 notes, only the other denominations, plus post notes which he does not list. I did write to him about this many years ago, but never received a reply. Have not tried to communicate with him since. I think what Haxby often did was to assume that, if a series of notes of certain regularly-issued denominations (but not others) were known to exist, then the missing denominations must have existed too, so he would put in SENC listings for them. In many cases this method worked – a note listed as SENC would actually turn up, and then it would have a Haxby number already assigned to it. However, sometimes this worked the other way – a few notes known to Wait were omitted by Haxby. In fact, the 50.00 “generic” on the State Bank at Trenton was known to Wismer (NJ 893) but omitted by Wait, then listed as a speculation (NJ-1 G126) by Haxby. I was delighted to see that note actually appear in one of the Schingoethe sales and managed to bid it in as a high personal priority. Can’t say for certain that it is the same one that Wismer listed, but I haven’t seen or heard of another. And so forth. Wait did list private notes and scrip, as did all of the SPMC State obsolete authors. Haxby omitted them (although a few crept in such as NJ-495, Salem & Philadelphia Manufacturing Co., and the fractional Cumberland Bank issues, NJ-45 G2, G4, G6 and G8). I will put in the mail to you copies of my notes on the early SBC issues (along with a copy of the charter) and those of the two private companies. You might wonder how I know in what order the Reeves & Whittaker notes came out. I had a stroke of luck. Wait illustrates, full size, the 5.00 denomination of the notes payable at N. Davis’s store (Wait 452). I have the 5.00 notes of the other two issues. On the second issue, the “St.” of “No. 106 Market St.” extends into the left border of the Raleigh portrait. On the N. Davis 5.00 note illustrated in Wait, there are traces of “St.” in the border, therefore it must have been issued after the 106 Market St. notes. On the Market St. Ferry 5.00 note in my collection there are no traces of “St.”, therefore it must have been issued before the 106 Market St. notes. That makes the order (1) Market St. Ferry, (2) No. 106 Market St., (3) N. Davis’s store. The dates on the issued notes agree with this order. We are getting there slowly but surely. Remember, it was your idea that private notes were surrogates for State Bank at Camden notes. As it turns out you were onto something. David. From: [mailto: Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:03 PM [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] David Gladfelter < Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:20 PM To: Eric, just letting you know that I put the requested photocopies in the mail to you today. Just received the catalog of the Baltimore show from Stack’s and was surprised to see, in the back, that three of the copper plates used to print the State Bank “generics” are up for sale! They must have passed into custody of the State Bank at Elizabeth after being used by the other banks, including the State Bank at Camden, because SBE used two of the plates which were modified after the original notes were printed, to make modern “repro proofs,” circa 1937 when the bank’s history was published with illustrations of the repros. The third plate confirms information I obtained elsewhere, that there was a second plate of $3.00 generics. Original, genuine examples of $3.00 notes are known from only the first plate, not the second, so it was exciting to see this discovery. Don’t know who consigned the plates to Stack’s; SBE is still in existence in a sense, having been merged into one of the megabanks, whose current management probably doesn’t care too much about the history of one of its component banks, thus the consignment. After you receive and study the photocopies, I would be interested to hear what they tell you. David. From: [mailto: Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:03 PM [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 1/26/2019 Gmail - choses numismatiques Eric Newman < choses numismatiques 6 messages David Gladfelter < Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:15 AM To: Eric, hope all is well on your end. I am looking forward to your and David Fanning’s article revealing the source of the 18th century cambist you have. Glad that project was not forgotten. It has been a while since you presented the problem. Also letting you know that the Andrew Bradford invoice requesting reimbursement for the engraving work done by John Peter Zenger for the Province of New Jersey is now in the ANS collection, via Tony Terranova and myself. Elena Stolyarik was happy to have it. David. < Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM To: Dear David: I am told that the article on the source of the foreign exchange publication is now at the printers for The Asylum. It drove me nuts for a while and therefore belongs there. Thank you for mentioning it. As you well know things take time to solve. It is very thoughtful for you and Tony to place the Zenger item with ANS as the gift has such a broad scope of importance beyond its connection to numismatics. Thrive. Eric [Quoted text hidden] David Gladfelter < Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:01 AM To: Indeed it does take time to solve our puzzles, as well as the cooperation of other minds, even over several lifetimes. The case of the St. Patrick coppers is just one example. Which reminds me – another connection between the State Bank at Camden and one of its possible surrogates has come to light. The third series of notes of Reeves and Whittaker, listed by George Wait under Cumberland Works, ## 451 and 452, has this promissory language: “(We promise to pay) In Specie or Bank Notes at Camden near Philadelphia at N. Davis’ Store”. The notes are dated at the end of 1828. The president of SBC at that time was Richard M. Cooper, member of an influential South Jersey family, whose family name is continued today in the Cooper Hospital and health care system. Prior to becoming the bank president, and while serving as such, Richard Cooper was postmaster of the Cooper Ferry post office and held that office until 1829, at which time the name of the post office was changed to Camden. Cooper also kept a store at the Cooper Street ferry and also operated the ferry. (The simultaneous wearing of all these hats in those days was apparently not prohibited either by conflict of interest laws or by banking ethics.) Nathan Davis was for many years Cooper’s deputy postmaster and was his successor in office. Cooper put Davis in charge of the store. Davis is still listed as a merchant at the Federal Street wharf, 2 blocks to the south, in the Camden section of the 1852 Philadelphia city directory. The bank building was located at Second and Cooper streets, about a 2 block walk from the ferry. In 1827 it issued a series of notes of only the 1.00 denomination (Haxby G6); these are the only notes of that denomination issued until the 1840s. (A few survive, I have a proof and an issued note.) This bank never issued a 2.00 note; Haxby G4 and G16 are not known to have ever existed. Its 1812 charter, which also created 5 other banks, prohibited issuance of any notes below 3.00, but this restriction was repealed a year later. But Reeves and Whittaker issued both 1.00 and 2.00 notes in https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=504c5c6882&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1327378669210867368&simpl=msg-f%3A13273786692… 1/4 1/26/2019 Gmail - choses numismatiques the late 1820s, in 3 series, with serial numbers in the hundreds. The first series of R&W notes (unlisted in Wait) was payable in specie or SBC notes at the Market Street Ferry in Philadelphia (probably the western terminus of Cooper’s Ferry). The second series (dated late 1827-mid 1828, also unlisted) was payable in specie or SBC notes at 106 Market St., Philadelphia. I have not yet been able to determine what was located at that address; it was not the bank’s Philadelphia branch office. Fairman Draper Underwood & Co. printed SBC’s 1827 1.00 notes. Give you one guess who printed all 3 series of the R&W notes. You’re right! FDU also printed the later 1.00 and 2.00 notes of the Union Works of Chatsworth, N. J., issued in the same period. These notes have promissory language identical to those of the first 2 issues of R&W, and nearly identical designs, and were payable at the works’ Philadelphia office. I have not yet learned where that office was, nor have I found any connection between the Union Works (a Richards family enterprise) and SBC. As Alice would say, it gets curiouser and curiouser. Geez I feel like an investigative reporter piecing together Mafioso associations. FYI and comment? David. From: [mailto: Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 10:42 AM To: Subject: Re: choses numismatiques [Quoted text hidden] < Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 1:03 PM To: Dear David: I am fascinated by your comments about the State Bank of Camden notes and the private manufacturing business operation issues. How and why did Haxby list non-existent notes as he was very careful? I understand that Haxby is or has been revising his publication and wonder if you are in contact with him. Why don't you think about asking him what changes he has made to his early New Jersey listing and tell him what you know? I am sure he has detail on the private issues even if he excluded them from his bank note list. Perhaps Waite did not list the private notes because they were not issued by banks or corporations and were just scrip? In any event I would be appreciative if you would send me photocopies or other copies of all of the different notes you have or know of from the two private New Jersey manufacturers of the second and third decades of the 1800s. Thank you for following up on this fascinating subject. Eric [Quoted text hidden] David Gladfelter < Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM To: Eric, Haxby with help from Walter Allan, Neil Shafer and others did a tremendous job in publishing the 4-volume obsolete catalog and we are very fortunate to have it. For all that, he was not as careful as you might think. He made assumptions. In the case of New Jersey, his listings of what he calls NJ-1 are pure fiction. There never was such a thing as “State Bank https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=504c5c6882&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1327378669210867368&simpl=msg-f%3A13273786692… 2/4 1/26/2019 Gmail - choses numismatiques of New Jersey” with six “branches.” The State Bank at Camden, State Bank at Trenton, State Bank at New-Brunswick, State Bank at Elizabeth, State Bank at Morris and State Bank at Newark were all independent banks, although they were chartered in a single legislative act. What we call the “generics” are what Haxby lists under NJ-1, however, there never were “generic” 1.00 and 2.00 notes, only the other denominations, plus post notes which he does not list. I did write to him about this many years ago, but never received a reply. Have not tried to communicate with him since. I think what Haxby often did was to assume that, if a series of notes of certain regularly-issued denominations (but not others) were known to exist, then the missing denominations must have existed too, so he would put in SENC listings for them. In many cases this method worked – a note listed as SENC would actually turn up, and then it would have a Haxby number already assigned to it. However, sometimes this worked the other way – a few notes known to Wait were omitted by Haxby. In fact, the 50.00 “generic” on the State Bank at Trenton was known to Wismer (NJ 893) but omitted by Wait, then listed as a speculation (NJ-1 G126) by Haxby. I was delighted to see that note actually appear in one of the Schingoethe sales and managed to bid it in as a high personal priority. Can’t say for certain that it is the same one that Wismer listed, but I haven’t seen or heard of another. And so forth. Wait did list private notes and scrip, as did all of the SPMC State obsolete authors. Haxby omitted them (although a few crept in such as NJ-495, Salem & Philadelphia Manufacturing Co., and the fractional Cumberland Bank issues, NJ-45 G2, G4, G6 and G8). I will put in the mail to you copies of my notes on the early SBC issues (along with a copy of the charter) and those of the two private companies. You might wonder how I know in what order the Reeves & Whittaker notes came out. I had a stroke of luck. Wait illustrates, full size, the 5.00 denomination of the notes payable at N. Davis’s store (Wait 452). I have the 5.00 notes of the other two issues. On the second issue, the “St.” of “No. 106 Market St.” extends into the left border of the Raleigh portrait. On the N. Davis 5.00 note illustrated in Wait, there are traces of “St.” in the border, therefore it must have been issued after the 106 Market St. notes. On the Market St. Ferry 5.00 note in my collection there are no traces of “St.”, therefore it must have been issued before the 106 Market St. notes. That makes the order (1) Market St. Ferry, (2) No. 106 Market St., (3) N. Davis’s store. The dates on the issued notes agree with this order. We are getting there slowly but surely. Remember, it was your idea that private notes were surrogates for State Bank at Camden notes. As it turns out you were onto something. David. From: [mailto: Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:03 PM [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] David Gladfelter < Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:20 PM To: Eric, just letting you know that I put the requested photocopies in the mail to you today. Just received the catalog of the Baltimore show from Stack’s and was surprised to see, in the back, that three of the copper plates used to print the State Bank “generics” are up for sale! They must have passed into custody of the State Bank at Elizabeth after being used by the other banks, including the State Bank at Camden, because SBE used two of the plates which were modified after the original notes were printed, to make modern “repro proofs,” circa 1937 when the bank’s history was published with illustrations of the repros. The third plate confirms information I obtained elsewhere, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=504c5c6882&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1327378669210867368&simpl=msg-f%3A13273786692… 3/4 1/26/2019 Gmail - choses numismatiques that there was a second plate of $3.00 generics. Original, genuine examples of $3.00 notes are known from only the first plate, not the second, so it was exciting to see this discovery. Don’t know who consigned the plates to Stack’s; SBE is still in existence in a sense, having been merged into one of the megabanks, whose current management probably doesn’t care too much about the history of one of its component banks, thus the consignment. After you receive and study the photocopies, I would be interested to hear what they tell you. David. From: [mailto: Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:03 PM [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=504c5c6882&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1327378669210867368&simpl=msg-f%3A13273786692… 4/4 Eric Newman < State Bank at Camden 2 messages < Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:01 PM To: Dear David: I was delighted to receive your photocopies of the early State Bank of Camden and related notes. I have studied the matter further and want to give you some additional thoughts for you to comment on. I feel that the State Bank of Camden was anxious to do business in the entire Philadelphia vicinity because it was part of it even though it was across the Delaware River and in a different state. This created additional competition for the Pennsylvania banks of issue. Naturally they wanted more of the Pennsylvania bank notes to be in circulation and have other banks circulate at a discount so that other than Philadelphia banks would or might circulate at discount and thus give rise to income from the discount business for the Pennsylvania Philadelphia banks. I have not studied the then laws of Pennsylvania to determine whether there was any illegality to the circulation of notes or scrip from other areas. I am not informed about or looked up any published discounts of circulating notes appearing in Philadelphia newspapers or other media during the period. I do not know whether there was any mention of the circulation of Cumberland or Union notes in Philadelphia media. I have not previously noticed that the Cumberland or Union scrip is payable to a specific person or order rather than to a specific person or bearer, following which is a printed a printed Pay to the Bearer followed by a signature of the payee. This peculiar sequence makes them a check which is in effect endorsed on the front to make it a bearer instrument and saves another signature on the back.. The Camden Bank put on its own notes "near" Philadelphia and then "opposite" Philadelphia so you know how important that was to them. The fact that there are so many different addresses in Philadelphia for the Camden bank notes to be available in exchange for the New Jersey private scrip shows how difficult it was for the Camden Bank to keep a place for its notes to be distributed if a scrip holder wanted them. It intended to keep the scrip notes acceptable for full value. All of the foregoing leads me to reinforce my belief that the Camden Bank was dictating the Cumberland and Union low denomination scrip involvement instead of issuing their own low denomination bank notes. It certainly had an unfortunate name after the State Bank at Trenton went broke. As to State Bank at Camden One dollar Plate A # 3265 dated 182(7) counterstamped large C in ink which is printed from the same plate as your proof of Wait 321 and Haxby NJ 65 G6 FDU it is my opinion that it happened because #3265 has two dark smears which may be deliberate or accidental but cover both the NEAR and the plate letter A. The recipient may have thought that it was a counterfeit or alteration because there was no such bank in Philadelphia. Or someone may have made the coverups knowing it was genuine and did so to cheat somebody by telling him it was a counterfeit. I also feel that the date may be 1821 as you obviously do. Good luck on acquiring the generic plates. Thank you for giving rise to such intriguing numismatic projects. Eric David Gladfelter < Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM To: Eric, let me respond … 1. The SBC definitely wanted to do business in Philadelphia. Their opening a branch office there – a novel idea that no other New Jersey bank followed or was able to follow – is evidence of that. 2. Don’t know enough about how the discount business operated to comment. Per their own advertisements, SBC and other banks had specific “discount days” at which time (I assume) they accepted and paid out on all kinds of promissory notes, bank notes, business notes, individual borrowers’ notes, both secured and unsecured, at rates they probably bargained over on the basis of some kind of creditworthiness information they had access to. Maybe most of this business was with respect to bank notes, because in the old days wasn’t it more customary for the bank that made a loan to service that loan itself? Of course the notes would be negotiable instruments so anyone could buy them. 2A. This raises the question of how the 19th century currency brokers operated. Did they compete with banks to buy and sell notes held by the consumer public on other banks, or did they accept and sell off notes that their bank clients fed to them? How did they dispose of their stock of purchased bank notes – did they ship them off to the issuing banks for presentation and redemption – i.e did they act like a modern clearinghouse? If so, what mode of transportation did they use and was insurance available to protect against risk of loss? How could the cost of these services be absorbed and still allow the brokers to make a profit, without bringing commerce to a standstill because the merchants accepting the foreign notes in course of business couldn’t afford the cost of collection on the notes? Do you know of a source(s) that I could consult to learn about this? 3. You are right about the check format. It is not that unusual in N.J. Some of the village industries – particularly the iron and glass making company towns – issued scrip or “tickets” in that format to their workers. Some of the scrip was sort of a combination form consisting of a post note that was payable at a future date in cash, but would be accepted before maturity at the company store in payment for purchases. All this stuff circulated as money, albeit within the walls of the company store. Notice that the Cumberland Works (Reeves & Whittaker) and Union Works (Mark Richards) notes are in dollar denominations, not fractional, and were not redeemable in merchandise – therefore they are a different kind of “animal” from the company store scrip and served a different purpose (what was it?). 4. New Jersey has always been a place that is “near” other (more desirable?) places. The Hoboken banks put “opposite New York” on their notes too. New Jersey, though densely populated, has no metropolis (and, some would say, no identity) of its own. Not my view of course. 5. Remember that Nathan Davis’s store was not in Philadelphia, but in Camden, and hard by the bank itself. Why would Reeves and Whittaker pick that store, rather than the bank, for the place where their notes would be payable? 6. The SBC was a sound bank and was widely respected. I say that because several scrip issues were made payable in SBC notes. It survived and was eventually merged into one of the megabanks. The only things it had in common with the State Bank at Trenton were incorporation by the same legislative act, and use of the same “generic” bank note forms that a committee of the six banks chartered together purchased jointly for their individual use (there’s no evidence that the State Bank at New Brunswick used the generics, however). 7. The date of Wait 321 can’t be 1821 because Fairman Draper Underwood didn’t exist until 1823, per Foster Wild Rice and other sources. However, the smudge on NEAR did make me wonder whether it was deliberate, to make the note PHILADELPHIA appear to be a Philadelphia bank note. Remember the Salem & Manufacturing Co. notes? Same idea there. Thanks again for your ideas. David. From: [mailto: Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:01 PM To: Subject: State Bank at Camden