MAY 12
1675•Pine Tree Shilling
1920•Orville Harrington Sentenced
1920•Pilgrim Tercentenary Half Dollar
Massachusetts Moves to Continue the Hull Mint
A General Court order began a new agreement for John Hull and Robert Sanderson's mint, whose Pine Tree silver made colonial authority visible in money.
◆
American Coin History Calendar · Article 132 · May 12
A mint agreement behind a famous colonial coin
The Pine Tree shilling is familiar as a silver object bearing a tree, the name of Massachusetts, and the date 1652. Its manufacture nevertheless continued long after that date. The master calendar places a renewal of John Hull's minting arrangement on May 12, 1675, connecting the famous coin with the administrative decisions that kept a colonial mint at work.
The date requires a refinement. A General Court order reproduced in John H. Hickcox's 1858 coinage history says that the previous term had expired and empowers officials on May 12 to negotiate a new arrangement. The subsequent seven-year agreement is signed June 3 and reproduced under July 9 proceedings. May 12 began the renewal process; it should not be described without qualification as the date on which the final agreement was signed. [2]
That clarification preserves the selected subject rather than substituting another event. The story remains the continuation of the Hull Mint and its Massachusetts silver. The documentary sequence reveals something more useful than a single compressed anniversary: coinage depended on a negotiated relationship among the colony, the mintmasters, and people bringing silver to be coined.
In the reproduced order, the General Court sought an arrangement that would encourage holders of bullion to bring it to the mint. It empowered the governor and Boston magistrates, or a committee of three, to negotiate. The concern was therefore not merely whether Hull should retain a prestigious title. It was whether the terms would keep silver moving into local coinage. [2]
A mint without incoming metal could not solve a currency problem by possessing dies and a press alone. The willingness of depositors mattered. The order's emphasis on encouraging bullion deposits recognizes that practical relationship between an institution's legal authority and the resources needed for its operation.
The May 12 action also shows that colonial coinage was not an informal hobby carried on indefinitely by one silversmith. The arrangement had a term, and its continuation required government attention. Renewing it was an administrative decision with monetary consequences for the community the mint served.
Hull and Sanderson belonged together in the agreement
The subsequent agreement names Robert Sanderson and John Hull as the former mintmasters who would continue. The Metropolitan Museum likewise identifies both men with the mint's establishment in 1652. A history centered exclusively on Hull's familiar name can therefore obscure a documented partnership. [2][3]
The distinction matters when interpreting a coin attributed to the Hull Mint. The institution's common name does not mean that every part of its work was done by Hull alone. The partnership belonged to the manufacture and administration of Massachusetts silver, and the renewal evidence carries both names.
Calling attention to Sanderson does not require dividing every surviving coin between the men individually. The consulted evidence supports their joint role. Assigning a particular die or a particular day's work to one partner would require more specific documentation than the broad mint agreement provides.
The agreement reproduced by Hickcox provides for seven further years if either mintmaster lived that long. It specifies compensation for processing silver and an annual payment to the colony's treasurer. The legal arrangement therefore combined permission to coin with terms governing how the service would be paid for. [2]
That structure helps explain why the renewal belongs in coin history. Coins were not created simply because a government wanted a visible emblem. They emerged from a service that needed skilled labor, equipment, usable metal, and agreed compensation. Terms that affected mintmasters and depositors could influence whether bullion became local currency.
The contract should not be translated into a modern federal budget system. Massachusetts Bay had its own institutional arrangements, and the mint was operated through these named specialists. The surviving terms illuminate that particular setting rather than establishing a universal model for later American mints.
The original problem was a shortage of usable coin
The Smithsonian's account of the Pine Tree shilling describes Boston authorities authorizing Hull and Sanderson to establish a mint in 1652 in response to a lack of coin. The museum presents the issue as a local response to the monetary needs of a growing colonial economy. [4]
Imported silver could exist in the community without supplying a convenient, consistent local coinage. A mint offered a way to turn that metal into pieces whose denominations and issuing identity could be recognized within Massachusetts. The service joined bullion processing with the practical need for money that people could count and accept.
It did not create silver from nothing. Metal still had to arrive, and it could still leave through trade. The renewed arrangement's attention to depositors fits that broader problem. Encouraging people to bring bullion in was part of sustaining a currency supply, not a separate concern unrelated to the coins.
The Metropolitan Museum's study of early American silver describes the first New England pieces as carrying NE on one side and denomination numerals on the other. Their limited decoration left much of the surface open. The study connects the later demand for more extensive designs with the problem of clipping metal from coin edges. [7]
A simple stamp could establish that a piece had passed through the mint, but it supplied relatively little visual information about the original boundary of the blank. If silver was removed, the remaining central marks might still be present. A design extending toward the perimeter made that kind of alteration easier to notice.
The sequence shows design responding to a monetary problem. The trees were not only a decorative replacement chosen because a plant looked attractive. The broader inscriptions and borders helped make the coin's intended completeness visible. Artistic form and the protection of silver value were connected.
The court asked for a tree and identifying inscriptions
The same Metropolitan Museum study reproduces the substance of the October 1652 design order: a tree, surrounding inscriptions, a date, and denomination information within a more extensive arrangement of rings. The issued designs developed through the familiar Willow, Oak, and Pine Tree forms. [7]
Those names are useful classifications for collectors, but they should not make the surviving pieces appear as three unrelated monetary systems. They belong to the continuing Massachusetts silver coinage. Changes in their appearance help organize a long manufacturing history whose inscriptions often retain an earlier date.
A reader can therefore examine a tree coin at two levels. The central image identifies a design family; the legends and numerals identify colony and denomination. The full face of the coin, rather than the tree alone, communicates the monetary object that the mint intended to produce.
The Metropolitan Museum notes that virtually all of the mint's successive examples continued to carry 1652. Colonial Williamsburg dates Pine Tree issues to a later production period, and the Hood Museum identifies its Pine Tree shilling with manufacture in 1675–1682. Institutional object descriptions thus distinguish the inscription from the manufacturing date. [3][5][6]
This is one of the most important interpretive points in the series. A coin dated 1652 can belong to the period addressed by the 1675 renewal. There is no contradiction once the date on the die is understood as a retained inscription rather than a fresh annual manufacturing label.
The distinction also cautions against placing every Pine Tree shilling in the year the mint began. The institution started in 1652; its designs developed afterward. A chronological account must combine the physical coin with documentary and numismatic classification rather than relying on the visible date alone.
The Smithsonian offers an interpretation linking the pine to an important colonial export: trees suitable for ships' masts. That is a useful explanation of how an apparently simple design could connect money with the region's resources and Atlantic trade. The museum presents the symbolism cautiously, and the same caution is appropriate here. [4]
A tree on a coin does not include a written statement from its makers explaining every intended association. It can be discussed as a possible economic emblem without converting that interpretation into an undisputed original design instruction.
The image nonetheless gives the coin a distinctive regional identity. Unlike a royal portrait, it invites attention to a landscape resource. Within the surrounding Massachusetts and New England legends, the tree makes the issuing community visible through a natural form rather than through a monarch's likeness.
The shilling and its denomination numerals
Colonial Williamsburg's object record describes a large-planchet Pine Tree shilling with date and denomination inside the reverse's central circle. The broader mint produced denominations within a familiar pounds, shillings, and pence system. These pieces belong to a different monetary vocabulary from the later federal dollar divided into cents. [5][3]
Reading XII on a shilling requires that earlier context. It identifies twelve pence, not twelve dollars or a modern decimal value. The denomination fits the accounting language in which the mint agreement and colonial payments were discussed.
A historical comparison should therefore avoid treating the shilling as simply an early version of a particular modern coin. Its silver, denomination, and local issuing arrangements belonged to the colonial system. Later American coinage provides an interesting comparison, but it should not overwrite the terms that made this piece useful in its own period.
The master-linked numismatic account separates larger-diameter Pine Tree coins from later smaller, thicker pieces. The Hood Museum's 1675–1682 manufacturing range places a surviving example within the later part of the mint's activity. The visible 1652 date remains present despite that later classification. [1][6]
Planchet is the numismatic term for the prepared metal blank on which a coin is struck. Changes in its proportions can affect how a design fills the surface, how the borders meet the edge, and how a piece appears beside an earlier format. A difference in diameter is therefore more than a collecting label.
The formats should not be assigned exact first-striking days on the basis of these broad date ranges. The consulted descriptions support a developmental sequence and approximate periods. The May 12 anniversary concerns the administrative continuation of the mint, not a proven day on which every later planchet format first appeared.
A local mint raised an imperial question
Revolutionary Spaces, the institution responsible for Boston's Old State House and Old South Meeting House, places the Hull Mint within the colony's difficult relationship with royal authority. Its account describes coinage as one of the practices challenged by Edward Randolph when he criticized Massachusetts' independence from imperial oversight. [8]
That context gives the absence of a monarch's portrait a political dimension. A colony identifying itself on locally made money exercised a function closely associated with sovereign authority. The practical desire for usable currency could consequently become entangled with disputes over who was entitled to issue it.
The coin should not be described as money of an already independent United States. The nation did not exist when the 1675 order was issued. The historically significant tension lay within a colonial and imperial relationship. Later independence can make that tension appear prophetic, but it should not be substituted for the circumstances of the mint's own era.
The Colonial Society of Massachusetts identifies Hull and Sanderson with the engraving and manufacture of the early New England and tree coinage. Their work belongs to a wider world of colonial metalworking in which skilled makers could supply both practical objects and emblems of authority. [9]
A coin asked that craft to serve an unusually repetitive purpose. The same design needed to be transferred to many pieces, each carrying a denomination that others would accept. Unlike a unique commissioned vessel, the coin's usefulness depended partly on its recognizable relationship to other coins of the same issue.
The mint agreement supplied a public framework for that work. The craftsmen's skills mattered, but so did the colony's authority, the depositor's metal, and the terms of compensation. The Pine Tree shilling is a small meeting point of those relationships: private technical competence working within a public monetary arrangement.
What a surviving example can and cannot establish
A surviving Pine Tree shilling can preserve the design, legends, denomination, and physical characteristics of its variety. Museum descriptions can place it within a broader manufacturing period. The coin alone does not reproduce the signature date of a contract or identify which depositor supplied its silver.
That division of evidence is useful rather than frustrating. The object demonstrates what the mint made; the court order and agreement demonstrate how its continued service was organized. Reading them together gives a fuller account than asking either one to answer every question.
It also prevents a retained 1652 inscription from erasing the later working life of the institution. The 1675 negotiations belong to the history of coins that often continued to look back to the mint's founding year. Administrative history and numismatic appearance do not always advance on the same annual schedule.
Because the coins continued to use an earlier date, the mint's administrative records become particularly important for reconstructing its later working life. A renewal order can show that the service remained a matter of public decision even when the coins themselves did not advertise a new year.
This is a distinctive relationship between object and document. The coin gives the mint a recognizable identity across time. The agreement introduces terms, participants, and a later chronological point within that continuity. The 1675 action therefore helps the reader see beyond the familiar 1652 inscription to an institution that needed ongoing arrangements to keep producing usable silver money.
The selected primary is the Hull Mint continuation associated with Pine Tree silver. The documentary refinement is explicit: May 12, 1675, authorized negotiations; the reproduced seven-year agreement was signed afterward. This article preserves the calendar's subject while avoiding the stronger claim that the final contract was signed that day.
The master lists Orville Harrington's 1920 sentencing and the Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar as two secondary May 12 entries. They remain cross-references. The primary story is the colony's decision to keep its minting service functioning, the partnership that carried it out, and silver coins whose familiar 1652 date conceals a much longer history of manufacture.
ALSO ON THIS DAY
1920 — Orville Harrington Sentenced — Denver Mint employee Orville Harrington was sentenced after pleading guilty in the Mint gold-theft case.
1920 — Pilgrim Tercentenary Half Dollar — Congress authorized the Pilgrim Tercentenary commemorative half dollar