Design Evolution: Tracing the Artistic Lineage of 18 mm US Mint Medalets, circa 1860–1885 — What Came Before, What Came After, and Why Collectors Should Care

Coin designs don’t simply appear from thin air. They evolve, born from the dies of their predecessors and shaped by engravers who borrowed, refined, and sometimes radically reimagined the visual language of their era. As a numismatic artist who has spent years studying the intersection of artistry and minting technology, I can tell you that few areas of American numismatics illustrate this evolutionary process as vividly as the 18 mm medalets struck between roughly 1860 and 1885 by the US Mint, William Key, and George Soley. These small but fascinating pieces — often overlooked by mainstream collectors — represent a remarkable chapter in design continuity, die variety, and the sometimes surprising ways that artistic motifs migrate across denominations, formats, and even centuries.

The original forum thread that inspired this piece was modestly titled “Looking for examples of 18 mm medalets, circa 1860–1885,” but the discussion it sparked revealed a numismatic ecosystem of extraordinary complexity. One researcher has already identified approximately 150 varieties, and he freely admits, “This is a case where I don’t know what I don’t know.” That humility is well-placed. The world of 19th-century American medalets is one where similar dies were struck in countless combinations, where restrikes blur the line between original issue and later reproduction, and where the artistic lineage of a single design can be traced backward and forward through decades of minting history.

In this article, I want to walk you through that lineage. We’ll examine the previous types that laid the groundwork for these medalets, the succeeding types that carried their design elements forward, the threads of design continuity that bind them together, and the public reaction — both contemporary and modern — to these small but artistically significant pieces. Whether you’re a collector, a historian, or someone trying to understand what makes one medalet worth a few dollars and another worth a few hundred, this evolutionary perspective will give you a framework that goes far beyond simple catalog listings.

I. The Artistic Context: What Came Before the 18 mm Medalets

To understand the 18 mm medalets of the 1860–1885 period, we need to look at the broader artistic and technological landscape of American medallic art in the mid-19th century. The United States Mint in the 1850s and 1860s was producing a wide range of experimental pieces, pattern coins, and commemorative medals. Chief Engravers James B. Longacre and later William Barber were actively developing new design motifs — the Indian Head cent of 1859, the various shield and liberty motifs that would define the coinage of the Civil War era, and a rich tradition of political and commemorative medalets struck for campaigns, expositions, and private issuers.

The 18 mm format itself was not new. Small-diameter medalets had been struck in Europe for centuries, and American issuers adopted the format for its economy and portability. What was new in the 1860–1885 period was the sophistication of die work and the sheer variety of designs being produced. The three primary sources of these medalets — the US Mint (producing pieces for official and sometimes unofficial purposes), William Key (a die sinker and private minter), and George Soley (another private producer) — were working in a shared artistic vocabulary but producing distinctly individual results.

The Preceding Design Tradition

The design elements found on 18 mm medalets of this era draw heavily from several established traditions:

• Political campaign medalets: The Lincoln-era medalets, for instance, inherited design motifs from earlier political pieces — profile portraits, patriotic symbols (eagles, shields, flags), and allegorical figures representing liberty, victory, or mourning.
• US Mint patterns and experimental pieces: Many of the portrait styles and lettering conventions found on private medalets of this period mirror work being done concurrently at the Philadelphia Mint. Engravers moved between official and private work, carrying their stylistic habits with them.
• European medallic traditions: The 18 mm format was popular in Britain and France for trade tokens, commemorative pieces, and political medals. American producers were clearly influenced by these precedents, particularly in the use of reeded edges, proof-like surfaces, and high-relief portraiture.
• Earlier American private issues: Medalets and tokens from the 1830s–1850s — Hard Times tokens, Civil War store cards, and various political pieces — established a visual grammar that the 1860–1885 medalets refined and expanded.

What’s fascinating from an artistic perspective is how these influences combined. A single 18 mm medalet might feature a portrait style clearly derived from Longacre’s work at the Mint, paired with a reverse die borrowed or adapted from a European trade token, all executed with the distinctive hand of a private die sinker like Key or Soley. The result is a hybrid artistic object that belongs to multiple traditions simultaneously — and that layered provenance is a big part of what gives these pieces their numismatic value.

II. The Medalets Themselves: Die Varieties, Makers, and Design Features

The core of the research being discussed in the forum thread involves cataloging the die varieties of 18 mm medalets. The researcher has identified approximately 150 varieties so far, and the complexity is staggering. Similar dies were struck in “lots and lots of combinations,” meaning that obverse and reverse pairings create a combinatorial explosion of distinct types.

The Three Primary Sources

Understanding the design evolution of these medalets requires distinguishing among the three main producers:

1. US Mint: Official and semi-official pieces struck at the Philadelphia Mint. These tend to exhibit the highest quality of die work and are often the design anchors against which private issues are compared. Mint-struck medalets frequently feature proof-like surfaces, sharp detail, and a level of luster that sets them apart from most private issues.
2. William Key: A private die sinker whose work is characterized by distinctive portrait styles and lettering. Key’s dies were often used in combination with other producers’ dies, creating hybrid pieces that complicate attribution but add enormously to the collectibility of the series.
3. George Soley: Another private producer whose medalets sometimes overlap in design with Key’s work. Soley pieces can sometimes be distinguished by subtle differences in portrait rendering, edge treatment, and surface quality. (As one forum participant noted, a Soley medal in their collection turned out to be 13 mm rather than 18 mm — a reminder that careful measurement is essential for proper attribution.)

The Lincoln Broken Column Medal: A Case Study in Design Evolution

One of the most instructive examples discussed in the forum thread is the Lincoln Broken Column medalet, listed in Robert Julian’s reference work as PR-38. This piece perfectly illustrates the complexities of design evolution, restrikes, and collector perception.

The obverse features a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, while the reverse depicts a broken column — a classical symbol of a life cut short, commonly used in mourning art and memorial contexts. The design continuity here is striking: the broken column motif had been used in American funerary art since the colonial period, and its appearance on a Lincoln memorial medalet connects this small 18 mm piece to a much broader artistic tradition of public mourning.

As the forum discussion reveals, there are at least four other Lincoln dies known to have been paired with the Broken Column reverse. This is design evolution in action — the same reverse die paired with multiple obverses, each creating a distinct variety with its own collectible identity and eye appeal. The PR-38 pairing is the only one known to have been used for 20th-century restrikes, which adds another layer of complexity for collectors trying to determine whether their piece is an original 19th-century striking or a later reproduction.

Julian PR-37 and the Question of Non-Existent Varieties

The forum discussion also raises an important point about the fallibility of even the best numismatic references. Julian lists PR-37 as a variety featuring an incuse “P” on Lincoln’s truncation (the bottom edge of the portrait bust). However, the leading researcher in this area expresses confidence that this variety “doesn’t actually exist” and represents one of the few errors in Julian’s otherwise authoritative work.

This is a critical point for collectors: not every listed variety is genuine. The process of design evolution includes the creation of catalog entries, and those entries are only as good as the research behind them. As new evidence emerges — as it clearly has in this specialized area — references must be updated. If you’re collecting these medalets, don’t assume that a variety listed in any reference, no matter how respected, is automatically genuine. Seek out the latest research, compare your pieces against verified examples, and don’t be afraid to question established attributions.

III. Restrikes and Reproductions: The 20th-Century Chapter

No discussion of design evolution is complete without addressing restrikes, and the 18 mm medalet world has its share of them. The Lincoln Broken Column PR-38 is a prime example: the same dies (or copies of them) that produced originals in the 19th century were used again in the 20th century to strike restrikes for collectors.

This raises the question: where does design evolution end and reproduction begin? From a purely artistic standpoint, a restrike using original dies is a continuation of the design tradition — the same artwork, the same composition, just struck at a different time. But from a collector’s standpoint, the distinction between an original and a restrike is critical for valuation and historical significance.

How to Distinguish Originals from Restrikes

The forum discussion provides some excellent practical guidance on this point, and I want to expand on it from my experience examining these pieces:

• Color and toning: Originals tend to be much darker — a deep brown or chocolate patina that develops over 140+ years. Restrikes are typically lighter, what one experienced collector describes as “sort of beige.” This color difference is one of the most reliable initial indicators, though it’s not foolproof (artificial toning can mimic natural patina).
• Surface texture: Originals were often struck with reflective, proof-like surfaces that still show considerable luster in mint condition. Restrikes frequently exhibit matte or “pebbly” fields. In hand, this texture is usually visible under magnification. In extreme cases, the recessed areas of the fields may capture dirt, making the texture visible even in photographs.
• Strike quality: Originals tend to show sharper detail and more consistent striking pressure. Restrikes may show softer details, particularly in the highest points of the design — a difference that directly affects eye appeal and, consequently, numismatic value.
• Edge examination: Careful examination of the edge can reveal differences in the striking process. Originals may show evidence of the specific collar and striking methods used in the 19th century, while restrikes may have slightly different edge characteristics.

If you’re looking at a piece and trying to determine its status, I recommend comparing it against verified examples in major auction archives. The Heritage auction listing referenced in the forum thread (HA lot 12575, sale 1158) shows an MS-67 NGC 20th-century restrike with clearly visible matte surfaces, particularly on the reverse. This is an excellent reference image for understanding what restrike surfaces look like under high-quality photography.

IV. Succeeding Types: What Came After 1885

The design elements developed in the 1860–1885 medalet tradition didn’t disappear after 1885. They evolved, migrated, and reappeared in several subsequent numismatic contexts:

Later US Mint Medal Issues

The portrait styles, lettering conventions, and symbolic vocabulary developed in the 18 mm medalet tradition influenced later US Mint medal production well into the early 20th century. The Broken Column motif, for example, continued to appear in various forms on memorial and commemorative pieces. The high-relief portrait style that characterized the best 18 mm medalets — with its bold eye appeal and technical ambition — was echoed in the official medal programs of the 1890s and 1900s.

Private Medal and Token Production

The private medal producers who succeeded Key and Soley — and in some cases, the same dies were transferred to later operators — continued to produce small-format medalets using similar design conventions. The 18 mm format gradually gave way to slightly larger formats (21 mm, 24 mm) as collector preferences evolved, but the artistic DNA of the earlier pieces remained clearly visible. Tracking these transitions is one of the most rewarding aspects of studying the series, as each shift in format or style tells us something about changing tastes and minting capabilities.

The Collector Medal Movement

By the early 20th century, the rise of organized numismatic collecting created a market for restrikes and reproductions of earlier medalets. This is the context in which the 20th-century restrikes of pieces like the Lincoln Broken Column PR-38 were produced. These restrikes represent a fascinating intersection of design continuity and commercial motivation — the desire to make historically significant designs available to collectors who couldn’t afford (or couldn’t find) original strikings. For the modern collector, understanding this provenance is essential to assessing both authenticity and collectibility.

V. Design Continuity: The Threads That Bind

When I examine these 18 mm medalets as an artist, what strikes me most is the remarkable continuity of design across producers, decades, and even centuries. The same portrait styles, the same symbolic vocabulary, the same technical approaches to die-sinking recur again and again. This isn’t plagiarism or copying — it’s the natural result of a shared artistic tradition in which engravers trained in common methods, worked with common tools, and responded to common aesthetic values.

Motifs That Persist

Several design motifs show particular persistence across the 18 mm medalet series and its related pieces:

• The profile portrait: Whether of Lincoln, Washington, or other figures, the profile portrait remains the dominant obverse design. The style of the profile — the shape of the nose, the treatment of the hair, the depth of the truncation — varies by engraver, but the basic format is remarkably consistent.
• The broken column: As a reverse design, the broken column is a powerful symbol of mortality and loss that transcends any single issue. Its appearance on Lincoln medalets connects these pieces to a broader tradition of mourning art that stretches back to classical antiquity.
• Patriotic devices: Eagles, shields, flags, and stars appear repeatedly across the series, often in nearly identical renderings that suggest shared die sources or direct copying between producers.
• Lettering styles: The font choices, letter spacing, and placement of legends show clear continuity across producers and time periods, reflecting the limited range of available type styles and the conservative aesthetic preferences of the era.

The Artist’s Hand

Despite this continuity, there is also clear evidence of individual artistic personality. The work of William Key, for instance, has a distinctive character that an experienced eye can recognize — a particular way of rendering hair, a characteristic depth of lettering, a preference for certain compositional arrangements. George Soley’s work, while sometimes similar, has its own identifiable qualities. This interplay between shared tradition and individual expression is what makes these medalets so rewarding to study as works of art, and it’s what gives certain rare variety pieces their outsized appeal to discerning collectors.

VI. Public Reaction: Then and Now

The public reception of 18 mm medalets has evolved dramatically over the past 160 years, and understanding that evolution is important for collectors and anyone assessing their long-term value.

Contemporary Reception (1860–1885)

In their original context, these medalets served multiple functions. Some were political pieces, distributed at rallies and conventions to promote candidates or causes. Others were commemorative, marking events like the death of Lincoln or the anniversary of important historical moments. Still others were purely commercial, produced for sale to collectors and souvenir hunters.

The public reaction to these pieces was shaped by their context. A Lincoln memorial medalet struck shortly after the assassination in 1865 would have been received as a deeply emotional object — a tangible connection to a national tragedy. A campaign medalet from the same era would have been a piece of political propaganda, designed to evoke loyalty and enthusiasm. The artistic quality of the design mattered, but it was secondary to the piece’s function as a vehicle for sentiment or ideology.

Modern Collector Reception

Today, the reception of these medalets is quite different. Modern collectors approach them primarily as objects of numismatic and artistic interest. The questions that matter now are: How rare is this variety? What is its condition? Is it an original or a restrike? What is its provenance? The emotional and political contexts that gave these pieces their original meaning have faded, replaced by the analytical framework of the collector and the market.

This shift in reception has practical implications for value. Pieces that were common in their original context — mass-produced campaign medalets, for example — may be quite scarce today simply because few were preserved. Conversely, pieces that were rare from the start command premium prices that reflect both their scarcity and their historical significance.

The forum discussion itself is evidence of the modern collector’s fascination with these pieces. The researcher’s call for photographs and information generated enthusiastic responses from collectors who had been sitting on pieces for years without fully understanding what they had. This is a common experience in the medalet world — these small, easily overlooked pieces often turn out to be more significant than their owners realized.

VII. Practical Takeaways for Buyers and Sellers

Based on the forum discussion and my own experience, here are some actionable points for anyone buying, selling, or collecting 18 mm medalets from the 1860–1885 period:

1. Measure carefully. The distinction between 13 mm, 18 mm, and other sizes is critical for proper attribution. A Soley medal that looks similar to an 18 mm piece may actually be 13 mm — and that difference matters for both identification and value.
2. Understand the restrike issue. Many familiar varieties exist in both original and restrike forms. Learn to distinguish them by color, surface texture, and strike quality. Don’t assume a piece is original just because it looks old — check the patina, examine the luster, and assess the overall eye appeal against verified originals.
3. Consult the latest research. Numismatic references, including Julian’s work, are invaluable but not infallible. New varieties are being identified, and some previously listed varieties (like the supposed PR-37 with the incuse “P”) may not actually exist. Stay current with the latest scholarship.
4. Document everything. If you have an 18 mm medalet, take clear photographs of both sides, note the diameter, weight, and edge type, and compare your piece against verified examples. If you’re working with a researcher studying these pieces, share your information — the field advances through collaboration.
5. Consider condition carefully. As with all numismatic items, condition is a major driver of value. A well-preserved original with dark, even toning and proof-like surfaces will command a significant premium over a restrike or a worn example. Mint condition pieces with full luster are especially prized.
6. Beware of die combinations. The combinatorial nature of die pairings means that seemingly minor differences — a slightly different obverse paired with the same reverse — can create distinct and potentially valuable varieties. Pay attention to details; a rare variety hiding in plain sight is one of the great thrills of this series.
7. Build relationships with specialists. The world of 18 mm medalets is highly specialized. Connecting with the researchers and collectors who focus on this area (like the forum participants in this thread) is the best way to deepen your knowledge and avoid costly mistakes.

VIII. Conclusion: The Enduring Significance of Small-Format Medalets

The 18 mm medalets of the 1860–1885 period occupy a unique position in American numismatic history. They are small enough to be easily overlooked, yet they contain a wealth of artistic, historical, and technical information that rewards careful study. Their design evolution — from the political and commemorative traditions that preceded them, through the creative work of producers like the US Mint, William Key, and George Soley, to the restrikes and collector pieces that succeeded them — tells a story about American art, technology, and culture that is far larger than their physical dimensions might suggest.

As a numismatic artist, I find these pieces endlessly fascinating because they represent the intersection of so many traditions and influences. A single 18 mm medalet might carry the artistic legacy of classical mourning symbolism, the technical innovations of 19th-century die-sinking, the political passions of the Civil War era, and the commercial instincts of private minters — all in a piece small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. That density of meaning is what makes them collectible, and it’s what makes the ongoing research into their varieties so important for the entire numismatic community.

If you have examples of 18 mm medalets — whether you’ve been collecting them for years or you just found one in a box at your local coin shop — I encourage you to look at them with fresh eyes. Measure them, photograph them, compare them against published references, and share what you find with the collecting community. The researcher behind the forum thread is absolutely right: “This is a case where I don’t know what I don’t know.” The only way to fill those gaps in our collective knowledge is through the kind of collaborative, generous sharing of information that the numismatic community does better than almost any other field of collecting.

These small medalets may never command the attention or the prices of gold coins or rare silver dollars, but their artistic and historical significance is immense. They are, in miniature, a portrait of America in one of its most turbulent and creative periods — and they deserve to be studied, preserved, and appreciated as the works of art they truly are.

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• Can a Coin Be Made Into Jewelry? A Crafter’s Guide to Silver Content, Metal Hardness, and Aesthetic Appeal for Rings – Not every coin belongs in a ring mandrel. Before you start folding, you need to understand the metal you’re workin…
• The Crack-Out Game: Should You Resubmit a Unique NGC MS-69 Elliptical Planchet Gold Eagle to PCGS? – Sometimes the plastic holder is the very thing holding a coin back. Let’s talk about the risks—and the rewards—of …
• Can’t Afford the Key Date? Top Budget Alternatives for 18 mm US Medalets (1860‑1885) – Not everyone has thousands to drop on a single piece of metal. Here are the most beautiful and historically significant …