America's silver coinage, 1794-1891 Coinage of the Americas Conference, 1986

Editor
Doty, Richard G.
Series
Coinage of the Americas Conference
Publisher
American Numismatic Society
Place
New York
Date
Source
Donum
Source
Worldcat
Source
Worldcat Works

License

CC BY-NC

Acknowledgement

Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program.

Export

Table of Contents

FRONT

BODY

The Silver Coinage of 1873, and the So-Called Crime of 1873

Harry X Boosel

Coinage of the Americas Conference at The American Numismatic Society, New York City

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

Two events occurred in 1873 which contributed to the produc-tion during that year of the largest number of varieties of silver coins of any year in U.S. Mint history, without regard to die breaks, recutting of dies, errors, size and position of mint marks, and the like. All varieties are discernible to the naked eye or with a low powered glass.

The first event of importance was a letter dated January 18, 1873, from A. Louden Snowden, Chief Coiner of the Philadelphia Mint, to the Honorable James Pollock, Director of the U.S. Mint.1

I desire in a formal manner to direct your attention to the 'figures' used in dating the dies for the present year.They are so heavy, and the space between each, so small, that upon the smaller gold and silver, and upon the base coins, it is impossible to distinguish with the naked eye, whether the last figure is an eight or a three.In our ordinary coinage, many of the pieces are not fully brought up, and upon such it is impossible to distinguish what is the last figure of this year's date.I do not think it creditable to the institution that the coinage of the year should be issued bearing this defect in the date.I would recommend that an entire new set of figures, avoiding the defects of those now in use, be prepared at the earliest possible day. (See fig. 1.)
image

Fig. 1

This, of course, resulted in the now well-known "Open 3s and Closed 3s" of that year. No one had publicized this change prior to my research on the coinage of 1873, beginning in 1950. Beistle 2 had mentioned an 1873 half dollar without arrows, with a 3 more open than all others without arrows.

Most numismatic research is accomplished by studying the coins themselves. Based on the Snowden letter and Beistle, I undertook to find the changes, if any, in the numeral 3 on all 1873 coins.

The other event affecting the silver coinage of 1873 was the Coinage Act of 1873, approved by President Grant on February 12,3 to take effect on April 1.

That legislation changed the weight of the U.S. dimes, quarters, and half dollars to metric standards, increasing the weights slightly. The dimes were increased by .01g, the quarters by .03g, and the half dollars by .06g. Since the Act specifically designated the coins to be minted and their respective weights, the mint could not issue any silver coins after April 1, 1873, which did not conform to the Act, whether coined prior to April 1 or after. The standard silver dollar was not authorized or mentioned in the Act.

The following silver coins were minted in 1873 at the Philadelphia Mint, for general circulation, prior to April 1: the half dime, dime, quarter and half dollar without arrows, and the standard silver dollar, none of which could be issued after March 31, 1873, because they did not conform to the Act.

A precedent had been set in 1853 for a weight change in silver coins, so the Mint followed that in 1873 by placing reversed arrows pointing outward from the sides of the date on dimes, quarters, and half dollars, to show the increase in weight. But the 3 cent piece, made only in proof and prior to April 1, the half dime and standard silver dollar were not authorized or mentioned in the Act, and thus were discontinued. The trade dollar was authorized in the Act, and its coinage commenced on July 11, 1873,4 after substantial design problems.

There are thus 9 different weight silver coins which were issued in 1873 for general circulation. They are: the half dime, two different dimes, quarters and half dollars, the standard silver dollar, and the trade dollar, all from the Philadelphia Mint. We also have the Open and Closed 3s in the dimes, quarters and half dollars without arrows (see fig. 2), and the half dollars with large and small arrows (see fig. 3), as well as what can be called the "4-striper" half dollar with small arrows, caused by a bounced die. All half dollars made from 1839 through 1891 have the vertical bars of Liberty's shield in groups of three. This 1873 variety is the only one that has them in groups of 4. It is unmentioned in Beistle and, thus, is my discovery (see fig. 4).5

In major varieties there are therefore 15 different business strike silver coins made at the Philadelphia Mint, as well as 10 different proof strikes of the basic coins, totaling 25 different silver coins dated 1873 from the Philadelphia Mint.

image

Fig. 2

image

Fig. 3

image

Fig. 4

If we include the silver coins from the branch mints in 1873, there are 7 from the San Francisco Mint, and 8 from the Carson City Mint, making 40 different silver coins minted in 1873. The San Francisco Mint coins are: the half dime, the half dollar without arrows and the standard silver dollar,6 as well as the dime, quarter and half dollar with arrows, and the trade dollar. From the Carson City Mint there are the dime, quarter and half dollar without arrows7 and the standard silver dollar, as well as the dime, quarter and half dollar with arrows and the trade dollar.

There is one more variety that is often overlooked, because few people collect dimes. It is the Philadelphia dime with arrows, which comes in a high and low date, also discernible with the naked eye (see fig. 5).8 So we now have 41 major varieties, in the aggregate, of silver coins minted in 1873.

image

Fig. 5

The "Crime of 1873"

The Coinage Act of 1873 is often referred to as the "Crime of 1873 " Why was it called a "Crime," and is that justified?

The Act of 1873 had a long and devious history, going back as far as 1867. In that year an International Monetary Conference was held in Paris, and our representative was Samuel B. Ruggles, a member of the Chamber of Commerce of New York City. Senator John Sherman of Ohio, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, con-veyed a message to Ruggles to press for a single international coinage standard—gold.

In June 1868 Senator Sherman, who also attended the conference, made a report to the United States Senate in favor of a "single coinage standard, exclusively of gold." In the same year, Sherman introduced a bill in the Senate, having the same objective: a single standard of gold.9 This bill was accompanied by letters of approbation from Secretary of the Treasury George S. Boutwell, Deputy Comptroller John Jay Knox, and various reports and recommendations from subordinate officials of the Treasury Department, including the mint. But there was nothing in any of the reports that indicated the slightest comprehension of the economic effect of demonetizing silver.

Senator Sherman introduced Senate bills in the two succeeding Congresses to effect his goal of making gold the sole standard of the United States. His bill of April 28, 1870, included "revising the laws relating to the Mints, Assay Offices, and coinage of the United States," which, of course, was referred to the Senate Finance Committee of which Sherman was Chairman. On December 19 Sherman reported the bill back to the Senate with some amendments, among which was a charge for coinage of silver brought into the mints.

The bill was adopted in committee January 9, 1871, as amended, and passed the whole Senate but with the amendment calling for a charge for coinage striken out. It is interesting to note that Sherman, who had voted for the amendment to charge for coinage in committee, voted against it when the bill reached the Senate floor on January 10 and was sent to the House the same day.

In the House of Representatives, the bill was bandied back and forth between the committee and the floor for over one year. Samuel Hooper of Massachusetts, on April 19, 1872, in a debate in support of the bill, let drop a remark in the House which helps to explain the origin of the carefully laid plot to change the money standard of the United States. He made this admission: "Mr. Ernst Seyd of London, a distinguished writer who has given great attention to the mints and coinage, after examining the first draft of this bill, has furnished many valuable suggestions, which have been incorporated in this bill" (italics added). It is not known what parts of the bill Mr. Seyd furnished. It is highly improbable that he came all the way from London to make suggestions about the basis for our coinage, the practical running of our mints or about the devices on our coins. We will hear about Mr. Seyd again.

On May 27, 1872, the same Mr. Hooper offered a substitute bill in the House, which, after much argument, was finally voted on and approved, without even having been read.10

The next day it went back to the Senate, and again was referred to committee. Senator Sherman finally called the bill up before the Senate on January 17, 1873. The Senate passed it and, since it had been amended, it went to conference and was approved by both houses on February 12, 1873. President Grant, deferring to Congress, approved it the same day, to take effect on April 1, 1873.

An undated pamphlet, "The Crime of 1873," was printed about 1895 by the American Bimetallic Union, which had offices in the Sun Building, Washington, DC, and 134 Monroe Street, Chicago.11 Near the end of the pamphlet is a copy of an affidavit, dated May 9, 1892, sworn to before the Clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court, by a prominent Colorado citizen, Frederick A. Luckenbach. In the affidavit, Mr. Luckenbach stated that he had become acquainted with Mr. Ernst Seyd of London in 1865, and had visited with him and his family on every trip Luchenbach made to England. That in February 1874, Luckenbach was visiting with Seyd, when the London papers had hints of corruption in Parliament, and he commented on it. Seyd then told Luckenbach, "If you will pledge me your honor as a gentlemen not to divulge what I am about to tell you while I live...." Given the pledge, Seyd continued, "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interests of those I represented—the governors of the Bank of England—to have it done. I took with me 100,000 pounds sterling, with instructions if that was not sufficient to accomplish the object, to draw another 100,000 pounds, or as much as was necessary. I saw the committees of the House and Senate, paid the money and stayed in America until I knew the measure was safe." At that time, —100,000 sterling was equal to $500,000.

The Honorable Thomas Fitch of Nevada, at a later Silver Convention in St. Louis, said to great applause: That the nation which consumes 50% and produces but 7% of the world's supply of silver, beguiled the nation which produces nearly 50% and consumes 25% of the world's supply of silver, into a conspiracy to strike 35% of the value of silver. The nation which is the biggest importer of wheat in the world, inveigled the nation which is the greatest exporter of wheat in the world into a financial and commercial dead-fall where 35% was taken from the value of the wheat. The nation whose looms would be idle, and whose people would be hungry, and whose government would be upheaved upon a storm of riot without a supply of American cotton, deceived the nation which is the biggest producer of cotton, into striking 35% of the value of the cotton. Why, Gentlemen, England is the bunco steerer of the world, and Uncle Sam is the gentleman from the rural districts.12

It is now evident who was responsible for the Crime of 1873. Some of the effects of the Coinage Act of 1873 were:

  • 1. The Act destroyed free coinage. Prior to its enactment, anyone could bring foreign silver coins or bullion to the mints and have it coined into U.S. silver coins free of charge. The Act abolished this option, and depositors had to sell it to the mints or have it cast into ingots. The only exception was that it could be coined into trade dollars for the depositor. But trade dollars were being discounted by merchants and brokers, and no one really wanted them.
  • 2. In abolishing the standard silver dollar by omitting it from the Act, the gold dollar of 25 8/10 grains was designated as the only monetary standard of the United States. In effect, silver was demonetized. The Act specified the weight of the subsidiary silver coins in "grams," and the weight of the gold coins in "grains." Prior to the Act, all gold minted in the United States was stated in values equal to silver dollars, which had been the standard, and the same weight, from the inception of the mint to 1873. Gold coins had been changed in weight on two previous occasions.13
  • 3. Silver coins were changed by the Act from unlimited legal tender to only $5, but, unintentionally and inadvertently, the trade dollar also became legal tender to $5. However, its legal tender was eliminated by the Act of July 22, 1876,14 and it was finally demonetized on March 3, 1887, with holders given six months after that date to redeem their unmutilated trade dollars for silver dollars.15 Chop-marked trade dollars were not accepted. After that date, and even several decades into the twentieth century, trade dollars could be purchased for less than one dollar.

At the time the Act passed, specie payments for legal tender notes had not been resumed, and the public debt was still high from the Civil War obligations. Most U.S. Bonds were held in Europe, and it was in the interests of European investors that the U.S. debt be paid in gold.

By demonetizing silver, half of the metal in which bonds could be payable was deprived of monetary use for that purpose, and the other half had almost doubled in value. In effect, it almost doubled the public debt.

Congress debated for many years after 1873, trying to fix the blame for the Crime of 1873, and trying to nullify the effect of the Act. The Congressional Record, periodicals and newspapers were full of debates and accusations. Even most of the legislators who passed the Act were not aware of the enormous impact it had on the United States. Even President Grant, who approved the Act, was not aware of its impact.16

The passage of the Coinage Act of 1873 really was the Crime of 1873. The criminals have been identified, and some of the economic effects have been detailed.

End Notes

1
Harry X Boosel, 1873-1873, (hereafter cited as Boosel) (Chicago, 1960), p. 7.
2
M.L. Beistle, A Register of Half Dollar Die Varieties (Shippensburg, PA, 1929), p. 175, no. 1873 4 A.
3
Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for 1873, pp. 25-33, provides the full text of the Coinage Act of 1873.
4
Boosel, p. 39.
5
Boosel, p. 24, illustrates the discovery coin of this variety.
6
Although the 1873 San Francisco half dollar without arrows and the 1873 standard silver dollar are unknown in any collection, Boosel, p. 41, cites proof that they were minted.
7
There is a unique dime known of Carson City for 1873, and only three quarters without arrows from Carson City. Boosel, p. 45, proves coinage of 12,400 dimes without arrows for 1873, and 4,000 quarters without arrows,
8
Boosel, p. 20, illustrates the discovery coins of this variety.
9
S. 217, 40th Congress.
10
H.R. 1427, 42nd Congress, 2nd session. Hooper's substitute bill is H.R. 2934.
11
Monograph No. 28, reprinted with extensive revision from Silver in the Fifty-First Congress.
12
The National Silver Convention was held in St. Louis on November 26, 1889, and there were 250 delegates from 28 states in attendance.
13
R.S. Yeoman, Guide Book of United States Coins (Racine, WI, 1987), pp. 185, 189-90. The first gold coin struck for the United States was the half eagle ($5) of 1795—weight 8.75g, .9167 fine; changed in 1834 to 8.36g, .8992 fine; changed in 1839 to 8.359g, .900 fine.
14
John M. Willem, Jr., The United States Trade Dollar (New York City, 1959), p. 113.
15
Willem (above, n. 14), p. 113. The bill was received by President Cleveland on February 19, 1887, but was not signed by him. The bill became law on March 3, 1887.
16
McPherson's Handbook of Politics for 1874, pp. 134-35. It is doubtful whether Grant could have even read and understood the 67 sections of the Act in the one day that he took to sign the bill into law.

The Industrial Revolution Overtakes the Production of Dies

David H. Cohen

Coinage of the Americas Conference at The American Numismatic Society, New York City

© The American Numismatic Society, 1987

The Industrial Revolution in the United States prior to the Civil War created the need for more coins. As a result, there was a cor-responding need for a faster and more efficient method of making dies.

Primarily, three improvements at the U.S. Mint allowed more dies to be made in less time. These improvements were better materials, so that dies could withstand greater pressure without breaking, steam power to operate the presses, and the purchase of a transfer lathe.

This article is devoted in the main to the transfer lathe, probably the most important improvement in the production of dies.

image

1. Transfer lathe (reproduced from Taxay, p. 151)

Fig. 1 illustrates the type of transfer lathe purchased by the mint in 1836 in order to produce a punch for the main design.

In his major work entitled The U.S. Mint and Coinage 1 Taxay described how the transfer lathe operated, as follows: The portrait lathe operated on the principle of a three-dimensional pantograph. A long, rigid bar or lever, ran along the front of the lathe and hinged, at the farthest left-hand side, to a fulcrum. At a short distance from the fulcrum a very sharp graver, or cutting tool, was fastened to the lever.The graver faced a soft tool-steel cylinder (the hub blank) which was fixed on a large, solid wheel. Toward the right end of the lever, a pointed steel stub was mounted directly opposite the casting. By means of a spring at the upper end, the lever was drawn in, causing the graver and the tracing point to touch the center of their respective models. The models were now rotated in an equal counter-clockwise motion, with the two points gradually working their way to the edge. In this duet, the tracing point was the leader, and its motions were precisely reproduced on the hub in a smaller ratio, the proportion being established by the distance between the two tools. After every complete revolution, a screw mechanism lowered the right end of the lever slightly, placing the two tools closer to the edge of their respective models. The entire operation was repeated several times until the design was sufficiently blocked out. Even then, however, it was comparatively rough and required a good deal of hand finishing before the master hub could be used to sink a master die.

The transfer lathe had certain limitations and could only be used to make a main design punch and other individual punches. The cutting of one positive punch containing all of the parts of the die had to wait until 1907 when the mint acquired the Janvier transfer lathe.

We know that in 1836, the mint had the capability of making a main design punch. We also know that the mint did not yet have the capability of making one die by the use of a transfer lathe. Thus, the question of how master dies and master hubs were made arises.

The numismatic literature available does not describe this process in detail, and therefore we must look to the numismatic evidence itself to arrive at a narrative account of how master dies and master hubs were made from 1836 to the end of the century.

An overall view of this process is shown in fig. 2. There are three pieces of evidence I used in making my determinations: a Gobrecht die in the Smithsonian Institution collection; three die punch trial pieces in the American Numismatic Society collection; and the 1857 die punch trial piece reported in Judd.2

image

In 1985, I had the privilege of viewing the SI collection, where I found an obverse Gobrecht die which appeared to be severely worn. It did not bear Gobrecht's name and appeared to be a very early brass die (fig. 3).

image
image

When I first saw this die, I thought it had been defaced so that it could no longer be used. I have now come to a different conclusion. I believe that the die had been lightly scored, giving it a checkerboard effect, so that additional items, such as stars or Gobrecht's name, could be added. It is interesting to note that the letters "C. Gobrecht F" were punched five separate places on the reverse of this die, almost as if the punch was tested first and it was later decided not to use the punch on the die because the die was worn out (see fig. 4 and punch enlargement). I therefore assume that a new die was made and this one was formally retired. I also suspect that Gobrecht's name was added to this master die with one punch rather than individual letters. It was most likely that Gobrecht's name was to be added to this master die, and the checkerboard effect was to be polished off once the name was added.

At the ANS, I found three die punch trial pieces, the first of which (fig. 5) is a die punch trial piece showing the main design of one of the standard silver obverse patterns of 1869. After the transfer lathe produced the master design punch (a puncheon), having the size for the denomination required, this punch was struck onto a copper planchet.

image

After the main design was punched onto the copper planchet, a horizontal and a vertical line were drawn through the design. Thereafter, as shown in fig. 6, a compass was used to draw two circles around the design so that the legend letters could be applied. After the circles were drawn, individual punches were applied with the letters "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" within the circles.

In fig. 6, the mint worker experimenting with the lettering made a mistake in his spacing. The last "A" in "AMERICA" was not punched in because, if applied, it would have fallen below the horizontal line, creating an obvious imbalance.

image

He then started over, this time starting slightly higher and placing the letters a little closer together, as exhibited in fig. 7. It also appears that he experimented with the date punch.

He then started over, this time starting slightly higher and placing the letters a little closer together, as exhibited in fig. 7. It also appears that he experimented with the date punch.

image

Once the designer found where the motto and design should be placed on the copper piece, the same process, using the same punches, was applied to the master die. When the punches were properly applied, the horizontal and vertical lines were polished off the master die, which in turn was used to make a master hub or working hubs, and, ultimately, working dies.

The denticles were added to the master die by drawing two circles around the perimeter of the die. Within these two circles, a two-denticle punch was applied. Each additional denticle was added by placing the first leg of the two-denticle punch into the previous slot, and was punched again, adding one additional denticle at a time, creating the proper interval. This process accounts for why the den-ticles vary from design to design.

image

The 1857 die punch trial piece reported in Judd-Kosoff is reproduced as fig. 8. This piece clearly shows that the Mint was able to make letters and numbers of the same style, but in various sizes. I believe that the transfer lathe was used to produce individual letters of the size needed for each denomination, as well as for making a single, straight-line punch of letters or numerals. Evidently, only a date or name in a straight line could be made in one punch. Punches that would work in a circle or arc could not be made with a transfer lathe. This awaited the Janvier machine in 1907.

Addition of the Date to Working Dies (Date Logotypes)

A date logotype is a number punch with two or more digits on the punch. I believe that by 1857 the U.S. Mint was using a fourdigit logotype. The transfer lathe was used to make number pun- ches by approximately 1847, based upon my close inspection of Liberty Seated material of this era. Prior to 1847, the numbers ap-pearing on Liberty Seated coinage were very crude, as if they were made by hand. A comparison of the digits on 1846 and 1847 coins indicates that those on 1847 coins are much crisper and clearer, leading me to conclude that the transfer lathe was used to make individual digits at this date.

Taxay has argued that a two-digit logotype was used on large cents and half dollars in 1840, and a three-digit logotype was used on smaller coins.3

Walter Breen claims that a four-digit logotype was used on smaller coins as early as 1840.4 He further claims that the adoption of the four-digit logotypes may have been difficult for large denominations.

It is clear that by 1859 the mint was using four-digit logotypes, as shown by this punch for the 1859 dollar in the SI (fig. 9). I submit that a transfer lathe was used to create four-digit logotype punches for all denominations when the mint was revamped in 1857.

image

A close look at the numbers on the 1851 and 1852 dollars will reveal that the last digit is always lower than the other numbers. It is well-known that the dates were individually added to the work-ing dies each year. From inspection of the last digits on numerous seated dollars and other denominations of the Liberty Seated series, I have come to the conclusion that by 1857, the last digits were made by a mechanical process and the styles of the numbers from denomination to denomination were always the same–only the size of the numbers changed.

Fig. 10 illustrates the last digit of each date from 1840 to 1873. If the three styles of numbers do not match those of your coins for any particular date, the numbers have probably been altered in some way.

image

1840

image

1841

image

1842

image

1843

image

1844

image

1845

image

1846

image

1847

image

1848

image

1849

image

1850

image

1851

image

1852

image

1853

image

1854

image

1855

image

1856

image

1857

image

1858

image

1859

image

1860

image

1861

image

1862

image

1863

image

1864

image

1865

image

1866

image

1867

image

1868

image

1869

image

1870

image

1871

image

1872

image

1873

End Notes

1
Don Taxay, The U.S. Mint and Coinage (New York City, 1966), p. 150.
2
J. Hewitt Judd, United States Pattern, Experimental and Trial Pieces, 7th ed., A. Kosoff, ed. (Racine, WI, 1959), p. 232.
3
Taxay (above, n. 1), p. 152.
4
Walter Breen, Dies and Coinage (New York City, 1962), p. 16.

Early Half Dimes: Observations and Discoveries

David J. Davis

Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American Numismatic Society, New York City

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

The collecting of half dimes by die variety can easily be traced back more than one hundred years. Harold P. Newlin, writing in 1883, opened with the admonition, "it seems unjust that these small but interesting coins should be so slighted, especially when the larger members of the family, the dollars, halves, quarters and cents, are treated with such distinguished attention, and so many articles written descriptive of their beauty."1 Newlin continued with the reason some of us collect such coins: "an 'amiable face,' the length of a curl, in short, in a coin any marked peculiarity sui generis seems to insure for it a greater appreciation and value, and one experiences no small feeling of pride in being the happy possessor of a unique piece."

I cannot speak for everyone who has had such a thrill, but I know that, in my case, discovering a new variety is a grand and a glorious feeling. And when other specimens of that variety are eventually found, it matters not, because only one person can be first.

Newlin listed 25 different varieties from 1792 through 1805. For the Capped Bust design, used from 1829 to 1837, he very briefly mentions, "...two varieties of 1835, viz: large and small date, the latter being the scarcer."2 In the Seated Liberty series he mentions two varieties of 1840, with and without drapery, and states, "there are two varieties of the 1848 half-dime, large and small date."3

Another feature of the Newlin work was the enumeration of 16 examples of the classic rarity, the 1802 half dime. A little research on the 1802 highlights some of the present collecting activities that get so much publicity. In 1935 a coin dealer named Macallister stated he knew of at least 35 different pieces. In the 1960s and 70s, 1802s appeared infrequently and three or four years might pass between auction appearances. The Mid-American Rare Coin Auctions (San Diego Sale), Sept. 28-29, 1984, 276, listed an 1802 half dime Extremely Fine (45/45), Valentine-1, which sold for $55,000 with the buyer's fee. The description stated, "No examples appeared in 1976, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982 (to our knowledge), 1983, or yet this year," and, unfortunately for scholars, this condition census piece was without pedigree. The piece reappeared in July of this year (Auction '86, July 25-26, 1986, 1041), where it was listed as Extremely Fine-40 and sold for $41,250 with the buyer's fee. This same sale also included the Garrett 1802 half dime, lot 78 V.1 (R-5) Choice Extremely Fine-45, ex Bowers & Ruddy Galleries (Garrett Coll. Part 1), Nov. 28-29, 1979, 234. With the buyer's fee included, it realized $40,700, as compared to the $45,000 it realized in 1979.

Is this today's market reality? Changing grading standards? Prices for true rarities are still less than during the boom years of the late 1970s. Where are the collectors? I do not have the answers, but I think it is of value to make these observations.

In August 1927, Will W. Neil took up where Newlin left off by publishing a list of "The United States Half Dimes From 1829 Through 1873".4 Included were 53 varieties of the Capped Bust design and 137 varieties of the Seated Liberty design. In an adden-dum published in December, he listed 11 additional varieties.5 The problem with the Neil list was that he gave numbers to different die states of the same marriage and included the notorious 1833 "oversize" half dime. I don't believe he actually saw this piece and only used the information published in the November 1927 issue of The Numismatist.6 The piece was illustrated and the owner, F.D. Langenheim of Philadelphia, reported the diameter as 17.5 mm and the weight as being half way between a regular issue half dime and a dime. The actual weight was not given. What is believed to be this coin reappeared in 1979 in a Milwaukee coin shop "junk box." It was purchased by Jim Skwarek, who attributed it as a Valentine-5, and told me the coin weighs 19.4 grains—just about right for a worn half dime. My best guess is that the coin was probably hammered out between two pieces of leather. The story was reported in the May 1986 issue of the John Reich Journal.7

In 1931 the American Numismatic Society published Valentine's The United States Half Dimes.8 This was a significant improvement over previous publications and included photographs of most varieties, enlarged to two diameters. Valentine had expanded the list to 29 varieties from 1794-1805, 69 varieties of the Capped Bust design and an uncounted number of Seated Liberty varieties.

In 1958 Walter Breen published on half dimes in what was the final issue of The Coin Collectors Journal, No. 160, as reborn under the auspices of Wayte Raymond Publications. Breen did a lot more than add new varieties. He commented on emission order, listed some of the finest known specimens and added rarity ratings to the significant marriages.

By 1974 the Valentine book was becoming harder to find and Quarterman Publications announced their plans to reprint it, along with the Newlin, Neil and Breen monographs. Kamal M. Ahwash and I also added some new varieties, a few observations and a price guide. This book is easily obtainable and has pictures of almost all the varieties.10

Today's collector also needs Jules Reiver's "Rapid Finder" guide to half dimes, published in 1984.11 In addition to presenting his method of identifying marriages, he included six new discoveries, gave rarity ratings for all of the varieties and published the first plates of the new 1835 B-ll reverse and the new 1837 reverse used to strike M-4 and D-5. Reiver broke with what had become the tradition for varieties discovered after Valentine. He labeled all of his marriages with a V. Breen, Witham, I and others had continued the numbering of varieties by taking the next number for that year and, in place of the V, we used the first initial of our surname to identify the discoverer. The system had worked well, until John Marker came up with 1830 J-12. We were using M to designate the 1829 M-16 and 1837 M-4 discovered by John McCloskey. Using all Vs was one way to avoid a decision about what to call the 1830 V-13.

image

1835 B-11 Rev.

The New Discoveries

image

1801 V-l Obv. (late die state)

image

1801 V-2 Obv. (?)

The rediscovered 1801 Valentine-2 is a good example of some of the problems encountered with the Valentine book. Until Dr. Eric Gutscher bought Stack's, June 18, 1986, 761, 1801 half dime V.2 (R-5), no one seemed to be sure what Valentine-2 looked like. Is this the variety Valentine saw or a new discovery? Jules Reiver and, apparently, quite a few other people have been labeling the late die state V-l as a V-2. Even Stack's is inconsistent. Neither of the two 1801 Valentine-2s listed as lots 76 and 77 in Auction '86 match this piece. The obverse is easily identified by examining the spacing of the stars on the left side. The position of S5 to the upper ribbon end can be used in checking catalogue illustrations. This variety may be a true rarity.

The story of 1829 M-16 goes back to before the 1975 Valentine reprint. When doing my research, one of the things I did was to take copious notes on the Stewart P. Witham collection. Witham had the most complete variety collection known to me. He had 73 of the then known 75 Capped Bust varieties. The condition of his coins was superb; almost all of them were uncirculated or proof. The only other collector I know who tried to assemble an uncir-culated set was Carl McClurg. He had 56 different varieties before he lost interest and sold his set.

The two varieties Witham lacked were 1829 V-10 and 1832 V-4. He asked me to help find the two missing marriages. I found my first Valentine-10 about one month later. Unfortunately, it had a hole in it. The coin was a nice F/VF, so I bought it and gave it to Witham. I found two more within a year and he ended up with an EF piece. I had told several other collectors about the key attributes and, in 1975, John McCloskey found an 1829 with the Valentine Reverse-10, but the obverse didn't match the Valentine-4 description. He bought the coin, later identified the obverse as Valentine-1, and the coin is now recognized as 1829 M-16. Before I could find my first 1832 Valentine-4, Witham sold his collection to RARCOA and it was auctioned off at the Milwaukee Central States Numismatic Society Show, April 30-May 1, 1977. Oddly enough, I found my first 1832 Valentine-4 in October of that year.

John Marker of Ohio collected nickel three cent pieces because he liked coins with die cracks. As some of you probably know, Capped Bust half dimes are a rich field for cracks and cuds, and, after Marker ran out of nickel three cent varieties to collect, he started collecting half dimes about 1980. He found 1830 J-12 shortly thereafter. It is a marriage of 1830 Obverse-2 and the reverse of 1829 V-10. This reverse was also used to strike the 1831 Valentine-7. But it is not the workhorse that one might initially think. The 1829 and 1830 strikings must have been limited as all of these marriages are quite rare. Reiver lists them as R-7 (4-12 known). I would only disagree on the 1829 V-10. I have seen five of them and would be more inclined to call it an R-6, at best.

The 1830 V-13, a new marriage of Obverse-9 and Reverse-3, was discovered by a dealer, who shall remain nameless. He wasn't sure of his attribution and sent it to Eric Gutscher at a certain price. Gutscher called me and when we had confirmed what it was, he notified the dealer. The dealer then raised the price of the coin. Gutscher then refused to buy it and sent the coin to Jules Reiver, who now has it in his collection. I remain disturbed by the dealer's actions since I do not think this is the way to conduct a business.

1833 L-9, a marriage of Obverse-7 and Reverse-5 of 1832, doesn't have much of a story. It was found a few years ago by Russell Logan at a small Cleveland coin show.

The new varieties of 1837, M-4 and D-5, are parts of one story. M-4, discovered by John McCloskey, is a marriage of Obverse 1 and a new reverse. It is a lot easier to identify than to find. Interestingly enough, it has a recut or repunched C in AMERICA, similar to the 1829 V-10 reverse. I find the most distinguishing feature to be the flag of the 5 in the denomination. It is completely under the feather. After McCloskey described it to me, he noted, "it is the only half dime like that." In checking my collection, it appeared that he was right. Later, when looking through some duplicates, I did find one 1837 with the new reverse. Only my VF-20 coin had 1837 Obverse-2 and D-5 became one more marriage for which to look. I took the coin to the 1975 Los Angeles ANA convention, where I showed it to Stewart Witham at lunch and, when we got up to leave, I inadvertently left it on the table. I soon discovered my mistake, but no one in the restaurant could remember seeing it. I don't know if the coin ended up in the trash or the pocket of a not so honest employee.

image

1837 M-4/D-5 Rev.

In all, there are five or six collectors who have shared the excitement in recent years of finding at least six, and possibly seven, new marriages. Within the John Reich Collectors Society, there are about 100 collectors who have indicated an interest in half dimes, but I don't know how serious they are about trying for all of the marriages, no matter what the series. For the Capped Bust series, "87 Different" doesn't sound like an impossible goal.

End Notes

1
A Classification of the Early Half Dimes of the United States (Philadelphia, 1883), p. 3.
2
Newlin (above, n.l), p. 14.
3
Newlin (above, n.l), p. 15.
4
The Numismatist 1927, pp. 456-65.
5
Will W. Neil, "Addenda to List of United States Half Dimes," The Numismatist 1927, pp. 744-45.
6
"An 'Oversize' Half Dime of 1833," The Numismatist 1927, p. 690.
7
James Skwarek. "Rediscovery of the 'Oversize' Half Dime of 1833," John Reich Journal, Vol. 1, 2 (1986), pp. 16-17.
8
D.W. Valentine, The United States Half Dimes, ANSNNM 48 (New York City, 1931).
9
Walter Breen, United States Half Dimes: A Supplement (Montauk, NY, 1958).
10
Daniel W. Valentine, The United States Half Dimes (Lawrence, MA, 1975).
11
Julius Reiver, Variety Identification Manual for United States Half Dimes 1794-1837 (Wilmington, DE, 1984).

The —Group Strength— of Dies For Early Half Dollars

Robert P. Hilt II

Coinage of the Americas Conference at The American Numismatic Society, New York

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

My 1980 book on early U.S. coinage provides the introduction to the die group theory of coinage.1 Application of this theory permits the determination of the sequence of die origin and the subsequent production sequence.

Chapter 2 is an analysis of the half dollars of 1794 and 1795 and what I term Group Strength. This article develops more fully the reasoning behind this approach to organizing the coinage and to understanding early minting practices.

Figure 1
THE TWELVE FLOWING HAIR HALF DOLLAR DIE CHAINS

image

The various combinations of 25 obverse and 26 known Flowing Hair reverse dies used for the production of the Flowing Hair design half dollar are formed from 12 die chains fig (see fig. 1). You can build one of these die chain sequences by simply purchasing the Overton or Beistle half dollar books.2 The only change is in the — chain; the left hand die is a new obverse, which I discovered in 1976. It is an unusual obverse, bearing all the traits of the 1795 small head Flowing Hair half dollar. For many years these Flowing Hair half dollars of 1795 have been attributed to John Smith Gardner, assistant to Chief Engraver Robert Scot. Hired on November 19, 1794, Gardner would have been responsible for this one 1794 half dollar obverse die.

Since there were six obverse dies dated 1794 and the only delivery of half dollars occurred very late in the year on December 1, 1794, the entire group of six sets of dies must have been prepared prior to the commencement of the half dollar coinage.3 On this basis, I reasoned that they were using a number of sets of dies rather than just a single set. Since a few days were required to manufacture each die in the engraving department, it appears logical that the Mint Director would have wanted multiple sets of dies on hand. If only a single set were available and a die deteriorated beyond use, the entire output of the mint would have halted until a new die could be made. Such a procedure would have been unlikely in an establishment under the control of David Rittenhouse, a man who had the reputation of being the greatest scientific mind in the United States in his day.

Since there were six obverse dies, the assumption was that the mint used six sets of dies for the half dollars. The total number of Flowing Hair half dollar dies (25 obverse, 26 reverse) indicates that at least five groups of dies were made, that is, four complete sets of six dies with one left over. Therefore, the necessary groups of dies would have been rebuilt at least five times. The 12 chains can logically be ordered into 5 groups as diagramed in fig. 2. The 1794 chains, which I have labeled a and —, form Group 1.

An examination of all the dies confirmed the theory that there were indeed six obverses and six reverses. There are in the entire series six reverse dies with a Type 1 eagle hub. The shape of the eagle on the coin reveals that two hubs were used in the entire 1794 and 1795 series. The Type 1 hub appears only six times; five of those are in the 1794 series and the E die that was carried over and the sixth is the F die. On the basis of the eagle hubs, the die chain was placed in the next group. An examination of the rest of the dies shows that there were two types of wreaths used on the 1794 and 1795 dies. The Type 1 wreath of 1794 and early 1795 has fewer leaves than the Type 2 wreath, which occurs on only a few of the late 1795 reverse dies. All the Type 2 wreaths appear in Group V, which comprises six obverses and five reverses; an indication that there would have— been one reverse left over, which I term the hex die. The analysis of the Type 1 and Type 2 eagle hubs therefore yields the chains labeled a, —, and d at the left on fig. 2, as well as f, — and ?, the last three chains completely to the right.

An examination of the edges of the half dollars was then necessary. The use of two edge designs was confirmed. All of the 1794 half dollars and the early 1795 halves have an edge design which has two stars after the words FIFTY and DOLLAR. Presumably, the die which initially made the edge design on the coins broke and was replaced with another edge design with three stars beside each of these words. In both cases, the number of stars on the edge of the half dollar is 15; only their location changed. Careful examination of the edge designs distinguishes coins of one die pair, identified as 14-N, which have both the old and new edge design, although the old edge design predominates. An additional 170 coins with both the old and new edge design, among which the vast majority bears the new edge design, have been analyzed. These latter coins are labeled 17—0. In other words, the planchets were apparently prepared in advance and, consequently, when the coins were struck, there was a mixed box of planchets with both the 14-N and 17-0 edge die. These two chains are labeled ? and ? in the sequence. This sequence is borne out by examination of the other die varieties. All coins prior to 14-N have the Type 1 edge design and all of the coins after 17—0 have the new edge design. The location of the coins can thus be determined exactly.

Fig. 2 illustrates an initial six sets of dies—obverses 1—6 and reverses A-F. The mint started striking coins with 1-A. The A die broke, and was replaced by B with obverse 1. Both dies then broke. Striking continued with 2-C in the press until 2 broke and was substituted by 3-C. When the C die broke, D was used. This procedure continued until 6-E, when the sixth obverse die broke. All the dies were thus used. E is a used survivor and the F die was never used. Consequently, six sets of dies had to be rebuilt before more coins could be struck. In this case, since it was already into 1795, six more obverses were needed, and, since there were two survivor dies, four more reverses were engraved. With the next set of dies, Group II, the mint recommenced striking coins. When the second chain of coinage was completed, one reverse survived, the J die. Again six obverses and five reverses were made and the striking of Group III coins was begun.

At the end of this series, either one of two events took place as the 18-O combination was being struck. Either the 18 and the O dies were in the press when the rebuilding of the six sets commenced, which did not include either of these dies; or the O die, which had become clashed, was not counted as a viable die. As a result, when the group was rebuilt, four obverses and six reverses were made to begin the next sequence of striking. At the end of Group IV, three obverses remained. This is proof that this sequence is correct. Since three obverses survived, three obverses and six reverses would have been made in order to rebuild the number of dies to six sets. In fact, the obverses, labeled 23, 24 and 25, made to rebuild this die set, are all now the small head variety of 1795, which has been attributed to John Smith Gardner. The assistant engraver made all the obverse and reverse replacements to complete the Group V die set. Since three obverses survived, he had to make only three small head obverses. The entire set of six reverses, which are all of the Type 2 wreath design, were also engraved.

Figure 2
12 FLOWING HAIR HALF DOLLAR CHAINS ARRANGED INTO 5 GROUPS

image

This theory is significant, because not only can the die sequence be determined, but also some contemporary history of the mint can be ascertained. The mint was not relying on one set of dies at a time. A group of dies was kept in stock and periodically replenished. Another good example of this procedure is the 1794 half dime. Even though there were three obverse 1794 half dime dies, no half dimes were struck in 1794. This is eloquent testimony that three sets of dies were on hand for the half dime series.

Identifying Coinage Emissions

I am also interested in the survival rate of these coins as a means to determine the approximate numbers of each variety extant. Toward this end, in 1954 I began a survey of all 1794 half dollar specimens by die variety. Over the years I have recorded every 1794 half dollar example I have seen. When I had recorded approximately 75 1794 half dollars, I observed that whenever I saw a 1794 half dollar, chances were about one in four that I had already seen it. In the range of 90 to 110 distinct 1794 half dollar specimens identified, I discovered that approximately one in three coins had been previously recorded. When my record grew to 150 1794 half dollars, one out of every two observations had been already listed. During the survey, I took great pains not to visit the same dealer or collector twice about the same coin, as that would not be a separate observation. If the coin changed hands and I identified it a second time with a different owner, then that was a new sighting and an already- seen coin for the purpose of my statistical evaluation. When I wrote the book in 1980, I had seen 201 1794 half dollars and at that time I estimated that the chances were about 2/3 that the next coin observed would have already been examined.

A reasonable parameter for estimating the extant number of 1794 half dollars was thus determined. On the basis of my survey, there must be about 300 1794 half dollars in existence. I am of course measuring the coins that are in the marketplace and in exchange among collectors. If one has been salted away in a safe deposit box for the past 50 years, it will have been missed. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the 1794 half dollars in existence are in circulation, so that a safe extrapolation is a total field of approximately 317 specimens of the 1794 half dollar (see fig. 4, below).

The mint records reveal that delivery Warrant no. 1 was for 1,758 silver dollars, delivered on October 15, 1794. The first half dollar warrant, Warrant no. 2, for 5,300 half dollars was on December 1, 1794. Warrant no. 3 for 18,164 half dollars was on February 4, 1795. It has generally been assumed that this latter delivery was all 1794 half dollars, since there are too many 1794 half dollars to assert that the only 1794 delivery of 5,300 coins comprised all of the 1794s that were minted. Walter Breen and a great many other researchers have long since concluded that the second delivery was probably also 1794 half dollars. No one, however, substantiated this assumption. Nevertheless, if this theory is correct, the number of 1794 half dollars (5,300 from the December 1, 1794 delivery and 18,164 from the February 4, 1795 delivery) totals 23,464 coins. The first two chains reveal that 1-A and 1-B would probably be the 5,300 coins that were delivered in 1794. In my 201 observations of 1794 half dollars, the 1-A variety occurs 30 times, the 1-B 15 times. These varieties comprise 45 of the 201 observations or 22.38% (see fig. 3). Mathematically, the 5,300 coins equal 22.58% of the first two deliveries of 23,164 coins. Similarly, the second chain of Group I comprised 77.62% of the total by observation and the second delivery of 18,164 coins equals 77.41% of the mathematical total. This strong statistical correlation is ample proof that the first two die chains comprised the first two deliveries of Flowing Hair half dollars.

1794 HALF DOLLARS (GROUP I)

Figure 3

image
image

a As of January 10, 1980.

The Bank of Maryland made the first deposit of silver to the United States Mint in July 1794. By law, that bullion was to be coined and returned, at no expense, before any other coinage could take place. The first payment record is the memorandum of March 12, 1795.4 Since this was a memorandum of payment rather than a receipt, the Bank of Maryland representatives must have come to the mint and received a partial payment of 90,932 half dollar coins. According to mint delivery records, Warrant no. 4 for 60,660 coins took place on March 3, 1795- Warrant no. 5 for 46,808 coins is dated March 30. The Bank of Maryland must therefore have received all the coins struck by the mint from their deposit up to March 12, 1795.

An analysis of these facts yields important results. Of the initial output of 23,464 coins, 317 1794 half dollars survive. A survival rate of 1.35% is established. By inversion, statistically, one out of every 74.074 half dollars struck will exist today. Using that same ratio and estimating the number of coins in the 1795 series for each die variety in their proper sequence, the dies that should have been in the press when the Bank of Maryland received payment was the pair 11-E. This pair, together with 12-E, will have struck coins in the range of 90—95,000 from the inception of the half dollar mintage, according to the sequence. The 11-E die pair produced the only known coin of 1794 or 1795 where there is a so-called proof presentation piece. Walter Breen places the coin early in 1795,5 but that coin has been flashed, and the reverse die was well used by the time it was paired as 11-E. It was definitely not one of the first 1795 half dollars. I propose that it was a special coin struck at the time the Bank of Maryland officials arrived at the mint to pick up the first payment of silver coinage issued by the mint. The presentation piece was struck by the dies in use on March 12, 1795, namely, the 11-E pair.

Robert Julien has discussed the assay commission—s work during the early years of the mint—s operation.6 By law, coins were to be withdrawn from each batch of silver and reserved for assay by the commission. A minimum of three coins were required to be selected. Julien—s reconstruction of those assay coins indicates that periodically only two coins were saved. Correlating Julien—s selections for assay with my groupings, I observed that two half dollars in the last die chain were missing and, according to Julien—s assay coin list, only one coin reached the commission from the last die chain. Two other coins should have been reserved, but never reached the assay commission.

On October 13, 1964, in a Christie—s sale in London, a group of coins were auctioned identified as the coins originally obtained from the U.S. Mint by the Major the Lord Saint Oswald. As a youth of 19, during a tour of the United States, he visited the mint and received a number of coins as a souvenir. He received two 1794 silver dollars, a 1795 silver dollar of the early 1795 sequence, and two half dollars. The two half dollars, which he received, were the two assay pieces missing from Julien—s sequence and from the last die chain. These two half dollars thus provide further substantiation for the proposed 1794—1795 sequence.

Additionally, in Group V, there is one remaining unknown reverse die, identified above as the hex die. The next series of half dollars represents the beginning of the Bust type coinage. To complete three sets of dies, only three obverses and two reverses were needed, since one reverse (hex) would have been carried over. But, since the large silver dollar press was constructed in 1795 and dollars began to be produced in May, the production of half dollar planchets probably ceased in mid-April 1795. This cessation of half dollars lasted for two years. From 1795 until 1797 mint records show that no half dollars were made during the period mid-1795 until 1797. This information confirms the carryover of the hex die and provides further proof of the group strength theory.

The three die sets that comprise the first group of 1796-dated halves include both 15 and 16 star varieties of the coins. These varieties can be explained by examining the employment of John Smith Gardner. On March 30, 1795, Gardner left his position as assistant engraver due to a pay dispute. Nevertheless, he returned to the mint on July 1, 1796, and worked for exactly 50 days until August 26, receiving $3 as a daily wage. Evidently, there was a specific reason for bringing Gardner back for just 50 days. A probable explanation is that the Bust half dollar sequence was begun in the first quarter of 1796, and Gardner had made the first two dies for the obverse with 15 stars before leaving on March 30. During Gardner—s absence, the entire responsibility of engraving dies would have been thrown upon Robert Scot, and work stopped on the half dollar dies. When Gardner returned to the mint on July 1, Tennessee had just joined the Union as the 16th state on June 1, 1796. Gardner therefore finished the third die as a 16 star 1796 half dollar.

At the end of 1795 the mint had usable dies in almost all denominations, which continued to be used even though they bore the wrong date. This led to the decision to engrave dies without the last digit of the year. The engravers thus made multiple dies of each denomination, completing the dies with the exception of the last digit. The first obverse die in the Bust series was complete, except for the last digit; the second and third were completed as 1796 dies. Some complete dies would obviously be needed in stock.7 The problem is that the hex die, which completes this sequence, is not known with those half dollar obverses. The reason is that the first delivery of half dollar—s which took place after the 1795 deliveries was made on February 28, 1797, and it consisted of only 60 coins. This delivery would have contained the die combination of the second obverse die and the hex die. With a 60 coin delivery and a survival rate of 1 in 74 coins, it is unlikely that any of these coins have survived in circulation and come down to us today.

As this survey has indicated, and as I have detailed at much greater length in my book, the engraving of dies was not an arbitrary process. The mint officials conscientiously built an inventory of working dies in each denomination and rebuilt the group to its proper group strength when the supply was used. From this organization of the dies, it is possible to locate every single known die of every denomination of these early coins.

End Notes

1
Robert P. Hilt II, Die Varieties of Early United States Coins (Omaha, 1980).
2
A1 C. Overton, Early Half Dollar Die Varieties, 1794—1836, rev. ed. (Colorado Springs, 1970); M.L. Beistle, A Register of Half Dollar Die Varieties (Shippensburg. PA, 1929).
3
The delivery records are simply a record of coins delivered by the Chief Coiner to the Treasurer of the Mint and, in essence, they constitute the coiner—s receipt. They usually follow the actual minting of coins by some length of time—a day, a week—in some instances, it could be a few months. Nevertheless, they do provide some chronological indication of the sequence and quantity of coins that were made.
4
R.W. Julian, —The 1795 Silver Coinage: Half Dollars,— Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine 1963, pp. 2521—24.
5
Walter Breen—s Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, 1722—19 77 (Albertson, NY, 1977), p. 32.
6
—The United States Assay Commission—to 1817,— Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine 1964, pp. 289—92.
7
See Hilt (above, n. 1), pp. 39—40.

Edges and Die Sequences on Early Half Dollars

Ivan Leaman and Donald Gunnet

Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American Numismatic Society, New York

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

1. EARLY HALF DOLLAR EDGES

At an ANA convention in the early 1970s Paul Munson mentioned that he had developed an emission order for the 1801 to 1807 half dollars by using edge links. He suggested that the authors try his method for the capped bust series of 1807 to 1836. The project, begun in 1975, has been more successful than we could have anticipated.

A) The Process of Manufacturing Edge Dies

There were four hubs prepared for early half dollars (see fig. 1).1

image

The first, which contained five ornaments between FIFTY and CENTS, was used from 1794 to mid-1975 producing 5 edge dies that edge-lettered approximately 30,000 coin blanks or planchets each. The second, which had three stars between FIFTY and CENTS, through 1806 producing 14 edge dies lettering 100,000 each. All of the edges from this hub exhibit a broken second star. The third, which was devoid of ornamentation, from 1807 to 1814, produced 35 edge dies lettering 270,000 each. The fourth, with a star after DOLLAR, through 1836 produced 241 edge dies lettering about 300,000 each.

The hub, with its incuse lettering, was hardened and placed in the screw press opposite a softer steel bar. Several strokes of the press were required to force the steel into the recesses of the hub to create the working die. Most edges exhibit a shift of the hub or the recipient die between strokes, resulting in doubling or tripling within the confines of the letter, not of the letters per se, as in doubled edge lettering.

Each working edge die was composed of two bars; the first contained FIFTY CENTS OR; the second, HALF A DOLLAR. Each bar was hubbed separately as many edges show doubling on one bar opposite to the doubling on the other. The two bars were always inserted as a pair into the edge-lettering, or Castaing machine, to form the edge die. Of the 552 working die bars known for the capped bust series, there are only 85 or 15% which have no evidence of hub doubling; 274 or 50% exhibit doubling on the left side; 174 or 32% show right side doubling, and 19 or 3% other hubbing errors. Fig. 2 demonstrates varying amounts of hub doubling on the left side. The top coin exhibits very little doubling, but the doubling increases with each edge until it reaches the entire width of the letters on the bottom coin. Note that the doubling is within the letter. Fig 3 illustrates examples of doubling on the right side, again from slight to full letter.

image
image

There are also 9 each of triple-hubbed edges. Although there is no clearly defined example of a quadruple-hubbed edge, in 1985 Gunnet found an 1809 that had an edge we had never seen. It is the —Spanish steps— of the early half dollar edge world.

Fig. 4 illustrates a coin that shows a definite quintupling on the left side. We hesitate to claim that this die was struck five times in the hubbing process, but have no other explanation. Perhaps one or two of the steps are the result of machine doubling, but we have never seen another machine-doubled edge or we haven—t been able to recognize it.

image

B) Edge Blunders

Fig. 5 indicates the correct starting position for a planchet that will receive its full complement of edge letters in the Castaing machine.2 As the crank is turned, the sliding die moves the planchet between the two bars in their entirety, upsetting the rim simultaneously so that the struck coin will have full borders. Fig 6 demonstrates the cause of a blundered edge reading FIFTY CENTS OR A DOLLAR.3 The incomplete retraction of the sliding die is the cause of missing and overlapped letters. In this case the sliding die had not been fully returned to its proper starting position when the planchet was inserted, so the word HALF was missed.

image

5. Proper Castaing machine operation.

In addition to the foregoing very common blunders, there are other more interesting errors to be found on these edges. They comprise the multiple edge-lettered type of error.

image

6. —FIFTY CENTS OR A DOLLAR—

The word CENTS is doubled in fig. 7. The operator probably realized the planchet was started incorrectly, released the planchet and re-inserted it with the crank in the proper position. Fig. 8 displays the most spectacular edge blunder we have seen—fully tripled, nearly perfectly aligned, edge lettering This planchet was not released after being lettered, was drawn back through the bars and passed through again. This coin is the only one observed that shows this phenomenon. In fig. 9, the coin was lettered but for some reason placed back in the machine with the opposite side upward and run through again. The result is that the word DOLLAR has an upside down HALF superimposed over it.

image
image
image

A phenomenon that edge dies share with obverse and reverse dies is die cracks. The force required to letter and upset the edge of the planchet often caused the edge dies to break, just as the force of striking the planchets into coins caused the obverse and reverse dies to crack. Fig. 10 illustrates coins with a heavy die crack at the upper edge, a crack in the center, and at the lower edge.

image

C) Differentiation of Edge Dies and Process of Deterioration

The question most asked is —how do you tell the edges apart?— It is an indisputable fact that each of the 295 edges is different from any other. Separating sharp new edges that show multiple hubbing to varying degrees is simple as are those with die cracks. The edges of 1831 to 1836 are easy to distinguish because the reeding applied to each die varies in amount, width and depth. It is more difficult to separate edges that do not have outstanding features. When the die is hubbed, the metal flows into the letter recesses to different depths causing deeper and shallower areas, which can be discerned. Some letters may contain chips, lines or other irregularities that make them distinguishable. These are easily linked to others with the same configuration. Progressive deterioration of the die can be followed and, with experience, anticipated.

The most difficult part of an edge study is comparing an early die state edge to a very deteriorated one. No one could possibly anticipate that the two edges of fig. 11 were produced by the same die. The D and O on the early die state edge show distinct hub-doubling on the right and several heavy horizontal lines. The top and bottom of the first L are much deeper than the very shallow stand. The late die state edge displays none of these characteristics.

image

Fig. 12 illustrates a mid-die state edge that clarifies the relationship between the early and late state edges. The middle edge not only retains the doubling and lines of the early edge, but also shows the beginning of the breakdown of the lower part of the letters similar to the late edge.

image

D) Conclusions Based on Edge Analysis

The foundations for establishing the emission order for early half dollars was edge die linkage and states and obverse and reverse die linkage and states. The pairing of an obverse die and a reverse die created a die variety or die marriage. As the study progressed, it became increasingly apparent that edge die linkage was more important than obverse and reverse die linkage. In no instance, however, was an edge link used to contradict a marriage die state.

The average edge die life was much longer than the average die marriage life. Since there was no correlation between the edge dies and the marriage dies, it was inevitable that in most cases the same edge die was used for several consecutive marriages or that many marriages will exhibit two or more different edges. By examining many thousands of coins, we have been able to find a link of two edges within the same marriage in all but three instances in the draped bust series, and in all but six in the capped bust series.

Until 1824 the edge links and states coincide almost perfectly with the marriage links and states. This indicates that the planchets were struck as they came from the Castaing machine and that there was strict inventory control. As production increased in later years, there is more mixing of the marriages and edges. At times the emission order becomes blurred, but it is still discernible.

The methodology of the emission charts which follow is explained in the introduction. Here we wish to touch on several interesting points revealed by the analysis. Reference is to the year-dated charts.

1807: In the last column (emission order equals EO), the line indicates a break in the edge links, the first of six such breaks. We have been unable to find a late die state 114 with the third edge or an early die state 111 with the second edge. The third edge hub was initiated at the beginning of 1807 and used for both the draped bust and capped bust halves.

1809: This diagram contains a feature not shown in 1807—the sharing of a reverse die with a marriage of a succeeding year. DMs 107 and 108 share a reverse die with 1810—103. The 1809s were struck before the 1810.

Three of the 1809 edges bear ornamentation and are called the —experimental edges.— The third edge exhibits heavy vertical grooves at the beginning of each bar in front of FIFTY and HALF. The fourth edge is called the —engrailed— edge. There is a series of X-like figures at the front of the first bar and at the end of the second. The sixth edge contains only 106. There are light grooves in front of HALF. We call this the —pseudo-engrailed— edge. Fig. 13 illustrates the third edge with the vertical grooves, the —engrailed— fourth edge, and the —pseudo-engrailed— sixth edge.

image

1814: This chart is interesting for two reasons—a change in the edge hub and an edge out of sequence. The first and second edges were produced by the third hub of 1807. The fourth hub with a STAR after DOLLAR was used for others and for the rest of the series.

The 103 in the third edge caused great frustration because it does not belong there. It should be in the sixth or seventh edge with all the other 103s. This is the only instance seen in the entire series in which a planchet was struck sometime after being lettered, probably several months.

1826: This is noteworthy because of its complexity, with the use of so many edges and the appearance on the diagram of a new feature—the sharing of a reverse die with a marriage of a previous year. DM 104 shares a reverse die with 1825—117; the 1825 was struck first.

The 1826 mintage was only about 30% higher than 1825, but more than twice as many edges were used. The average edge die life in 1825 was 230,000 planchets; in 1826, only 140,000. No edge contains more than three die marriages—102 and 109 each exist with five different edges; 101 and 117, with four. It was difficult to find an edge on these four marriages that matched another marriage for a link.

1827: Although the diagram of the 49 marriages in 1827 appears difficult, it was one of the earliest emission orders tentatively confirmed. Only five marriages are not die-linked to another and one of those—140—is die-linked to 1828-104. Most of the rest of the marriages are linked together in large groups that could be aligned by obverse and reverse die state.

Most of the edges contain many marriages, although they are somewhat mixed. These two factors combined to make formulating the emission order simple. Here is the last of the six missing edge die links. The dl denotes that 109 and 110 are die-linked to each other. The other four missing edge links occur in 1811, 1819, 1820 and 1825.

1830: In this year the mint began experimenting by adding various types of reeding to the edge dies resulting in three types of edges being found in this year. The first five edges are a continuation of the plain-lettered edge used since 1814. The next two edges bear fine diagonal lines slanting down to the right. The rest all have lines slanting down to the left. These lines were not merely engraved into the die, rather rectangular areas were removed from the die leaving the grooves. The 1830 edges should be called —experimental,— not those of 1809. Fig. 14 exhibits the plain edge of the first five edges, the slanted to right reeding of the sixth and seventh, and the slanted to left reeding of the eighth through the sixteenth.

image

1831: In this year there are also three distinct edge types, but only one is the same as in 1830. The first six edges show the slanted down to the left type found on the later 1830s. The seventh edge is a transitional one that exhibits the former type, with the reeded areas relieved in all areas except at the beginning of the first bar. In front of FIFTY is a large area of fine vertical lines from top to bottom that were engraved directly into the die without the hollowing out as previously done.

This rare edge type was used for a portion of five die marriages. The balance of the 1831 edges contain heavy vertical reeding engraved in hollowed out rectangles. This edge type was adopted and all of the edges through 1836 exhibit these vertical grooves of varying placement, depth and width, except edge 14 of 1836. Fig. 15 shows the slanted reeding of the first edges, the transitional edge, with slanted lines appearing in front of the star and the vertical lines in front of FIFTY, and the adopted type with all vertical reeding.

image

1836: This is a very difficult year, but we think the emission order is correct. Many of the marriages are not die-linked and they are quite scattered throughout the edges.

It appears the mint began to stockpile lettered planchets for the first time, causing the almost random appearance of many marriages. Edge 14 is the plain lettered edge referred to previously. Fig. 16 compares a normal reeded edge with edge 14. This plain edge, which is found on one 1834 and three 1836 marriages, has led many catalogers to claim that these coins were struck on older planchets.

image

2. ESTABLISHING THE CAPPED BUST HALF EMISSION ORDER

Explanation of the Method

The numbers in the first two columns—Die linked/state and Nondie-linked—are die marriages (DM) listed in Overton number order (except where there is a master die change during the year).4 Those in the Die linked/State column are the DMs which share either the obverse or reverse die with another DM of that year. The obverse die linkage and die state are represented by the numbers in front of the O number; the reverse by those in back of the O number. Those in the Non-die-linked column are those DMs which do not share a die with any other DM of that date, but may share the reverse die with a DM of another year. Edge dies have nothing to do with these two columns.

An example (1817):

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
112

Here 112 has no die link to any other DM; 107 and 108 share the same obverse die—the 1 and 2 mean 107 was struck before 108 by die state; 108 and 109 share the same reverse die with 108 being struck before 109 by die state.

A more complex example (1810) follows, but the same method is used:

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image

Here 102 was struck before 103 by observe die state; 103 shares a common reverse (1809F) with 1809—107 and 108. By reverse die state, 1809—107 was struck before 1809—108 and 1809—108 was struck before 1810—103.

The most difficult example (1823) follows:

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
103
104
105
106 1824M-1 (114)-2
107

Here 101 was struck before 102 and 108 before 109; 102 and 108 share a common reverse (1822K) with 1822—112; 108 was struck first, 1822—112 next and 102 last. DM 109 shares a common reverse (1822L) with 1822—113 and 113 was struck before 109; 103, 104, 105 and 107 have no die link to any other DM; 106 shares a common reverse (1824M) with 1824—114 and 106 was struck first.

The second section—Edges—pertains only to edge dies and these are numbered in the order they were used in the Castaing machine. Under each edge number the DMs that share the same edge die are listed in descending order by edge die state from the first use of the edge die to the last. The edges in each year are listed until the first DM of the next year appears. The last edge of one year is carried over as the first edge of the succeeding year.

The third section—Edge Order—is merely a recapitulation of the second section arranged vertically and corrected to reflect the obverse and reverse die states as struck. A line between groups separates the edge dies.

The EO section is just that—the emission order compiled by a combination of obverse and reverse die linkage and states and edge die linkage and states. A line between groups indicates a break in the edge links; dl next to an entry denotes an obverse or reverse die link between the DM immediately adjacent and that immediately below; () indicates DMs that were struck in a succeeding year and have no edge connection within the year they are dated.

1807
Die linked/State Non-die linked
(Draped Bust)
image
(Capped Bust)
image 113
114
Edges
1 2 3 4
108 105 111 112
109 107 112 1808—101
110 106 1808—110
105 101 1808—108
102
104
103
113
114
Edge Order EO
108 108
109 109
110 110
105 105
105 107
107 106
106 101
101 102
102 104
104 103
103 113
113 114
114 111
111 112
112 1808—101
112 1808—110
112 1808—110
1808—101
1808—110
1808—108

1808

The outside point of star 13 is scalloped on all.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
image
110
Edges
1 2 3 4 5
1807—112 108 103 102 106
101 109 102 104 1809—112
110 103 104 107 1809—113
108 105 1809—114
106 1809—115
1809—111
Edge Order EO
1807—112 1807—112
101 101
110 110
108 108
108 109
109 103
103 102
103 104
102 107
104 105
102 106
104 1809—112
107 1809—113
105 1809—114
106 1809—115
106 1809—111
1809—112
1809—113
1809—114
1809—115
1809—111

1809

The second obverse and reverse master dies were engraved this year. All marriages were struck from dies made from the new hub.

The upper inside point of star 13 is scalloped on all.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 106
111
Edges a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1808—106 111 111 108 102 106 106
112 109 101 104 1810—101
113 107 110 105 1810—102
114 108 102 103
115 106
111
Edge Order EO
1808—106 1808—106
112 112
113 113
114 114
115 115
111 111
111 109
111 107
109 108
107 101
108 110
108 102
101 104
110 105
102 103
102 106
104 1810—101
105 1810—102
103
106
106
106
1810—101
1810—102
End Notes
a
See above, p. 48, for description and illustration of the experimental edges: 3 (vertical grooves); 4 (engrailed); 6 (pseudo-engrailed).

1810

The outside point of star 13 is scalloped on 101—4, 106—7, 109. The upper inside point of star 13 is scalloped on 105, 108, 110.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
101
image 1809F-3 (107)-1 (108)-2
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6
1809—106 102 106 106 106 108
101 103 105 104
102 110 109 1811—101
106 107 1811—111
108
Edge Order EO
1809—106 1809—106
101 101
102 102
102 103
103 110
110 106
106 105
106 105
106 109
106 107
106 108
105 104
109 1811—101
107 1811—111
108
108
104
1811—101
1811—111

1811

The outside point of star 13 is scalloped on all.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 104
image 108
image 111
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6
1810—108 111 110 104 104 109
1810—104 110 108 112 112 105
101 108 103 113 107
111 102 109 1812—101
106 1812—102
105
Edge Order EO
1810—108 1810—108
1810—104 1810—104
101 101
111 111
111 110
110 108
108 103
110 102
108 104
103 112
102 113
104 109
112 106
104 105
112 107
113 1812—101
109 1812—102
109
106
105
109
105
107
1812—101 1812—102

1812

The obverse master die was reengraved at the beginning of this year and a new hub was made. The curls are coarser and the relief is higher at the shoulder and breast. This hub was used for all of 1812 except 101—2 and until 1817.

The outside point of star 13 is scalloped on all.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
103
104
image
109
110
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1811—109 102 109 103 107 108 105
1811—105 110 103 104 108 105 106
1811—107 109 107 1813—103
101 1813—101
102 1813—102
Edge Order EO
1811—109 1811—109
1811—105 1811—105
1811—107 1811—107
101 101
102 102
102 110
110 109
109 103
109 104
103 107
103 108
104 105
107 1813—103
108 1813—101
108 1813—102
105
105
106
1813—103
1813—101
1813—102

1813

The outside point of star 13 is scalloped on all.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 106
image 107
Edges
1 2 3 4 5
1812—105 101 108 106 110
1812—106 102 106 105 109
103 104 110 107
101 108 1814—101
Edge Order EO
1812—105 1812—105
1812—106 1812—106
103 103
101 101
102 102
101 104
102 108
104 106
108 105
108 110
106 109
106 107
105 1814—101
110
110
109
107
1814—101

1814

A new edge hub was made this year. The letters are spaced differently and a star was added after DOLLAR. Edges 1 and 2 have no star. The new hub was used for the others and for the rest of the series. The diagonal and vertical lines in the 1830s were hand tooled on each working die.

The outside point of star 13 is scalloped on all.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
101
102
103
104
image
107
108
109
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1813-110 101 104 107 105 109 103
1813-109 104 103a1 105 109 102 106
1813-107 108 103 1815-101
101 107 1817-101
101 107 1817-101
1817-101
1817-102
1817-103
1817-110
Edge Order EO
1813-110 1813-109
1813-109 1813-109
1813-107 1813-107
101 101
101 104
104 108
104 107
103 105
108 109
107 102
107 102
107 103
105 106
105 1815-101
109 1817-101
109 1817-102
102 1817-103
103 1817-110
103
106
1815-101
End Notes
a1
The 103 in edge 3 is the coin mentioned earlier that was struck on older planchet. It is the only 103 seen with this edge. The EO was impossible with this 103 included, but fell in nicely when it was removed.

1814

A third obverse master die was engraved this year. The second hub was used for 101—6, 110—11, 113. The new hub was used for 107—9, 112.

None have a scalloped point on star 13 except 102 on the outside. DM 101 and 102 have a large 8 in the date; all the others have a small 8.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
(Second Master Die)
101
image
110
111
113
(Third Master Die)
image
112
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6
1814—103 110 113 105 111 107
1814—106 113 104 106 112 108
1815—101 105 111 107 109
101 112 1818—101
103
110
Edge Order EO
1814—103 1814—103
1814—106 1814—106
1815—101 1815—101
101 101
102 102
103 103
110 110
110 113
113 104
113 105
104 106
105 111
105 112
106 107
111 108
112 109
111 1818—101
112
107
107
108
109
1818—101

1818

DM 101 and 103 obverse was sunk early in 1817. It is from the second obverse hub, the outside point of star 13 is scalloped and the first 8 is large. All of the others use the third obverse hub; star 13 is not scalloped and all have a small 8.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
(Second Master Die)
image (Third) Master Die) 102
107
111
112
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1817—107 101 101 104 114 105 108 109 109 111
1817—108 104 103 103 106 115 109 110 112
1817—109 113 105 108 107 102
101 114 111 1819—101
Edge Order EO
1817—107 1817—109
1817—108 1817—108
1817—109 1817—109
101 101
101 104
104 103
101 113
103 114
104 106
103 105
113 115
114 108
114 109
106 110
105 107
105 111
115 112
108 102
108 1819—101
109
109
109
110
107
111
111
112
102
1819—101

1819

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 101
image 104
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6
1818—111 101 102 104 114 109
1818—112 103 104 113 115 110
1818—102 108 109 106
101 108 109 106
107 1820—102
112
114
Edge Order EO
1818—111 1818—111
1818—112 1818—112
1818—102 1818—102
101 101
101 103 dl
103 102
102 104
104 113
104 111
113 107
111 108
107 114
108 112
112 115
114 109
114 110
115 105
112 106
109 1820—102
109
110
105
106
1820—102

1820

Die linked/State Non-die linked
101
102
image
108
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1819—109 102 102 103 115 108 1821—101
1819—110 101 104 108 106
1819—105 103 105
1819—106
102
Edge Order EO
1819—109 1819—109
1819—110 1819—110
1819—105 1819—105
1819—106 1819—106
102 102
102 101
102 103
101 104
103 105
103 108
104 106
105 1821—101
105 (107)
108
1821—101
106
1821
Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
103 1820F-1 (107)-2
104
105
106
107 1822B-2 (102)-3 (103)-1
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
101 1820—106 1820—106 101 103 104 105 105 105 106
1820—106 101 102 103 1820—107 104 106 106 1822—103
101 102 102 107
105
Edge Order EO
101 1820—106
1820—106 101
1820—106 102
101 103
1820—106 1820—107
102 104
101 105
101 106
103 1822—103
102 107
103
1820—107
102
105
104
105
104
105 106
105 106
106
1822—103
107

1822

Die linked/State Non-die linked
101
image
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
image
114
115
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1821—106 1821—107 107 101 104 105 1823—108
103 102 111 115 114 110 112
1821—107 107 101 104 108 106 113
109 113 1823—109
105 1823—101
Edge Order EO
1821—106 1821—106
103 103
1821—107 1821—107
1821—107 102
102 107
107 111
107 101
111 115
101 104
101 114
115 108
104 109
104 105
114 110
108 106
109 1823—108
105 112
105 113
110 1823—109
106 1823—101
113
1823—108
112
113
1823—109
1823—101

1823

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
103
104
105
106 1824M-1 (114)-2
107
110
111
112 1824K-1 (112)-2
113 1824B-2 (102)-1 (104)-3
Edges
1 2 3 4
108 101 111 103
1822—112 102 107 105
1822—113 110 103 106
109 104 105 1824—111
101 111
Edge Order EO
108 108
1822—112 1822—112
1822—113 1822—113
109 109
101 101
101 102
102 110
110 104
104 111
111 107
111 103
107 105
103 106
105 1824—111
103 (112)
105 (113)
106
1824—111

1824

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 103
105
106 1825B-1 (102)-2
107
108
109
110
image
115 1825D-1 (104)-2
116 1825C-1 (103)-2
117
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1823—103 111 111 111 1823—112 101 105 107 110 110 117 113 117
1823—105 1823—112 112 102 103 109 113 113 113 117 115
1823—106 101 104 107 110 114 106
111 1823—113 108 109 1825—102
105
Edge Order EO
1823—103 1823—105
1823—105 1823—105
1823—106 1823—106
111 111
111 1823—112
111 112
111 101
1823—112 102
1823—112 1823—113
112 104
101 108
1823—113 105
101 103
102 107
104 109
108 110
105 113
105 114
103 117
107 106
109 1825—102
107 115
109 (116)
110
110
113
110
113
117
113
114
113
117
117
115
106
1825—102

1825

The obverse master die was reengraved in the middle of this year and a new hub made. The chin is rounder and fuller; changes were made in the folds of the cap and the hair strands around the ear and above the clasp were strengthened. The old hub was used for the marriages up to and including 101 in the EO, the new hub for the rest.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 101
105
106
107
111
112
113 1827S-1 (123)-2
114
115
116
117 1826D-1 (104)-2
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1824—117 1824—106 1824—115 1824—115 103 105 107 112 115 116 113 114 110
1824—115 102 104 1824—116 105 111 108 115 116 101 114 110 109
1824—106 1824—115 118 103 111 107 101 113 106
102 104 108 1826—105
Edge Order EO
1824—117 1824—117
1824—115 1824—106
1824—106 102
102 1824—115
1824—106 104
102 118
1824—115 1824—116
104 103
1824—115 105
104 111
118 107
1824—115 108
1824—116 112
103 115
103 116
105 101
111 113
105 114
111 110
107 109
108 106
107 1826—105
108 (117)
112
115
115
116
101
116
101
113
113
114
114
110
110
109
106
1826—105

1826

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 101
108
109
image 112
117
118
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1825-110 105 104 101 101 101 102 102 102 102 109 109 109 109 110 111 115 115 117 117 117 117 106 108 108 112 112 113
1825-109 1825-117 101 102 109 118 111 115 116 116 106 106 107 112 113 119
1825-106 104 101 113 106 110 113 120
105 1827-101
1827-102
Edge Order EO
1825—110 1825—110
1825—109 1825—109
105 105
105 1825—117
1825—117 104
104 101
104 102
101 109
101 118
101 110
101 111
102 115
102 116
102 117
102 106
102 107
109 108
109 112
109 113
109 119
118 120
109 1827—101
118 1827—102
110 (103)
110 (114)
111
111
115
115
115
116
117
117
106
117
106
106
107
108
108
108
112
113
112
112
113
113
119
120
1827—101
1827—102

1827

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 1826c (103)-3
114
117
140 1828D-1 (104)-2
141
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1826—113 102 102 146 138 129 129 135 141 115 142 143 131 104 134 104 116 144 112 110
1826—119 1826—114 147 139 128 124 117 142 143 148 133 133 104 105 105 106 149 111
1826—120 118 137 128 141 125 115 131 130 131 132 116 134 106 127 120 1828—103
101 119 136 114 129 148 145 145 116 127 126 109 1828—104
102 103 121 135 141 130 113
146 122 117 133 112
1826-103 123 141 130 113
138
Edge Order EO
1826—113 1826—113
1826—119 1826—119
1826—120 1826—120
101 101
102 102
102 1826—114
102 118
1826—114 119
118 103
119 1826—103
103 146
146 147
1826—103 136
146 137
147 121
136 123
137 122
121 138
123 139
122 128
138 129
138 135
139 124
128 125
129 114
128 141
129 117
141 115
114 142
135 143
135 148
124 130
125 131
129 133
141 145
117 132
141 104
117 134
115 116
115 116
115 105
142 106
131 127
142 126
143 144
130 113
148 112
143 149
148 120
130 109 dl
131 110
145 111
133 1828—103
131 1828—104
133 (107)
104 (108)
133 (140)
145
132
134
104
116
104
116
105
134
116
105
106
127
106
144
127
126
113
112
112
149
120
109
110
111
1828—103
1828—104

1828

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 117
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1827—110 103 107 109 110 110 112 123 120
1827—111 104 101 108 111 113 122 121
103 1827—140 1827—108 110 112 114 116 118
104 106 1827—107 123 115 117
107 102 120 1829—110
Edge Order EO
1827-110 1827-111
1827-111 1827-111
103 103
104 1827-140
103 104
1827-140 106
104 107
106 105
107 1827-108
105 101
107 1827-107
1827-108 102
101 109
1827-107 108
102 110
109 111
109 112
108 113
110 114
110 123
110 122
111 116
112 115
112 120
113 121
114 117
123 118
123 1829-110
122 (119)
116
115
120
120
121
118
117
1829-110

1829

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 115
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1828—120 110 111 114 115 118 116 105 107 103
1828—121 1828—118 113 115 119 117 112 106 101 104
1828—118 1828—119 114 118 116 105 107 102 1830—106
1828—117 111 112 103
110
Edge Order EO
1828—120 1828—120
1828—121 1828—121
1828—118 1828—117
1828—117 1828—118
110 110
1828—118 1828—119
110 111
1828—119 113
111 114
111 115
113 119
114 118
114 117
115 116
115 112
119 105
118 106
118 107
117 101
116 102
112 103
116 104
112 1830—106
105 (108)
105 (109)
106 (120)
107
107
101
102
103
103
104
1830—106

1830

The chin and neck area of the obverse master die was reengraved this year and a new hub made. DMs 106, 107 and 1 13—14 appear to be the only marriages from the old hub.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 106 1829C-2 (104)-1
107
115
116
119
122
123

There were three distinct edge types used this year: 1) the plain lettered edge used since 1814; 2) plaques between the words bearing light diagonal lines down to right; and 3) plaques bearing diagonal lines down to left. Edge type 4, with heavier vertical lines, did not appear in 1830; 109 and a few 108s have type 4 but they were struck in 1831. The diagonal lines on types 2 and 3 wore off the dies and the coins very quickly so that many appear to be type 1.

Type 1

Edges
1 2 3 4 5
1829-103 1829-102 106 1829-108 1829-108
1829-104 1829-104 1829-108 1829-109 107
106 1829-103 1829-109 113 102
106 107
1829-108 107

Type 2

6 7
101 101
107
103
104

Type 3

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
107 118 118 119 114 121 121 111 112
107 104 119 123 123 115 115 116 116
101 117 121 121 111 112 105
103 122 120
110
1831-116
Edge Order EO
1826—103 1829—102
1829—104 1829—103
106 1829—104
1829—102 106
1829—103 1829—108
1829—104 1829—109
106 113
1829—108 107
106 102
1829—108 101
1829—109 103
1829—108 104
1829—109 117
113 118
107 119
1829—108 123
107 114
102 122
101 121
107 115
103
104 111
101 112
107 105
102 116
101 120
103 110
104 1831—116
117 (108)
118 (109)
118
119
119
123
121
114
123
121
114
123
121
122
121
115
121
115
111
111
116
112
112
116
105
120
110 1831—116

1831

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image 103
108

Here again there were three edge types: 3) with diagonal lines, down to left; 4) with straight, vertical lines; and a transitional edge displaying both types 3 and 4. The type 4 edge was adopted and all of the edge dies through 1836 exhibit the vertical grooves of varying depth and width except edge 14 in 1836 which is plain.

Type 3

Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1830-112 117 1830-116 1830-110 103 105 1830-108
1830-116 116 1830-110 112 1830-108 119
1830-105 112 103 103 118
1830-120 1830-108
116

Type 3-4 (Transitional) 8

105

118

1830-108

107

119

Type 4
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
119 106 105 104 108 111 113 115 101 102
120 104 108 111 109 114 101 102 1832—122
1830—109 110 115
105 113
107
106
Edge Order EO
1830—112 1830—112
1830—116 1830—105
1830—120 1830—120
1830—110 1830—110
116 116
116 117
117 112
112 103
1830—116 1830—108
1830—110 118
103 119
1830—108 120
1830—110 1830—109
112 107
103 106
103 105
1830—108 1829—120 (assumed)
105 104
118 108
119 111
1830—108 109
107 110
105 113
1830—108 114
118 115
119 101
119 102
120 1832—122
1830—109
107
106
105
106
105
104
108
108
111
111
109
110
113
113
114
115
115
101
101
102
102
1832—122

1832

A fourth obverse master die was engraved this year. The third hub was used for 107—11, 115 and 122. The new hub was used for the others.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
(Third Master Die)
image
122
106
118
121
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
1831—102 122 122 122 110 110 107 105 108 116 120 116 120 113 115 111 111 103 103 106 104 101 118
122 110 109 108 119 120 121 113 114 111 111 106 104 102 118 1833—108
107 105 111 113 121 115 106 102 101
108 117 118
116
Edge Order EO
1831—102 1831—102
122 122
122 110
122 109
122 107
110 108
110 119
110 105
109 117
107 116
108 120
107 121
108 113
105 114
108 115
119 111
105 103
117 106
116 104
116 102
120 101
111 118
120 1833—108
116 (112)
121 (123)
113
120
113
121
113
114
115
115
111
111
111
103
111
106
103
106
106
104
102
104
102
101
118
101
118
118
1833—108
1833
Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
112
114
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1832-118 1832-118 108 113 102 102 109 104 105 112 110 106 101
108 108 108 1832-112 109 114 103 112 110 101 106
1832-123 115 104 107 106 111 111
113 1832-112 105 1834-102
Edge Order EO
1832-118 1832-118
108 108
1832-118 1832-123
108 113
1832-123 115
113 1832-112
108 102
113 109
108 114
115 104
1832-112 103
102 107
1832-112 105
102 112
109 110
109 106
114 101
104 111
104 1834-102
103
107
105
105
112
112
110
106
110
101
111
106
101
106
111
1834-102

1834

The fifth and sixth obverse master dies were engraved this year. The fourth hub was used for 101-10, all of the large dates and one small date; 109-10 was probably the first small date sunk but thought to be unaesthetic because of the large stars and therefore put aside. The hub from the fifth master die was used for 113 and 114—the Abominable Bastards—and 116. This hub is noticeably different from the preceding in the drapery line, a heavier chin and a double clasp. DM 116 was struck first and then the bust was reduced on the hub before 113 and 114 were struck. The hub from the sixth master die, the small bust type, was used for the others and through 1836.

A new reverse master die was engraved and the hub was used for 113 and 1 14 only. The E on the scroll was started too far right and the ruined hub was soon discarded. The old reverse hub was used again and it too was used through 1836. Thus the —Mysterious Case of the Abominal Bastards— is finally solved.

Die linked/State Non-die linked
Fourth Master Die
101
102
103
104 1836B-1 (102)-2 (103)-3
105
106
107
108
image
Fifth Master Die
113
114
116
Sixth Master Die
111
112
115
117
118
image
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1833-101 102 103 101 108 108 105 105 106 104 116 112 112 112 112 112 111 111 111 117 115
1833-106 103 101 105 105 106 107 116 114 111 113 118 111 117 117 115 1835-105
1833-111 108 107 104 114 118 1835-110
102 114 113
Edge Order EO
1833-101 1833-106
1833-106 1833-101
1833-111 1833-111
102 102
102 103
103 101
103 108
101 105
108 106
101 107
105 104
108 116
108 114
105 113
105 118
105 112
106 111
107 117
106 115
107 1835-105
104 1835-110
114 (109)
104 (110)
116 (119)
116 (120)
114 (121)
112
111
114
113
112
113
118
112
112
111
111
111
117
117
115
115
1835-105
1835-110

1835

Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
105
106 1836H-1 (110)-2
108
109
110
Edges
1 2 3 4 5
1834-115 110 109 101 1834-109
105 108 106 102 103
110 109 107 1834-121 1836-109
101 1834-120 1836-110
104 1836-108
1834-119
1834-109
Edge Order EO
1834-115 1834-115
105 105
110 110
110 108
108 109
109 106
109 107
106 101
107 102
101 1834-121
101 104
102 1834-120
1834-121 1834-119
104 103
1834-120 1836-109
1834-119 1836-109
1834-109 1836-110
1834-109 1836-108
103
1836-109
1836-110
1836-108
1836
Die linked/State Non-die linked
image
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
122
123
Edges
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1834-109 102 106 119 101 114 115 115 118 103 104 120 105 1834-110 120 112 112
1835-103 110 107 101 119 116 118 115 123 115 103 121 112 113 113
109 106 102 122 115 118 116 104 120 113 111
110 122 101 102 105 123 117
108 108 119 114 103 117
119 1834-110
1834-109
107
Edge Order EO
1834-109 1835-103
1835-103 1834-109
109 109
110 110
108 108
102 106
110 107
106 101
122 102
108 119
119 122
1834-109 114
107 116
106 115
107 118
101 105
102 123
119 103
119 104
101 1834-110
101 117
119 121
122 120
102 112
114 113
114 111
116
115
115
118
115
118
103
115
103
104
123
118
105
120
115
116
105
103
104
123
117
1834-110
1834-110
121
120
117
120
112
113
112
113
111
End Notes
1
We are indebted to Julius Reiver not only for most of the illustrations which accompany this article but also for the benefit of his time and expertise.
2
Illustrated from George E. Ewing, Jr., —Errors on Early U.S. Cents,—— CW'Celebration——(Sept. 7, 1983), p. 89.
3
Drawing by Russell J. Logan.
4
Overton references are to A1 C. Overton, Early Half Dollar Die Varieties 1794-1836, rev. ed. (Colorado Springs, 1970).

The Third Die: A Different Look

Russell J. Logan

Coinage of the Americas Conference at The American Numismatic Society, New York

As an engineer working in the metals industry for the past 20 years and a coin collector for the past 30 years, I have been constantly aware of the metallurgical and physical properties of the metals that dictate the mechanics of coinage, both in the early 1800s and now. This knowledge has helped me to comprehend the published information on early federal coinage. But the paucity of information concerning the edges of our early silver coins and the inaccuracies written about the Castaing machine have left a gap in our comprehension of the early U.S. silver mintage. This gap challenges me to search for additional clues.

I find that one of the most important aspects of being successful (whether it—s your hobby or your business) is asking the right question at the right time. One may not necessarily have the right answer, but at least one generates the motions necessary to find such solutions. The reason that the edge is the least studied of the three dies is because there is no universal way to describe or document it. Even to the novice, it is apparent that photography can play a tremendous role in describing a particular coin or die variety. But what has been done to photograph the edge?

image

I decided to tackle the logistics of how to photograph the edge of a coin. I wanted an economical method that would lend itself to easy documentation and would be compatible with existing photography techniques. Ultimately I developed what I believe is a successful solution. I would like to share with you my experiments, experiences and thoughts on how the edge of a coin may be photographed accurately and inexpensively. Hopefully, as a result of this effort, students of the third die will use this technique to share their findings with others through numismatic publications.

The Laws of Light

Our high school physics class taught us that light behaves under some very predictable laws. The most famous, of course, is that light travels in a straight line. Not as well known, but of paramount importance to this paper, is the fact that when light is reflected off a surface, the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. This is best illustrated on a billiards table where it is essential to properly bank the ball against two walls before hitting the target (see fig. 1). The angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection in both instances.

image

Now suppose the walls are mirrors and the ball is a ray of light (see fig. 2). This is a two-dimensional analysis of what we need to consider in three dimensions for viewing the coin edge. In our case, the edge of the coin is not a straight line, but rather a curved surface. If the edge of the coin is circular, why can—t the mirror also be circular? (See fig. 3.) In this case, one would have a circular lens or mirror, which would surround the coin to be photographed with a 45 degree angle between the edge of the coin and the camera.

image

This configuration gives rise to two minor problems. When a mirror is used in photography, the image on the film will be reversed and, therefore, the pictures will appear backwards. This is easily solved by printing the negatives in reverse. The second problem is a bit more perplexing because it necessitates that the edge image be distorted since the top of the edge will appear to have a greater diameter than the bottom. But on a scale of 1 to 10, I rate this problem as a —0— because I—ve become accustomed to the —halo— effect and think it adds some mystique to —edge photography.—

Prototype Design

This was probably the most difficult part of this whole endeavor: how to select a material and/or process that would yield a mirror finish on the 45 degree surface and cost less than $ 100 to manufacture. The first thought that passes one—s mind in dealing with this subject is —mirrors.— Mirrors imply the use of glass backed by a thin layer of silver. After describing the theoretical —edge mirror— to a few engineers at PPG and GE, I concluded that the glass would only compound the problem because it creates a double image due to its thickness, and would be prohibitively expensive because of the labor required to grind the 45 degree surface to shape.

I then decided to form the edge mirror by machining and then possibly grinding the edge from a piece of metal. But what metal? Silver seemed a logical choice, but when I suggested that to my machinist, he informed me that silver machines very poorly. It does not —cut—; it tears and smudges and will not grind to a suitable finish. I then visited an industrial grinder to ask him what I should use to obtain a mirror finish on the beveled edge. He suggested aluminum, more specifically alloy 6061-T6. I vetoed that suggestion because I know what happens to the surface of aluminum over a period of time: it turns to aluminum oxide—that fine, hard abrasive that is found on sandpaper.

Realizing that I was losing the battle to achieve a 1 micro inch on a metallic surface unless I used something like tungsten carbide, I changed my thinking. This time I visited an industrial plater and asked him what he required to achieve a mirror finish. To my surprise, he said, —No problem, I—ll chrome plate your piece to a 0.0002/0.0004 thickness and then polish to a mirror finish.— He further suggested that a flash chrome would be best, as it would not oxidize or distort the surface. After plating, he polished it again to achieve the mirror finish.

Armed with all this information, I returned to my machinist and was advised to use stainless steel for the edge mirror—Stainless 303.

Dimensions for Edge Mirror

In hindsight, I made my first error in calculating the inside diameter of the edge mirror in respect to the diameter of the coin. I reasoned that there should be an 1/8th of an inch clearance between the outside diameter of the coin and the inside diameter of the edge mirror. This, however, created too much diffusion and resulted in a fuzzy image, despite the fact that I adjusted for focal length. I recommend that a maximum of 0.025 inches separate the diameter of the coin from the smallest diameter of the edge mirror.

Likewise, the thickness of the edge mirror should be slightly greater than the thickness of the coin. Because it is impossible to machine the beveled edge without a radius at the ends, we must allow an additional 0.010 inches for each radius. Consequently, the thickness of the edge mirror should be 0.020 inches greater than the thickness of the coin.

For good machining practices and future handling considerations, it is advisable to make the outside diameter of the edge mirror 3/4 inch diameter greater than its inside diameter (see fig. 4). Unfortunately, this means that a different edge mirror has to be fabricated for every size coin. But the cost will still be less than one of those always-in-focus close-up lenses that sell for $4,500 and only produce a fraction of the edge.

image

Set-up for Camera

Because the light patterns are so drastically different from normal numismatic photography, I found it necessary to eliminate all sources of glare, which, unfortunately, includes the obverse or reverse of the coin itself. By using an ink compass, which can usually be found in old kits of drafting tools, and grinding the ink holder to a sharp edge, I was able to cut accurately coin-size circles out of some black kraft paper. I then placed this disc on top of the coin in order to eliminate glare.

I also experienced glare from the top surface of the edge mirror, but, in this case, I just used some artist—s dark paint to darken this surface. I carefully applied an artist—s mixture of linseed oil with burnt umber with a small brush, often with the aid of a stereo microscope to the top surface of the edge mirror until it was completely brown. After it had dried for a couple of days, the burnt umber was completely dry and could be handled and stacked with other objects.

By placing the whole assembly on a yellow sheet of paper, it was possible to outline the coin—s edge on the edge mirror. If your camera has a fixed focal length, it should be adjusted by the thickness of the coin, plus the difference in diameter between the inside diameter of the edge mirror and the outside diameter of the coin. In addition, a few paper shims under the coin helps to raise and center the image within the edge mirror and avoid any optical aberrations (see fig. 5). After finding the right diameter coin (a Mexican Peso), I was able to make the initial edge mirror function as designed (see fig. 6).

image
image
image

Possible Objectives

That this photography technique is needed is exemplified by three articles in the May 28 issue of Coin World. There the three articles not only discussed edges, but also photographed parts of them. All three articles showed only portions of the edge, with the portions furthest from the lens out of focus. The first article concerned the Biathlon Olympic coin error without the lettered edge. The second was Richard Doty—s article on steam presses, collars and counterfeiting. Finally, there was Marilyn Tiernan—s Collectors— Clearinghouse article on counterfeit Susan B. Anthony dollars and Franklin halves.

Other possible uses of this technique would be to establish and document an emission order on a given series of coins based on the obverse, reverse and edge die usage. Elsewhere in this publication Dr. Leaman and Mr. Gunnet present their very convincing arguments as to why it is possible to do just that.

On the other hand, several well-known numismatists have written various articles and chapters in books about how the Castaing machine operates and why all the —misfits— were made. A careful study of the edges by Dr. Leaman and Mr. Gunnet has concluded that the coins never —slipped— in the Castaing machine, and abnormalities, such as the prized —FIFTY CENTS OR A DOLLAR— (shown in fig. 7), were created by operator error.

image

Eric Newman in this publication sheds some new light on the famous 1804 dollars. How long does a conversation on 1804 dollars last before one starts talking edges? What—s a —crushed lettered edge—? Fig. 8 is a photograph of an 1834 crushed lettered edge half dollar, as described in Newman—s famous book, —The Fantastic 1804 Dollar.—

Finally, there are the —open collar— (1809-1828) Bust dimes. Up until last year, we were convinced that these were reeded in the Castaing machine, that is, until William Subjack called me one evening and asked me to look at the edge of any 1824 variety JR-1 dime in order to see what was on the edge opposite the third arrowhead. I responded that my particular coin had a siamese-shaped reed there. —Funny,— said Bill, —so does mine.— Worse than that, the same irregularity occurs on many varieties in that same few years. So much for the Castaing theory for the early Capped Bust dimes.

In this book John McCloskey discusses hub changes in the Seated series; he was one of the first numismatists of whom I—d ever heard, who could prove the authenticity of a U.S. coin by the number of reeds on its edge. The articles that have been written by McCloskey and others in The Gobrecht Journal, which describe the reeding gauges used in the Seated series, are significant contributions to the numismatic literature.

Conclusions

With the ability to photograph inexpensively the edges of our coins, we can expect more documented information and published research concerning emission orders, restrikes, etc. on our early silver, gold and copper issues. By no means do I expect this to be the last dissertation on this technique; it should lead to many more in years to come.

It is my hope that this technique will be accepted and used by the students and scholars in our discipline. Consequently, I wish to donate this invention to the public domain. I further encourage anyone who may have questions to direct them to me either through the American Numismatic Society or the John Reich Collectors Society.


Early Dimes, 1796-1837

Allen F. Lovejoy and William L. Subjack

Coinage of the Americas Conference at The American Numismatic Society, New York City

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

1. ROBERT SCOT—S VARIATIONS ON A THEME As Revealed by the Draped Bust Dimes

Allen F. Lovejoy

The Appointment of Robert Scot as Chief Engraver

When the United States Mint was established in 1792, Jefferson initiated a search in Europe and America for a person qualified to fill the position of Chief Engraver.1 During this period, Henry Voigt and Adam Eckfeldt unsuccessfully tried to fill the role of engraver.2 Finally, in July 1793, Jefferson decided to hire local talent and appointed Joseph Wright, a skilled artist, to be Chief Engraver.3 Wright—s 1792 pattern quarter dollar exhibits his talent for depicting the devices on a coin in a strong, classical manner.

Wright probably began work at the mint in August, before his commission was issued, but in late September he died in the yellow fever epidemic that ravaged Philadelphia in 1793.4 In his brief period of service Wright engraved the dies for the attractive beaded-border Liberty cap cents issued in September 1793.5 His delicately modeled, thoroughly feminine Liberty and improved reverse contrasts markedly with the earlier work of Voigt and Eckfeldt. The loss of Wright—s talents was a severe blow to the fledgling mint.

Shortly after Wright—s death, Washington advised Jefferson that he would not object if Mint Director David Rittenhouse, with Jefferson—s concurrence, selected a new Chief Engraver.6 Jefferson with splendid understatement wrote Rittenhouse, —It has been understood that Mr. Wright our engraver is dead. If this be the fact, will you be so good as to recommend for the office such person as you think best qualified to execute it?—7

Rittenhouse acted quickly, perhaps too quickly. Within two weeks he named and obtained Jefferson—s concurrence to the appointment of Robert Scot and, on November 23, Jefferson sent Scot his commission as Chief Engraver.8 The speed with which the mint—s second Chief Engraver was selected and appointed sharply contrasts with the 16 month, two continent search for Wright. Perhaps Rittenhouse and Jefferson felt pressure to fill the post promptly because they wanted to get the mint operating without delay, or profited from their earlier review of potential candidates, or, as Walter Breen states, influential banker friends supported Scot.9 Whatever the reason, Scot was appointed. In the view of many, this was not a happy day for the mint.

Scot, born in England about 1740,10 became associated with a watchmaker early in his career. His engraving experience was largely confined to etching intricate line designs on the flat surfaces of watch cases.11 Scot came to America before the Revolution and was employed by Robert Morris in the mid-1770s to engrave plates for subsistence money and bills of exchange.12 Later Scot, as Engraver for the State of Virginia, made the copper plates for its currency.13 He also produced architectural plates for Dobson—s Encyclopedia.14 When Scot opened a shop in Philadelphia in 1781, he had no experience in medallic art or portraiture, but he advertised himself as capable of executing the business of engraving —in all its branches.—15 Scot was clearly not modest about his abilities.

While his banker friends may have recommended him to Rittenhouse, Scot—s knowledge of watchmaking also may have appealed to Rittenhouse, a noted clock and instrument maker. Scot probably had an ingratiating personality, which helped him obtain and preserve his job despite his lack of skill as an engraver. There is no evidence that his competence in medallic art or coinage was considered before his appointment.

Scot was in his mid-fifties when he assumed the post of Chief Engraver. Taxay commented that at that time Scot was already advanced in years and thereafter his talents, never outstanding, showed a rapid decline.16 It is Scot—s incompetence as an engraver that makes the coins struck from the dies he made a fascinating study.

Scot—s 1794 silver dollar design was criticized in the press because —...the touches of the graver are too delicate, and there is a want of that boldness of execution which is necessary to durability and currency.—17 The delicate touch of the graver and want of boldness in execution are characteristic of Scot—s work. His shortcomings were due to hesitance and lack of experience in medallic art, a discipline which involves the skills of a sculptor working in three dimensions instead of the two required for engraving currency plates.

Henry De Saussure, Rittenhouse—s successor as Director, was openly unhappy with Scot—s dollar design which Scot had copied, with changes, from Wright—s Liberty cap design without the cap.18 De Saussure engaged Gilbert Stuart to redesign Liberty—s head.19 Stuart—s solution was a Liberty with neatly bound hair, thus changing her from an unkempt wench to a stately matron. Pursuant to a commission from De Saussure, John Eckstein, a Philadelphia artist, revised Scot—s reverse by shaping the eagle more boldly and reducing the cluttered appearance of the wreath.20 Eckstein then created models in relief from which dies for the redesigned dollar were to be copied. De Saussure directed that all silver coins conform to these models; clearly, the Director had little confidence in Scot—s artistic abilities.21 Unfortunately, De Saussure resigned as Director of the mint in October 1795 due to deteriorating relations with Congress.22

The Draped Bust Small Eagle Reverse Dimes

Elias Boudinot, who replaced De Saussure, confirmed the directive that all silver coins should have a design similar to the Stuart-Eckstein dollar. The task of engraving the dies for these coins fell to Scot. Scot thus produced the hubs and the working dies for the 1796 dimes.23

Examination, particularly of the reverse dies of the 1796 and 1797 Small Eagle dimes, discloses Scot—s failure to conform exactly to the ordained design. In a sense, Scot altered the design the way a composer creates variations on a theme, but Scot was not a skilled artist. It is uncertain whether this was due to Scot—s careless attention to detail, or a stubborn resolve to —fool around— with a competitor—s design, or, as Breen implies, a bureaucrat—s desire to preserve his job by creating an aura of indispensability for his continued employment. Admittedly the implements available in 1796 and 1797 were crude, even compared to those available a generation later when the reducing pantograph was introduced. But coin dies engraved by Scot—s contemporaries show greater competence and consistency. Scot—s changes are sufficiently great that they cannot be attributed solely to poor craftsmanship or to the difficulty of working on the comparatively small dime dies.

The striking of the first dimes in early 1796 from Scot—s dies was an important occasion in numismatic history. For the first time a coin equal to one-tenth of the basic unit of currency was issued, thereby introducing decimal currency to the western world—14,520 new dimes, all JR-1 variety, were delivered with Warrant No. 54 on January 18, 1796.24

Scot made a hub from the master die of the draped bust of Liberty, including her hair. This hub was used to create all 1796 and 1797 working dies. The letters of LIBERTY, the date numerals, and the stars were then individually punched into the working die. If the hub was not impressed into the working die with sufficient force, Scot strengthened the hair and other details with his graver. The principal variations in the 1796 dime obverse dies are in the placement of the letters, date and stars which are not design changes, but variations attributable to the difficulty of accurately placing punches on a small die.

image

1796 JR-1 obv. (without cud)

image

1796 JR-1 obv. (with cud)

The outstanding feature on almost all 1796 JR-1 dimes is the large cud break at the first star. Only one specimen of 1796 JR-1 is known without this defect. Illustrated are two obverses of the 1796 JR-1 dime: one is a late state dime with the cud and the other is without the cud. The latter is a gem presentation piece which sold for $44,000 (Stack—s, October 22, 1985 [Jimmy Hayes], 16). Although the Hayes coin does not have the cud, cracks at the first star indicate the outline of the cud as it first developed. The extreme rarity of specimens of the 1796 JR-1 dime without the cud is evidence that the cud developed early in the life of the die and then expanded. Dimes with a smaller cud than appears on the coin in the illustration can readily be located. Eventually the cud obliterated the entire first star and the die was discarded.

Table 1 LETTERS THAT TOUCH LEAVES ON SMALL EAGLE DIME REVERSES
Reverse Letters of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
N T1 T2 A2 E3 R I2 C1 A3
1796-A
1796-B X X X X
1796-C X X
1796-D X X
1796-E X X X
1797-A X X
The reverse of 1796 JR-1 dimes with the cud show weakness in the rim denticles at 11:00 o—clock caused by the loss of metal due to the obverse cud.

In identifying the design details changed by Scot on the Small Eagle reverses, one must eliminate die differences due to imprecise individual punching of the legend letters into the die. Table 1 lists the Small Eagle dime reverses where various letters of the legend UNITED STATES OF AMERICA overlap one or more leaves of the wreath. Such variations are attributable to the difficulty of precisely punching each individual letter into the die and are not considered design changes.

Table 2 DESIGN VARIATIONS ON SMALL EAGLE DIME REVERSES
Reverse Laurel Branch Position Under Legend Letters a
Leaves Berries Outer Berries Inner Berries
1796-A 17 5 E1 l Space T1 c Space T2 lc
lt S1 rt D
1796-B 16 5 E1 l S1 l Space D r T2 c
lt U
1796-C 19 4 T1 r Space D c Space
rt D S1-T2
1796-D 17 4 E1 l S1 l Space Space
T1-E1 D-S1
1796-E 19 4 T1 r T2 lc T1 r Space
lt S1
1797-A 17 5 D r Space T1 l D rc S1 lc
lt S1

In making dies for Small Eagle reverses, Scot used a hub for the eagle—there is no variation in this device on any Small Eagle dime. Scot engraved on the working die the leaves and branches of the wreath, the berries, and the rock or cloud on which the eagle stands. The principal design changes were in the number of leaves and berries on the left laurel branch of the wreath, the location of the berries, and the relationship of the eagle—s left wing to the rock. The palm branch which always has 13 leaves shows differences in the length of the leaves and their relationship to each other from die to die, but none are sufficiently great to be considered a design change. However, this confirms that Scot used a graver to cut the wreath into the working die.

As shown in Table 2, on the 1796 Reverse A, the left or laurel branch has 17 leaves (five single and six double) and five berries. The two outer berries are under E1 and the space left of S1 while the inner berries are located under T1, D and T2. The eagle—s left wing barely touches the rock upon which the eagle stands.

image

1796 JR-1, Rev. A

image

1796 JR-1, Rev. B

On the 1796 Reverse B, Scot reduced the number of leaves on the laurel branch to 16 (four single and six double), the fewest laurel leaves on any Small Eagle reverse. Also, Scot placed the first inner berry above the left stem of the laurel branch between the bow and the first leaf, instead of under T1. This berry placement is sufficiently different that it cannot be attributed to slightly inaccurate placement. The two outer berries and the other two inner berries in Reverse B are in substantially the same location as in Reverse A. On this reverse the eagle—s left wing tip is well below the top of the rock. Reverse B has one other distinction: more legend letters (N, T1, E3 and A3) touch leaves than on any other small eagle reverse.

On 1796 Reverse C, Scot increased the number of leaves on the laurel branch to 19 and reduced the number of berries to four. The outer berries are under the letters T1 and the space right of D, compared to E1 and S1 on Reverses A and B. The two inner berries are under D and the space between S1 and T2. The eagle—s left wing is well clear of the rock. Letters E3 and A3 touch leaves.

A notable feature of many 1796 type C Reverses is the cuts along the rim in the lower left quadrant. These defects were not in the planchet when placed in the coining press. They were caused by a foreign piece of metal resting on the reverse die. These defects appear on the specimens of Reverse C illustrated here, one at 7:30 just below the U and the other at the N. Specimens of Reverse C have been seen with the cut as high as T1 in the legend and as low as 6:30 close to the left ribbon tip. Some specimens of the 1796 Reverse C do not have the cut.

image

1796 JR-3, Rev. C (cut at U)

image

1796 JR-3, Rev. C (cut at N)

image

1796 JR-4, Rev. C (early state)

image

1796 JR-4, Rev. C (late state)

Shown is 1796 Reverse D in an early state when used with 1796 Obverse 3 to produce the JR-4 variety. Here Scot reduced the number of leaves on the laurel branch to 17 (two single, six double and one triple, excluding minor recuttings) and four berries. The outer berries are under E1 and S1, the same as on Reverses A and B, but one inner berry is centered under the space between T1 and E1 and the other is under S1. The wide variation in location of the berries indicates Scot did not follow a fixed pattern in placing the berries. The eagle—s left wing touches the rock. Letters E3 and I2 touch leaves. This reverse has heavy clash marks. Though marred, the die was considered usable since no cracks had developed. On the right is 1796 Reverse D after muling with 1796 Obverse 4 to make variety JR-5. The reverse die was lapped to polish off the clash marks. JR-5 is the rarest 1796 dime because cracks soon developed in both the obverse and reverse dies. As a result, only 1,435 were delivered with Warrant No. 63 on May 27, 1796, and the die was discarded.

The left branch on 1796 Reverse E shown here has 19 leaves (six single, five double and one triple) and four berries. The outer berries are under the right side of T1 and left center of T2. The inner berries are under the right side of T1 and the space between the letters D and S1. The eagle—s left wing is clear of the rock. A2, R and I2 touch leaves. This reverse was used to produce the 10,244 JR-6 dimes dated 1796 delivered in February and March 1797 with Warrants 81 and 84. The reverse die was used despite the development of major cracks 1) from the rim between S1 and T2 across the tops of the wings to M and the rim; 2) from the center of the top of the right wing to the eagle—s head; and 3) from the field right of F along the bases of AMER, as well some minor cracks.

image

1796 JR-6, Rev. E

image

1797 JR-1, Rev. A

On the right is the reverse used on all 1797 dimes, the laurel branch has 17 leaves (four single, five double and one triple) and five berries. The outer berries are located under D, the highest of any lower outer berry, and under the space left of S1. The three inner berries are under the left side of T1, the right center of D and the left center of S1; the last location is the lowest of any top inner berry on a Small Eagle dime reverse.

Although there were no design changes in the 1796 Draped Bust obverses, there is one matter deserving comment. While coining 1796 JR-5 dimes, the Obverse 4 die cracked at curl 2, was removed from the coining press, lapped, and then retooled so that the first star no longer touched the curl. A coin evidencing this reworking of the die appeared in trade (Auction —82, Aug. 13-14, 1982, 1602, part). It was most unusual to remove a die from the coining press, repair the die, and then return it to the coining press to complete a short run of less than 1,500 coins. Possibly the repair effort weakened the die which, when reinserted after retooling, collapsed after a few more strikings.

The principal design change made by Scot in the Draped Bust obverses was in the number of stars, which changed from 15 on the 1796 dimes to 16 on the 1797 JR-1 dime in recognition of the admission of Tennessee as a state and then to 13 on the 1797 JR-2 dime to eliminate the crowded appearance.

image

1797 JR-1, Obv. 1

image

1797 JR-2, Obv. 2

In 1797 several design changes in addition to the number of stars were made in the Draped Bust obverse. The 1796 dimes had between 105 and 109 obverse denticles; the 1797 dimes have 114 denticles on Obverse 1 and 119 on Obverse 2. The reverse denticles for both years range between 107 and 110.

Scot evidently had problems with the number punches in 1797. On Obverse 1 the 1 is large and rather crude. Two different punches were used for the 7s; one being a rather sharply-angled 7 and the other being more upright. The 9 punch was crudely made; the 9 has a pointed tail instead of a knob at the end of the tail as had all other dimes minted in the 1790s. Possibly this pointed tail 9 punch was manufactured by Scot. A pointed tail 9 did not reappear on a dime until 1809.

On 1797 Obverse 2, in addition to reducing the number of stars to 13, Scot used a 1 punch that is smaller than any other used for dimes in the 1790s. The 9 has a knob at the tip of its curled tail similar to that used for the 1796 and 1798 dimes.

The Draped Bust Heraldic Eagle Reverse Dimes

The public did not readily accept the Small Eagle reverse. In 1796 Scot had designed a reverse for the quarter eagle based on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States originally designed by Charles Barton in 1782. His design appears on the current dollar bill. In 1798 the quarter eagle type of reverse was adopted for the dime.

Consistent with his inclination to change another—s design, Scot made major modifications in Barton—s Great Seal reverse. He interchanged the objects held in the eagle—s talons, so that, as one faces the reverse, the olive branch is held in the right claw and the arrows are held in the left. The motto ribbon is less windblown. The stars are placed in an open pattern under six clouds instead of being enclosed in a small circle as appears on the Great Seal.

Table 3 DESIGN VARIATIONS ON HERLALDIC EAGLE DIME REVERSES
Dime Reverses $2.50 Reverses a Stars Rows Olives As Arrows
1798-A 1797 B-1 16 C 4 N 8
1798-B 13 D 4 N 10
1798-C 13 C/D 4 N 10
1798-D; 1800-A 1798 B-2 13 C 5 N 10
1800-B; 1801-A 13 C 5 W 10
1801-B 13 C 5 W 10
1802-A; 1803-A 1802 B-4 13 C 5 W 10
1802-B; 1803-D 13 C 5 W 10
1802-C; 1803-B 1802 B-3 13 C 5 W 9
1802-D; 1804-A 1802 B-2; 13 C 5 W 10
1804 B-2
1803-C 13 C 5 N 10
1804-B 1804 B-1 14 D 4 N 10
1805-A 13 C 5 W 11
1805-B 13 D 4 N 10
1807-A 1805 B-1; 13 C 5 W 11
1806 B-1;
1806 B-2;
1807 B-1

The hub for the Heraldic Eagle reverse contained the eagle, shield, ribbon, motto and clouds. Because of the size of the devices on the hub, great force was required to impress the hub into the working die. Consequently, many Heraldic Eagle reverse varieties consistently show weakness of strike in the upper shield, the eagle—s breast and wing feathers and the motto ribbon. The arrows and olive branch were engraved into the working die by hand, and the stars and legend letters were individually punched. On all Draped Bust Heraldic Eagle dimes there are between 110 and 119 rim denticles on both the obverse and the reverse.

On the Heraldic Eagle reverses used from 1798 to 1807, there are four or five berries on the olive branch and between 8 and 11, but usually 10, arrows in the left claw. The arrows are difficult to count unless the coin is about uncirculated or better. The number of stars on the Heraldic Eagle reverses changed from 16 to 13 to 14 and back to 13, and two different sizes of star punch were used.

Shown here is 1798 Reverse A, the only known 16 star reverse used for the dimes, although several 16 star reverses were used for quarter eagles. Note that there are only 8 arrows and four berries.

The stars on Heraldic Eagle reverses were arranged in a curved row pattern or in a diagonal line pattern. In the curved row pattern used for the 16 star reverse shown below there are seven stars in the curved top row under the six clouds, then seven stars in a curved row underneath, and finally one star on either side of the eagle—s head. The curved row pattern was also used on 10 of the 13 star reverses, with six stars in the top row, five in the second row and then one star on either side of the eagle—s head.

image

1798 JR-1, Rev. A

image

1798 JR-2, Rev. B

image

1798 JR-3, Rev. B

In the diagonal line pattern as exemplified by 1798 Reverse B, the stars are in straight rows to form a diamond pattern. This pattern was used on three reverses, 1798 Reverse B, the 14 star 1804 Reverse B, and 1805 Reverse B. All of these diagonal line patterns have four berries on the olive branch, narrow As in the legend, and 10 arrows in the left claw.

The 1798 Reverse C is difficult to classify, since it is a combination of both the curved row and the diagonal line pattern. Although the lines of stars are not perfectly straight, the second row of stars is not curved either. Scot may have been experimenting with the positioning of the stars and thus created a transitional reverse. Possibly the 14 star reverse later used in 1804 was a result of these same experiments. The 1798 Reverse C has four berries, narrow As and 10 arrows.

The principal design variations in the Draped Bust obverses from 1798 to 1807 were in the size and number and star punches. 1798 Obverse 1 was used with both the 16 star Reverse A to produce 1798 JR-1 and the 13 star diagonal line Reverse B for 1798 JR-2. The small 8 over the large 7 is diagnostic for this obverse.

image

1798 JR-1, Obv. 1

image

1798 JR-3, Obv. 2

image

1798 JR-4, Obv. 3

For 1798 Obverse 2 Scot sunk a new die, but used the same numeral punches as on Obverse 1. The left foot of the 1 punch was broken; and the punch was discarded after this use. Obverse 2 was muled with Reverse C to produce 1798 JR-3.

There were several punch changes on the obverse of 1798 JR-4. The 1 in the date has a flat top instead of a slant top as previously used on all dimes. The 7 punch is smaller, and Scot used a mediumsized 8 punch in place of the small 8. The flat top style for the 1 and the medium 8 were used for all later Draped Bust dime obverses with only slight variations in shape, possibly due to variations in punching.

The dies for the 1797 to 1807 quarter eagle and the Heraldic Eagle reverse dimes were the same diameter. Since the Heraldic Eagle reverse did not indicate the denomination, it was an easy matter to use the same reverse for both denominations. This appealed to Scot, who was a notoriously slow worker and was frequently required to replace cracked and shattered dies. The die failures were due largely to inadequately hardened steel, improper annealing of the working dies, or striking problems due to poor coin design or to clashed dies.

Of the 15 Heraldic Eagle reverses used for dimes, seven were used to strike quarter eagles. The first reverse used for both denominations was the 16 star reverse of the 1797 B-1 quarter eagle and the 1798 JR-1 Reverse A dime previously discussed.

The second reverse die used in common for quarter eagles and dimes was for the 1798 B-2 quarter eagle and the 1798 JR-4 and 1800 JR-1 dimes illustrated here. On this die there are 10 arrows in the claw, narrow As in the legend and five olives on the branch. All later dime reverses, except 1804 JR-2 Reverse B and 1805 JR-2 Reverse B, have five olives. Note the crack on the dime reverse from the tip of the second feather of the left wing to the rim and the incipient rim crumbling over E2, S2, O and F.

image

1798 B-2, $2.50 rev.

image

1798 JR-4, Rev. D

image

1800 JR-1, Rev. A

On the 1800 JR-1 dime Reverse A, the crack from the left wing to the rim is slightly enlarged by a rim crumble and there is a second crack from the rim to the right center tail feather. A specimen of 1800 JR-1 with a bisecting reverse die crack has been reported. The progressive deterioration of the reverse die can readily be seen when the 1798 B-2 quarter eagle reverse and the reverses on the 1798 JR-4 and 1800 JR-2 dimes are compared together.

1802 JR-1

image

Obv. 1

Rev. A

Illustrated here are the obverse and reverse of the only known specimen of the 1802 JR-1 dime. It was first identified by Bill Subjack from a photograph (Stack—s, April 27, 1967 [Copeland], 469). The coin later appeared in a 1982 auction (Superior, June 7-10, 1982 [Miguel Mu—oz], 58). Its chief claim to fame, in addition to its great rarity, is that it is the only Heraldic Eagle reverse die used to strike a dime before being used for a quarter eagle. The second use of this reverse die was for the 1802 B-4 quarter eagle. The third use was for Reverse A of the 1803 JR-1 dime.

Shown here is the reverse of the 1802 B-3 quarter eagle. The same die was later used to strike Reverse C for the 1802 JR-3 dime. The most unusual feature of this reverse is that the left claw holds nine arrows instead of the usual 10. Cracks on the dime reverse developed 1) from the C to A3 and the rim; and 2) from cloud 6 through the stars, shield, left claw and arrows to the rim.

The same die was later used for Reverse B on the 1803 JR-2 dime. The cracks, enlarged and multiplied, now run 1) from I2, C and A3 to the rim; 2) from cloud 6 through the stars, shield, left claw and arrows to the rim; 3) from the rim to the top of F and the right wing; and in a late die state 4) from the rim at D through the stars to S2 and the rim.

image

1802 B-3, $2.50 rev.

image

1802 JR-3, Rev. C

image

1803 JR-2, Rev. B

In much the same way a common reverse die was used to strike in order the 1802 B-4 quarter eagle, the 1802 JR-3 dime, then the 1804 B-2 quarter eagle and finally the 1804 JR-1 dime.

The 1802 B-1 quarter eagle reverse is known only from its marriage with the 1802/1 quarter eagle obverse. Four different reverse dies were used for the 3,035 quarter eagles minted with the same obverse die dated 1802/1. All specimens of this second rarest 1802 quarter eagle reverse show little wear, and no major cracks have been noted. Yet the die, so far as is known, was never remarried to any other obverse die, while other reverse dies with incorrect designs or prior-use defects were used with one or more obverse dies. Collectors should carefully examine the reverses of their Heraldic Eagle dimes. They may discover a new variety from the marriage of a known dime obverse with this or another —merry widow— quarter eagle reverse.

Illustrated are the two uses of the popular, and not very rare, 14 star reverse. The legend has narrow As from the punch Scot used in 1798, there are 10 arrows in the claw and only four olives on the branch, and the stars are arranged in the diagonal line pattern.

image

1804 B-1, $2.50 rev. (14 stars)

image

1804 JR-2, Rev. B

Perhaps the effort to achieve a line pattern similar to the neat and compact 1-4-3-4-1 star-shaped pattern on the Great Seal was too much for Scot, and he lost count of the stars. Many numismatists believe that this die was set aside when made and later given new life when an acute Heraldic Eagle reverse die shortage, possibly due to Scot—s slow production habits, necessitated its revival.

In 1801 Jefferson suggested to Boudinot that he see John Reich regarding employment by the mint.25 Boudinot interviewed Reich, but hesitated to employ him at the mint before he had good evidence of Reich—s character.26 In 1802 Scot posted a notice urging Boudinot and Treasurer Benjamin Rush to settle their public dispute, fearing a scandal.27 Possibly Scot sided with Boudinot, his superior, to solidify further his position since Scot undoubtedly knew that Reich had waited upon Boudinot. Again in 1804 Reich was recommended to Jefferson as one of the finest die sinkers in the world, but Jefferson hesitated to pressure Boudinot.28 Breen speculates that Scot, as a good bureaucrat, had convinced Boudinot that matters in the engraving department were under control.29 Not so with Robert Patterson who became Director of the Mint in July 1805.30 In March 1807 Patterson wrote Jefferson —Our present Engraver, Mr. Scot, though indeed a meritorious and faithful Officer, is yet so far advanced in life, that he cannot very long be expected to continue his labors.—31 Patterson then suggested that John Reich, who was threatening to return to Europe, be retained on a small salary, and continued with the opinion that —the beauty of our coins would be greatly improved by the assistance of his [Reich—s] masterly hand.— Despite Patterson—s misgivings, the mint produced the 1807 dimes using Draped Bust and Heraldic Eagle dies prepared by Scot.

Illustrated is the last Heraldic Eagle reverse die used in common for quarter eagles and dimes. It proved to be a real work horse. It was used for all quarter eagles dated 1805, 1806 and 1807 and was then used to produce well over 110,000 dimes dated 1807. Shown are the reverses of the 1805 B-1, 1806 B-1 and 1807 B-1 quarter eagles and the 1807 JR-1 dime reverse. There are 11 arrows in the eagle—s claw, five olives on the branch, and wide As in the legend. The dime reverse evidences substantial wear on the die at the denticles and the E in the motto and many clash marks.

image

1805 B-l, $2.50 rev.

image

1806 B-l, $2.50 rev.

image

1807 B-l, $2.50 rev.

image

1807 JR-l, Rev. A.

The great durability of this die is evidence that Chief Coiner Henry Voigt had finally solved the problem of the proper alloy and hardening techniques to use in making the steel dies. But affable, blundering Chief Engraver Scot, with failing eyesight and declining abilities, was far more durable as a bureaucrat in keeping his job.

End Notes

a
It - left of; 1 - left side; lc - left center; c - center; rc - right center; r - right side; rt - right of.
a
References are to Walter Breen, Varieties of United States Quarter Eagles (Chicago, n.d.)

2. THE CAPPED BUST DIME

William L. Subjack

Robert Scot did not retire at age 67 in 1807 despite his failing physical powers. Interestingly, his tenure at the mint was extended greatly by an indentured German immigrant, John Reich, who was brought on as Assistant Engraver on April 1, 1807. No stranger to the mint staff, Reich had done contract work for the mint as early as 1801. His lowly background led to official caution toward his acceptance as permanent staff, at least, that is, until the mint itself felt a critical need.

Reich made his presence felt almost immediately with his new Capped Bust design for the obverse and a much stylized variation of the Heraldic Eagle in the reverses, used for dimes beginning in 1809.

But these were troubled days for the mint in many ways. U.S. gold and dollars were either exported or melted, rarely circulating anywhere. Neither the banks nor the public were very receptive to small silver U.S. coins—quarters, dimes, or half dimes. Mint Director Patterson wrote to Jefferson in April 1807 that over 100,000 dimes lay unwanted in Mint vaults, while small Spanish silver circulated plentifully.32 Reich—s design was therefore first implemented in 1807 for the only readily accepted silver coin, the half dollar. (Half eagles with a variation of the Reich design also appeared in this year.) Efforts at reintroducing the dime had to wait two more years. Ironically, while the mint had great difficulty in getting its output accepted by the country, it was continually and severely criticized for not producing enough coinage to satisfy public needs. Every few years from 1793 on, Congress had to renew a temporary law permitting selected foreign coins to circulate legally in the United States. The act was not renewed in 1806, however, and was allowed to expire by Congress in the hope that the mint had finally solved its production problems. Apparently not so, for in 1815 Maryland bankers appealed to Congress to reinstate foreign coins to permit lawful distribution of the swelling bank inventory.33 All this while, the public held less than one U.S. silver coin for each living person. For months Congress resisted this request.

A major fire at the mint on January 11, 1816, destroyed a wooden building housing the rolling and drawing machines, as well as the melting house. According to the letter from Mint Director Patterson to President Madison, no open flame was permitted in the area where the fire broke out, nor were any workmen there for several days. He said, —...The manner in which the fire originated is perfectly unaccountable.—34 Relation of these two events may only be circumstantial, but within a few weeks of the fire, Congress renewed the foreign coin act, as it would do periodically until 1857.

These events laid the framework for mint activity for the remaining bust coinage period. There was almost continual pressure to increase mint output, not through additional labor, but through new technology. There was also need to turn out an attractive product acceptable to commerce and to the general public. These problems were addressed jointly through the efforts of the resourceful coiner and general handyman Adam Eckfeldt and through the engravers Robert Scot and his assistant John Reich. There may also have been engraving support from a contract employee, Moritz Furst, who is known to have designed certain Congressional medals from 1808 to 1828.35

image

1809 JR-1 (Reich)

image

1814 JR-3 (Scot)

A new steam engine was installed in June 1816 to improve the operation of rolling and drawing of ingots, and at least some planchet cutting. The new equipment enabled the mint to produce blank planchets that were smoother, rounder and flatter. This explains in good measure why file or adjustment marks (used to reduce excess weight of faulty planchets) are more prevalent before 1816. The new steam engine apparently did not aid coin striking.

Both Scot and Reich remained active in this period, as the basic Reich design was extended to all denominations. In each side by side comparison between the two, Reich—s workmanship noticeably surpasses that of his superior.

Note in particular the denticles around the perimeter of the coin. To ease his burden, the near-sighted Scot broadened the size of these triangular-shaped spacers, greatly decreasing their number, giving the coin a crude and sloppy look. The Reich coin has 93 denticles, while Scot has 78. It is easy, however, to see that Reich also had limited artistic vision. Legend has it that mint employees 50 years after Reich—s departure referred to the portrait of Liberty as that of Reich—s —fat mistress.—36 The comparison between the work of Scot and Reich extends to the reverses as well, since one notes the shallowness of the Scot central figure in contrast to the Reich effort of 1809.

Mint morale must have reached crisis depths after the mint fire of 1816. But by early 1817 repairs and improvements to the establishments were nearly complete, and Reich requested a long-awaited increase in wages. This request was denied, and Reich in disgust-some say in ill health—resigned. This left a now 77-year-old Robert Scot as the only permanent mint engraver. Dimes were not struck again until 1820, but judging from the quality, and sometimes lack of quality of certain 1820 issues, Scot most assuredly was assisted with die preparation, perhaps by the aforementioned Moritz Furst. The 1820 JR-2 reverse, for example, is a veritable jumble of letter recuttings and errors, such as a U punched between D of UNITED and S of STATES.

image

1820 JR-2, Rev. B

In 1820 mint dime output increased to 942,000, a figure nearly as great as the total output for the prior 21 years. This was followed in 1821 by an output of 1,187,000. Clearly, the mint would need to improve its coining technology to consider realistically a production level that would give the nation an ample supply of its own coinage. The coin striking process comprised multiple events. After good quality planchets were prepared, reeding was applied to the edge with a milling or Castaing machine, named after its inventor. This consisted of two grooved, parallel bars, one fixed and one movable. The distance between the bars was adjustable, depending on the denomination of the planchet to be reeded. The operator placed blank planchets between the bars, sliding the movable bar past the fixed bar, thus squeezing the reeding into the rotating planchet. The obverse and reverse dies were then impressed into the reeded planchet to produce the finished coin. An obvious productivity gain would be to combine the reeding and design stamping operations.

image

1821 JR-10 rev. and edge A

image

1823 JR-1 rev. and edge A

image

1823 JR-3 rev. and edge A

image

1824 JR-1 rev. and edge A

It is customary to think of Capped Bust coinage (dimes, quarters, quarter eagles and half eagles) as large or small size. The size difference is usually attributed to the use of a closed collar die process. With a closed collar, the stamping force expands the planchet diameter radially until it hits a corrogated collar die, which imparts the familiar reeded edge. Since the collar limits the outward expansion of the planchet, the coins are assumed to have a smaller diameter with this process. The closed collar is known to have been used with half dollars in 1836, with quarter dollars in 1831, and is thought to have initiated with dimes in 1828. Judging striking technique from planchet size is misleading. Recent research proves that —large size— dimes dated as early as 1821 are known to have used a closed collar die reeding, and the practice was widespread with dimes by 1825. In this regard, the dime was a role model for some of the more popular coinage series.

Of interest is the reeding on these dimes. Opposite the lowest arrowhead, the edge shows an unusual doubled reed, barely separated by a fine line. This curious defect is the only flaw in the reeding. It appears on every specimen at exactly the same place on each coin (indicated by arrows on the photographs). The only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn is that each of the coins was struck using a closed collar process, that each used the same collar die, and that each was struck at the same time. Since it is most unlikely that 1824 dimes were struck before 1824, and it is known that the mint produced no dimes that year, the conclusion is reached that all of the coins were struck in 1825. This position is reasonable since other collar die fingerprints (but not the same as the set above) are common to all 1825 JR-1, JR-3, and JR-4 dimes. Further evidence of early collar die use is the exact diameter for the set of 1821-1824 coins, a feature also shared by the second set of 1825 varieties above.

Implementation of the closed collar process may also have had favorable effects on obverse and reverse die life as well. Note the cuds on the 1831/33/34 reverses (indicated by arrows). A true cud occurs when a piece of either die falls out. As new coins are struck with the broken die, the two dies force metal above the planchet surface as a blob of silver in the shape of the defect. Of the 21 bust dime varieties with reported cuds, 19 of these were struck with the closed collar die process. Perhaps the support of the collar device held the damaged die together longer. The die failure can also occur in the collar die itself. Note the edge of the 1832 JR-3 with edge die failure opposite the first T in STATES. The open collar dies also seem particularly susceptible to warping, evidenced by a noticeable bulging on many coins so struck. These defects unfortunately are not as evident in photos as on the coins themselves.

As seen in Table 4, the mint succeeded in steadily improving the life of its dies. The largest jump occurred about 1805, probably due to improvements in steel tempering techniques about that date.

Table 4 EARLY DIME DIE LIFE
Obverses Reverses
Years No. Life No. Life
1796-1797 7 6,800 7 6,800
1798-1804 10 13,600 12 12,000
1805-1807 2 142,900 3 98,700
1809-1827 38 129,800 35 140,900
1828-1837 41 165,000 39 173,800
98 96
The additional jump in the late 1820s could be related to the closed collar die advantages described earlier.

image

1831 JR-5, Rev. B

image

1833 JR-4, Rev. C

image

1834 JR-6, Rev. E

image

1833 JR-3, rev. and edgr B

Robert Scot finally died in November 1823, having worked until the age of 83. He was replaced in January 1824 by William Kneass, who served as Chief Engraver until 1840, well into the Gobrecht Seated Liberty era. Kneass was the innovator of the period, with numerable experimental modifications attributed directly to him. It was Kneass who presided over the introduction of the closed collar striking process. It was also Kneass who introduced the modified look of the Late Bust coinage, beginning with the dimes of 1828.

image

1828 JR-l

image

1828 JR-2

It is interesting to note that the —small size— 1828 JR-1 on the left and the —large size— 1828 JR-2 on the right are exactly the same size. The real differences in the coins are the smaller stars and smaller date of the modified coin on the left. A second design change is the return to the 1793-style beaded border, replacing the wide triangular denticles introduced by Reich, and exaggerated by Scot. The overall impact is a much neater and refined impression of Liberty, although the central device has not been changed at all, since Kneass probably used the same hub punch.

The first of two transition years, 1828, is a time during which Kneass introduced his design changes one by one. It is not known whether he had any assistance from Christian Gobrecht in this project. Although not a permanent mint employee until mid-1835, there is a record of payment to Gobrecht for modeling and executing die designs as early as August 1825.37 Note on the 1828 JR-1, the old style reverse with 101 denticles is combined with the small date obverse. On the JR-2, the large date obverse is now combined with 133 narrowly-spaced but still triangular denticles.

The second year of dramatic design transitions is 1829. Kneass apparently never did decide how to handle the denticle problem. He began the year with the old style triangular denticles for the first two varieties, but switched to a uniformly-beaded edge for the other 10 varieties. The number of reverse denticles varies from a high of 159 for JR-7 and JR-8, to a low of 89 for JR-2. The latter die has much in common with the two 1823 reverses and may be left over from that period.

image

1827 JR-12, Obv. 8 (large 2)

image

1829 JR-1, Obv. 1 (curved neck 2)

image

1829 JR-9, Obv. 5 (straight neck 2)

image

1829 JR-10, Obv. 6 (curled base 2)

The second major change was the size and shape of the 2 in the date. From left to right, the first obverse with the large 2 represents the style used 1820-28. Although attractive, it is not as neat and sharp as Kneass wanted. He next reduced the size, adding a curved neck and a squared base. This variation probably came across as too top heavy, for Kneass then tried the sole variety with a curled base 2. This rare variety is more vertical and trim than either of the two previous styles, and it resembles the curled base 2 he used on nearly every other denomination. Kneass finally opted for an angular, yet neat 2.

Other than the number of denticles, the most obvious reverse design change is the size of the 10 C denomination.

image

1829 JR-l, Rev. A

image

1829 JR-2, Rev. B

image

1829 JR-4, Rev. D

image

1829 JR-9, Rev. H

image

1829 JR-12, Rev. K

From left to right, the first reverse has an extra large 10 C, being used a second time after 1828 service. The second is JR-2 with a large and thick 10 C. The third is a small 10 C, the most common size in this year. The fourth represents a small 10 C punched over a large 10 C. The last was Kneass—s final choice, a medium 10 C that was carried over into subsequent years.

The vertical bundles in the heraldic shield are termed gules. Prior to 1829 hubs contained three-pale gules. In this year both two- and three-pale gules were employed. Kneass used the remaining inventory of three-pale gules dies in 1831, returning to the two-pale gules 1832-37, when the Bust design was replaced.

image

1835 JR-1, Obv. 1 (fancy 8; curved top 5)

image

1835 JR-5, Obv. 3 (block 8; straight top 5)

From the time of Reich—s resignation in 1817, Scot, Kneass and later Gobrecht all seemed to experiment with the design of the 8 in the date. The two basic designs are referred to as fancy 8 and block 8. It is not certain which engraver fashioned each individual die in the various denominations from 1817 to 1839. This remains an issue which deserves further study. For the dimes, all dates before 1835 use a block 8 exclusively. In the period 1835-37, both fancy and block 8s are employed. What does seem likely is that Kneass is responsible for one design, while Gobrecht produced the other variant during this period. Dimes manufactured in 1835, the year of Kneass—s stroke and Gobrecht—s full employment, have a broader variation of planchet sizing than any other Bust dime date.

There was almost constant change in planchet diameter throughout the 41-year history of Bust dimes (see Table 5). For the Draped Bust period, 1796-1807, all coins are in the 20 mm diameter range. The size changes seem random with respect both to variety and to individual coins within a variety. John Reich made a distinct reduction to the 19.0-19.25 mm range with his Capped Bust design. The experimentalist Kneass never did settle on an optimum size for his coins, gradually reducing the size from 19.0 mm in 1827 to a minimum of 18.3 in 1835, then increasing again as high as 18.8 mm in the 1837 closing year. Of interest is that by 1823 all coins of a given date and variety are the same diameter, again supporting the closed collar die theory for these —large size— coins.

Bust dimes for several reasons have not enjoyed the same popularity as some of the other series. One of the major reasons may be their unappreciated rarity. Table 6 shows the relative frequency of appearance for each of the Bust dime dates compared to other early U.S. coins of more or less known rarity. It is based on analysis of 419 public auctions over three distinct time periods from 1858 to 1978. This approach should minimize trends in collector interest. As shown in the table, 1804 is the rarest date Bust dime, but it is only marginally scarcer than any of its 1800-1803 counterparts. None of the Capped Bust issues is as rare as these, although 1822 is genuinely scarce, with 1809 and 1811 uncommon. Of interest is the rarity of many of the dime dates compared to 1793 cents of any design. The great difference in value of the dimes compared to, say, the 1793 chain cent can only be attributed to the current popularity of the copper issue. Similar conclusions can be drawn with highly-priced 1796 quarters and the 1795-98 small eagle $5 gold. On the other hand, none of the dimes can be considered as rare as any of the early quarter eagles, the 1796-1797 half dollars or the 1838-O half dollar. Auction records don—t provide exact indicators of extant populations, but they do put into perspective how scarce the Bust dime series really is.

image

Table 538

image

Table 638

Despite all the problems with the mint regarding productivity, die life and the artistic merit of their designs, one area of which they could be proud was quality control with respect to releasing error or defective coins. Unlike copper coinage, which regularly appears double struck, overstruck on other coinage, or off-center, silver or gold coinage errors of any type are extremely scarce.

image

1802 JR-3 obv. (dbl. struck)

image

1814 JR-1 rev. (off-cntr.)

Note that the date on the 1802 JR-2 reads 18028. The entire obverse of this piece is double struck about 30 degrees off line. Slightly misaligned dies result in slightly off-center strikes on many coins. The 1814 JR-1 on the right, however, at 20% off-center, is a major rarity in Bust silver coinage.

image

1824 JR-2, Rev. B

image

1825 JR-4, Rev. C

image

1825 JR-5, Rev. C

image

1827 JR-1, Rev. A

image

1827 rev. brockage piece

Perhaps even more interesting is the reverse brockage shown with the four reverses with which this die was used. Although the brockage has no obverse side, its manufacture can be placed late in the life of 1827 JR-1 by comparison of the die breaks which develop between the leaves, the left wing and the rim.

The story of the Bust dime could end here, but much work remains to clarify the picture. Note, for example, the 1797 JR-1 dime with the crude pointed 9 in the date. This coin may have utilized the same 9 punch that was used on the 1797 low head half cent, which was proven by Roger Cohen and Walter Breen to have been struck in 1800. No other pointed 9 coins seem to have been struck between 1794 and 1799. Could the 21,760 dimes delivered at the end of March 1800 really have been dated 1797? The half cents in question were all delivered between April and early June of that year.

image

1797 JR-1, Obv. 1

image

1797 C-3, half-cent obv39.

Note also the 1815 and 1825 Browning-3 quarters40 counterstamped over the head with E or L. Consider that only one E and one L punch seems to have been used. Of many E counterstamps, all seem placed at the top front of the cap, while all Ls are placed above the peak of the cap. Consider that nearly all extant specimens of the counterstamped coins are in extremely fine to uncirculated condition, whereas most all uncounterstamped Capped Bust quarters are in wretched condition. It is easy to speculate that both of these issues were produced not as dated 10 years apart, but at the same time in 1825. Could the Es and Ls represent changes in minting technique, such as the closed collar die which was introduced for the dime in that same year of 1825? Perhaps these were not released to the public until years later, when they would not readily circulate with coinage of a new design? Could the E stand for —edge collar die reeding—? Could the L mean —lathe— application of the same reeding?

image

1815 B-l, 25 cent obv. (E ctsp.)

image

1825 B-3, 25 cent obv. (E ctsp.)

1815 B-1, 25 cent obv. (F ctsp.)

image

No, the real story of the Bust dime will not be answered until many more comparisons are made with other denominations, as these all were produced by the same people operating in the same time and place. The human nature evident in the variability of each die is the very reason why the entire series of Bust United States coinage has been such a favorite of collectors over the past century.

End Notes

1
Don Taxay, The U.S. Mint and Coinage (New York City, 1966) (hereafter cited as Taxay), pp. 68-69.
2
Taxay, pp. 104-5.
3
Taxay, p. 105.
4
Taxay, pp. 75, 105.
5
Taxay, pp. 105, 112. See also Walter H. Breen, —The Peter Principle Meets the Mint: Scot, Barber and the —Arabic— Dates,— NEJN 1 (1986) (hereafter cited as Breen), pp. 3-4.
6
Frank H. Stewart, History of the First United States Mint (1924; repr ed., Lawrence, MA, 1974), p. 86.
7
Taxay, p. 105.
8
Taxay, p. 105, citing The Papers of Thomas Jefferson , Library of Congress collection.
9
Breen, p. 4.
10
Breen, p. 3.
11
Taxay, p. 105.
12
Taxay, p. 106
13
Taxay, p. 105; Breen p. 3.
14
Taxay, p. 106.
15
Taxay, pp. 105-6.
16
Taxay, p. 106.
17
New Hampshire Gazette, Dec. 2, 1794, cited in Taxay, p. 106.
18
Breen, p. 4.
19
Taxay, p. 106; Breen p. 4.
20
Taxay, p. 106.
21
Taxay, p. 107.
22
Taxay, p. 100.
23
Although John Smith Gardner was employed by the Mint as an assistant engraver to Scot from November 1794 to March 1796 and could have engraved some of the dies for the 1796 dimes, this is not probable since the engraving is more characteristic of Scot—s tentative, weak style and lacks the strength of Gardner—s work. Furthermore, the Chief Engraver apparently assigned Gardner, who was paid on a daily basis and therefore not a salaried employee of the Mint, to engrave the dies for base metal copper cents, while reserving for himself the task of engraving dies for precious metal coinage.
24
JR references are to David J. Davis et al., Early United States Dimes 1796-1837 (Ypsilanti, MI, 1984).
25
Taxay, p. 107.
26
Taxay, p. 108.
27
Taxay, p. 117.
28
Taxay, p. 108.
29
Breen, p. 5.
30
Taxay, p. 101.
31
Taxay, p. 108.
32
Taxay, p. 126.
33
Taxay, p. 140.
34
Q. David Bowers, The History of United States Coinage (Los Angeles, 1979) (hereafter cited as Bowers), p. 201.
35
Bowers, p. 192.
36
Taxay, p. 109.
37
Bowers, pp. 209-10.
38
Reprinted with permission from Early United States Dimes 1796-1837 (see above, n. 24).
39
Reference is to Roger S. Cohen, Jr., American Half Cents, 2nd. ed. (Arlington, VA, 1982).
40
References are to A.W. Browning, The Early Quarter Dollars of the Untied States, 1796-1838 (New York City, 1925).

Unheralded Hub Changes in the Gobrecht Series

John W. McCloskey

Coinage of the Americas Conference at The American Numismatic Society, New York City

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

Liberty Seated silver coins were minted for circulation during a 55-year period from 1837 to 1891. Design changes, such as the addition of stars to the obverse in 1838 and the addition of arrows next to the date in 1853 and 1873, are well-documented modifications and known to all collectors of Seated coinage. But other design changes took place during the production of the Seated series which have never been well-documented and are unknown to most collectors today. Many of these hub changes are clearly visible on the silver coinage that we collect, but are not mentioned in many of the standard reference books on nineteenth century coinage. The significance of these modifications is that they have created many interesting, unusual and rare varieties that have not gotten the attention they deserve. This paper will attempt to describe the hub changes that were introduced into the Liberty Seated coinage and to identify varieties where they are known to exist.

Major revisions in the design of nineteenth century silver coinage took place during three periods. These will be identified as the Gobrecht era 1839-1842, the Civil War era 1858-1862, and the Centennial era 1875-1878. During these periods nearly all of the silver denominations went through design modifications that are not well-documented in the numismatic literature. Design revisions will be examined for each of these periods for the different denominations.

1. The Gobrecht Era

Christian Gobrecht was appointed Assistant Engraver of the United States Mint in 1835 and was immediately put to work designing a series of patterns for a new silver dollar. Over the next five years his Liberty Seated design was adopted for all the silver denominations from the half dime to the dollar. Gobrecht was appointed Chief Engraver of the Mint on December 21, 1840, and continued to serve in this position until his death on July 23, 1844. The adoption of the Liberty Seated design to each denomination, however, did not signal an end of the work on the dies of that denomination. A series of revisions in the designs were made during the early years, presumably to enhance the beauty of the design or to correct weaknesses in the design encountered during the striking process.

Liberty Seated half dimes and dimes were first struck in 1837 without stars in the obverse field. Thirteen stars were added in an are around the obverse in 1838 to fill the open areas in the field. Furthermore, the obverse of the half dime, dime and quarter were modified by the addition of drapery folds from the right elbow in 1840. In addition to these well-known revisions, a variety of other modifications were made during this era, which have not been sufficiently documented. The rarities of many of the resulting varieties are yet to be determined and the potential for the discovery of new varieties is still very real.

1.1 HALF DIMES

The numismatic literature states that a new design was adopted for the half dime in 1840 with drapery at the elbow. While it is true that drapery folds were added to the design, this statement doesn—t reflect the fact that the entire obverse was completely redone at this time. The rock on which Liberty is seated was reduced in size and the shield was turned to a more upright position. The lettering LIBERTY on the ribbon is bolder and now runs in a more diagonal manner across the shield. The right hand was moved up the pole and the index finger now points up to the cap. The head of Liberty has been completely redone and the 13 stars are bolder. The rock to the left of the shield has been reduced in size and the folds in the gown completely changed—in reality a completely new obverse for the half dime.

image

1840 Half Dime, No Drapery obv.

image

1840 Half Dime, With Drapery obv.

With a major revision in the obverse of the half dime in 1840 it would seem reasonable that the reverse did not escape the designer—s attention. And this was indeed the case. The reverse modifications are much less noticeable, but nonetheless detectable upon examination. The most obvious change was in the leaves in the wreath on either side of the lettering DIME on the reverse. On the old reverse the leaves on both sides appear in clusters of four. On the new reverse the leaves are in clusters of three. Furthermore, each of the 12 buds in the wreath has been opened, each now showing a slit in the end. The lettering in the new reverse is slightly larger, but this is difficult to detect unless both reverses are held side by side.

image

1840-O Closed Bud rev. (No Dr. obv.)

image

1840-O Closed Bud rev. (No Dr. obv.)

The dates 1840 and 1840-0 are known to exist with the old obverse and reverse and with the new obverse and reverse. The With Drapery varieties are more difficult to locate for both dates of this year. One important feature of the new dies is that there is the potential for transitional varieties for the years 1840 and 1841. It is possible that one of the old dies was used with one of the new dies to create a transitional variety of this period. None of these transitional varieties have been discovered as yet, but the existence of such varieties for other denominations indicates that they are a distinct possibility.

1.2 DIMES

The obverse of the dime was extensively revised in 1840 in a way similar to that of the half dime. The drapery folds were added below the elbow, the shield was moved to a more upright position, the right hand was moved up the pole and the index finger pointed to the cap, the rock reduced in size and the features of Liberty completely changed. The obverse is distinctly different from that used in the previous two years. The reverse was also modified in 1840, but the revisions are not immediately evident. The one identifiable feature that distinguishes the two reverses is that each of the 12 buds in the wreath of the new design have been opened with a slit.

image

1837 Dime, Closed Bud rev.

image

1842 Dime, Open Bud rev.

The 1840 date is known to exist with the old obverse and reverse and with the new obverse and reverse. The 1840-0 date is known only without drapery and with the old closed bud reverse. With Drapery dimes are not known for the 1840-0 date. Of importance here is that two varieties of the 1841-0 dime are known With Drapery, but with the old closed bud reverse. Both of these transitional varieties are rare and represent significant discoveries in the Liberty Seated series. The 1841-0 transitional dime with the large O mint mark has been known for about 12 years and has proven to be an elusive variety to obtain even with extensive searching. This variety would have an R-6 rarity rating with perhaps 20 pieces known. The 1841-0 transitional dime with the small o mint mark was discovered no more than five years ago and still remains an R-7 rarity with perhaps no more than five examples of this variety identified. Other transitional varieties might exist. Only extensive study of the pieces of this era will determine if others are yet to be identified.

1.3 QUARTERS

Liberty Seated quarters were first struck in 1838 with a No Drapery obverse. The obverse of the quarter was also revised in 1840, but not as extensively as the obverse of the half dime and dime. For the quarter obverse, drapery folds were added to the gown below the right elbow and the hand was moved up the pole with the index finger pointing up to the cap. The lettering LIBERTY was enlarged on the ribbon, but the shield itself was not moved to an upright position.

The reverse of the quarters of 1838 has an eagle with open talons on both claws. In 1839 the reverse was revised to show an eagle with closed talons on each claw. The significance of this revision is that the old reverse was also used in 1839 creating the transitional variety known as the 1839 quarter with the Reverse of 1838. This variety has been known for several years now and the transitional variety does not seem to be particularly rare.

image

1839 (rev. of 1838) Quarter, Open Claws rev.

image

1839 Quarter, Closed Claws rev.

image

1839 Quarter, Eagle with Tongue rev.

The two reverses of 1838 and 1839 both show an eagle with a tongue. The quarter reverse was modified again in 1840 to present an eagle without a tongue. The 1840-0 No Drapery quarters have a large O mint mark and very shallow denticles around the edge of the obverse and reverse. The 1840-0 With Drapery quarters have a small o mint mark and broader denticles that reach in much closer to the lettering UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and QUAR. DOL. The reverse design itself remained unchanged, but the broader reverse denticles match the new denticles used on the With Drapery obverses of this year. There is little doubt that the new obverse and reverse dies with the broad denticles were meant to be used together. With this point in mind, there is one transitional variety that has drawn a lot of attention from Seated collectors. This variety is an 1840-0 With Drapery quarter with a large O mint mark that has a double row of crudely-engraved denticles around the edge. The large O mint mark and the nature of the denticles would suggest that the reverse was once a shallow denticle reverse that was intended for use with the No Drapery obverses. It appears that this reverse was modified by hand to be used with the new obverse dies. The double row of reverse denticles make the variety interesting to study, and one can only speculate as to why it was considered necessary to modify an old reverse die. The 1840-0 With Drapery quarter with the large O mint mark is a rare variety and would have to carry an R-6 rarity rating with perhaps 20 pieces known to exist.

1.4 HALVES

Half dollars of the Liberty Seated design were first struck for circulation in 1839 from a No Drapery obverse. During this first year of production the obverse design was modified by decreasing the size of the rock and by adding three small lines of drapery below the right elbow. It is worth noting that the obverse design for the half dollar was modified a year earlier and not so extensively as the obverse of the three smaller denominations.

image

1840 Half Dollar, Bust rev.

image

1840 Half Dollar, Seated rev.

It does not appear that any revisions were made in the design of the reverse of the Seated half dollar during the first three years of production, but one very unusual variety does exist for the year 1840. All reverses of the first three years of Seated half production have small letters on the reverse, except one variety known as the 1840 with the Reverse of 1838. This reverse is actually a leftover Bust half reverse used with a Liberty Seated obverse. The differences in the Bust design are very striking. The letters on the reverse are much larger and the shield on the eagle—s breast is much larger. This is the only Seated half with three feathered shafts and the only reverse where the eagle has a tongue. The talons on both claws are open and the upper bud in the olive branch is in a different position. There is little doubt that this variety was struck from a Bust half reverse, but no explanation as to why this was done has ever surfaced. The 1840 half with the Reverse of 1838 is a scarce variety with a rarity rating of R-6. It is an extremely interesting variety that is in demand by half dollar collectors and worthy of numismatic study. Several large die cracks on the reverse make for easy identification of the variety and an emission sequence for the pieces struck from this die is easy to develop.

The reverse of the half dollar was changed in 1842 with an increase in the size of the lettering. All halves of 1842 have the large lettering except for the 1842-0 Small Date variety. The rare 1842-0 Small Date variety is therefore easily distinguished from the Large Date varieties by the size of the reverse lettering. Any attempt at adding a mint mark to an 1842 Philadelphia half could therefore be easily detected.

2. The Civil War Era

The period just before the Civil War was a time when all of the silver coins went through a change in design. Some of these revisions were dramatic, but others were minor and have been ignored for over 100 years. Interestingly enough, the old and new dies were used side by side for several years, in some cases without much attention being noted of this fact in the numismatic literature. Identifying features will be presented to draw some attention to the designs that were used during this period.

2.1 HALF DIMES

The stars obverse with the upright shield for half dimes was modified in 1859 to create a one-year type issue. The 1859 obverse had hollow stars with larger lettering in the word LIBERTY on the ribbon. The features of Liberty were changed and the index finger no longer points up the pole. The New Orleans half dimes of 1859 continued to use the old design without modification. In 1860 additional changes were made in the obverse and the reverse of the half dime. The stars on the obverse were removed and the legend UNITED STATES OF AMERICA took their place. The small wreath on the reverse around which the legend had appeared was replaced by a much larger cereal wreath with only the denomination HALF DIME running through the center of the wreath. This design continued in use through the end of the half dime series in 1873.

image

1856 Half Dime (finger points to cap)

image

1859 Half Dime, obv. (hollow stars, larger LIBERTY)

image

1861 Half Dime, obv. (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Two transitional varieties are known for this period. In 1859 and in 1860 the hollow stars obverse was used with one of the new cereal wreath reverses to create a variety without the nation—s identity on either the obverse or the reverse. Both of the transitional varieties are rare today. The 1859 transitional half dime would rate an R-6 rarity with perhaps 15 known to exist, while the 1860 transitional half dime rates an R-5 rarity.

2.2 DIMES

The stars obverse for dimes was used through pieces dated 1859. In 1860 the legend UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was removed from the reverse and added on the obverse in place of the 13 stars. The new reverse of 1860 had a much larger cereal wreath with only the denomination ONE DIME appearing in the center of the wreath. One transitional variety is known for this period when an 1859 stars obverse was mated with a new cereal wreath reverse of 1860. This variety does not bear the nation—s identity. It is reported that 100 pieces were struck of this transitional variety.

The legend obverse first appeared on the dimes in 1860, but a year later the obverse design was modified again. In 1860 there was only a small segment of one vertical stripe over the letter E in LIBERTY. In 1861 the obverse was modified, so that there were two strong vertical segments over the E in LIBERTY. The small segment obverse is known for the dates 1860, 1860-0, 1861 and 1861-S. The strong segment obverse is known for the date 1861 and all following dates in the series. The small segment obverse is much rarer for the 1861 dime, the only date for which both obverses are known to exist.

image

1860 Dime, Small Segment obv.

image

1862 Dime, Strong Segment obv.

2.3 QUARTERS

The stars obverse for the Seated quarter was modified in 1859. For all quarters of 1858 and before, there is only one small segment of a vertical stripe over the E in LIBERTY. In 1859 the obverse was modified, so that there were two strong, vertical segments over the E in LIBERTY. Both obverses are known for Philadelphia quarters of 1859, with only the new strong segment obverse known for all pieces of 1860 or later at all mints.

Hub Changes in the Gobrecht Series

image

1858 Quarter, Small Segment obv.

image

1860 Quarter, Strong Segment obv.

The reverse die of the quarter was also modified slightly during this period. For all quarters of 1858 and before, the eagle—s eye is negative or concave. In 1859 a new reverse die was introduced where the eagle—s eye is positive or convex. The numismatically interesting point to this change is that both reverse hubs were used at the Philadelphia mint to strike pieces dated 1859, 1860 and 1861. All pieces of 1862 and later were struck from the new reverse with the convex eye. At the branch mints it was a completely different story. In New Orleans the old design was used to strike the 1860-O and all pieces prior to that date. In San Francisco the old design with the concave eye continued in use through 1865. One consequence of this information is that a different reverse design was used to strike quarters during the Civil War in Philadelphia than at the branch mint in San Francisco.

image

1865 Quarter, Convex Eagle Eye rev.

image

1865-S Quarter, Concave Eagle Eye rev.

2.4 HALVES

A new reverse was introduced into the half dollar series in 1858. The changes are only minor, but the revisions significant enough to detect without magnification. For all half dollars dated 1857 and before, the lower right edge of the letter L in the word HALF extended only slightly beyond the upper right edge of the letter. For the new hub introduced in 1858, the lower right edge of the letter L extends well beyond the upper edge of the upper serif of the letter. Both reverses are known for the dates 1858, 1859 and 1860 with only the new reverse appearing at the Philadelphia mint in 1861 and after. The new reverse was not introduced into production in San Francisco until 1862. Both reverses are known for the 1862-S and the 1864-S halves with only the new reverse known for the 1863-S and 1865-S dates. In New Orleans we have both reverses known for the 1860-O half with only the new reverse known for the 1861-O date. It is possible that additional reverse varieties exist. Additional study will be needed to establish reliable rarity estimates for the known varieties of this period.

image

1862-S Halves (old and new rev. identified by L in HALF)

3. The Centennial Era

The third period of major die modifications occurred near the time of our nation—s centennial in 1876. At this time steps were taken to improve the quality of the designs then in use and each silver denomination underwent minor changes. Some of the resulting varieties are very rare and many different varieties are known to exist. The numismatic literature has shown very little interest in these modifications, so that most have remained unknown to collectors for over a century.

3.1 DIMES

The reverse design of the dime was modified slightly in 1876. The old reverse hub had a split ribbon end on the left ribbon below the wreath. The new hub had a pointed ribbon end on the left ribbon below the wreath. Other minor modifications can be noted in the new reverse, but the left ribbon end is the most distinct change that was made. The numismatically important fact about this change is that the two reverses were used side by side for a period of three years. Both reverses are known for the dates 1876, 1876-S, 1876-CC, 1877, 1877-CC, 1878 and 1878-CC. Some of these varieties are scarce, but the only one that can be considered rare is the new pointed ribbon reverse on the 1876-CC date. This variety is very rare and would rate as an R-7 rarity with perhaps 10 pieces known to exist. At least one gem uncirculated example of this rarity has been seen. A few circulated specimens of the rarity have been identified during the 12 years that the variety has been known.

image

1874 Dime rev. (split ribbon end)

image

1880 Dime rev. (pointed ribbon end)

3.2 QUARTERS

The Centennial era also produced a modification in the reverse of the quarter, but, surprisingly enough, the new reverse first appeared in 1875. While several minor changes have been noted, the key to identification of the new reverse is in the shape of the letter A in the word STATES. For the old reverse used before 1875, the letter A in STATES has wide serifs. For the new reverse that first appeared in 1875, the letter A in STATES has short serifs. Here, again, the two reverses were used side by side, but this time for a period of only two years. Both reverses are known for the dates 1875, 1875-S, 1876, 1876-S and 1876-CC. Only the new reverse with the short serifs is known for the 1875-CC quarter. The 1875-CC quarter is a scarce date, and so far none of the pieces examined have turned up with the old reverse.

image

1876 Quarter rev. (wide and short serifs)

The 1876-CC quarter is known to have been struck with fine reeding, the only year in which quarters were struck with the 153 reeds around the edge. It is interesting to note that the fine reeding appears with both reverse designs for this year.

The most surprising thing about the introduction of the new reverse is that the old reverse with the wide serifs on the letter A in STATES was used to strike some quarters of 1879 and 1880. It is not known why one of the old reverses was used so many years after the introduction of the new design.

3.3 HALVES

image

1874 Half, Open Bud rev.

image

1878 Half, Closed Bud rev.

The reverse of the half dollar was modified in 1876. The old reverse used on all halves of 1875 and before has an open bud in the branch over the letter H in HALF. The new reverse introduced in 1876 has a closed bud. Again, the two reverses were used side by side for a period of two years. Both reverses are known for the dates 1876, 1876-S, 1877, 1877-S and 1877-CC. The new closed bud reverse is very rare for the 1876-S half and unknown for the 1876-CC half.

The old reverse hub did not disappear, however, in 1877. The old open bud reverse is known to exist for some proof specimens of 1879, 1880 and 1881. The appearance of these old reverse dies for the low mintage dates of 1879 and later is quite surprising, since the small mintages of this period did not warrant the use of extra dies.

3.3 TRADE DOLLARS

The design of both the obverse and the reverse of the Trade Dollar was changed slightly in 1875. Many minor revisions were made in the obverse, but the key to identification of the two dies is in the ribbon end below the word LIBERTY. For the old obverse used on Trade dollars of 1874 and before, both tails of the split ribbon end point sharply to the left. For the new obverse introduced in 1875, the right tail of the split end points down toward the date. All pieces dated 1877 and later appear to be of the new obverse. Pieces dated 1875 and 1876 seem to be a mixture of the two obverse dies. While studies have been made, it is too early to determine just what varieties might exist and just how rare they might be for the different dates.

image

1875-S and 1876-S Trade Dollars (old and new obv. identified by ribbon ends)

More well known to the collector is the revision in the reverse die that first appeared in 1875. For all Trade dollars of 1874 and before, there is a closed bud below the olive branch within the right claw. For the reverse die introduced in 1875, the bud has been removed from within the claw. All pieces dated 1877 and after appear to have the new reverse. For pieces dated 1875 and 1876, there seems to be a mixture of the two reverses. Both reverse dies are known for the dates 1875, 1875-S, 1875-CC, 1876, 1876-S and 1876-CC.

image

1876-S Trade Dollars (old and new rev. identified by presence/absence of bud in right claw)

With both obverse and reverse dies being revised during the same time period the possibilities for transitional varieties seem very real. A study reveals the existence of many transitional pieces with the most common being the old obverse being paired with the new reverse die. Such transitional varieties are known for the dates 1875-S, 1876, 1876-S and 1876-CC. New discoveries are bound to be made in this series as more collectors examine their pieces once they have become familiar with the keys to identifying the dies in the series.

Recent research has revealed that the dies of the Liberty Seated silver coins were modified a number of times during the striking of the series from 1837 to 1891. The significance of these revisions is only now being appreciated, as new varieties are being identified and studied by numismatic scholars. Studies of the beautiful silver coins of the nineteenth century will continue to uncover facts surrounding the manufacture of our early silver coinage and add to a better understanding of the minting process.


The Fantastic 1804 Dollar: 25th Anniversary Follow-up

Eric P. Newman and Kenneth E. Bressett

Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American Numismatic Society, New York City

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

1. ANECDOTES, COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY

Eric P. Newman

The Fantastic 1804 Dollar 1 might not have been written 25 years ago if it had not been for a typographical or transcription error in An Index to the Numismatist published in 1959.2 My prior thinking and research on the subject of the 1804 dollar had been greatly stimulated by articles by Alfred J. Ostheimer, 3rd, published in The Numismatist for June 1961 and elsewhere entitled —Contemporary 1804, 1805 Silver Dollars Authenticated.—3 I had been asked to give a talk before the Educational Forum of the American Numismatic Association—s 1961 annual convention in Atlanta for which I was seeking a suitable topic. I felt it would be worthwhile to study these 1804 and 1805 dollars in depth in the hope of finding a basis for the talk. In checking the Index for prior references, I failed to locate at that time an article by David F. Spink written in 1939 entitled —More Information on the 1804 and 1805 U.S. Dollars.—4 It contained a detailed opinion of Burdette G. Johnson that the coins were alterations. If I would have known in 1961 of that 1939 opinion by my friend and mentor, I would have dropped the topic as already solved. In 1939 Johnson—s office in St. Louis was one block away from mine, but in 1961 Johnson was no longer alive.

When the 1939 Spink article was indexed in 1959 the title was listed as —More Information on the 1904 and 1905 U.S. Dollars— and accordingly placed under the heading —Morgan Dollars— instead of under the heading —Early Dollars, Including the 1804 Dollar.— This might be called the mistake of the century! Although Ostheimer had written in his articles that Johnson had seen the pieces and had concluded the coins could not be genuine, I was totally unaware that Johnson had given a written opinion when I gave the talk. The indexing error was a stroke of good fortune for me because it stimulated me to recognize the extreme importance of doing extensive additional research on what was then the most controversial subject in American numismatics—the 1804 dollar.

The 1804 and 1805 Dollar Alterations

A substantial amount of new information has come to light as to these two well-known alterations of genuine U.S. dollars—an 1802 over 1801 altered into an 1804 dollar and an 1803 altered into an 1805 dollar. This is due to the recent availability of the correspondence file of the late Louis S. Werner, a professional numismatist of New York City. These dollars are very high in contention for being the most deceptive alterations of genuine coins. The confusion and disappointment of parties who owned them can be better understood by a review of the new data.

Dollars dated 1804 had been the basis of discussion since 1842 when they were first publicly disclosed in the Eckfeldt and Du Bois manual.5 At the same time there was no discussion as to an 1805 dollar, even though that manual contained the inaccurate notations, —Dollar, 1797-1805— and —No dollars were coined from 1806 to 1835.— The 1805 dollar was referred to by Edward Cogan in 1871 as a non-existent date.6 In a talk before the Chicago Numismatic Society in 1904 Geoffrey Charlton Adams said that if mint records were based upon dates —we would have dollars of 1805.—7

The Werner-Ostheimer 1805 Dollar Story

The first appearance of an 1805 dollar was in 1939 when it and an 1804 dollar were mailed together from the —West Indies— to the British Museum in London for verification, appraisal and sale. Their actual source has not yet been identified. They were casually shown to an American numismatist, Samuel Friedenberg of New York City, who was then visiting England as a tourist. Friedenberg at first concluded that the pieces were genuine, but then felt uneasy and wished that he could reexamine them promptly. He did not arrange to return to the British Museum before going home, but reported his experience in The Numismatist.8 The Museum turned the coins over to Spink & Son, Ltd., the well-known London coin firm. Spinks selected Burdette G. Johnson of St.Louis as the best person to give them an opinion and dispatched the coins to him. Johnson—s conclusion was that they were altered and that the field around the date had been lowered in order to rework the date. These observations (without Johnson—s name) were submitted to The Numismatist by Spinks and published as stated above.8

Spinks instructed Johnson to send the coins to Miss M.A. Dunn, 44 Monroe Street, Brooklyn, New York City. She might have been associated with the party attempting to sell them, but said that she knew nothing about the coins and that they belonged to someone in England. Dunn took the unopened package she received from Johnson to Vernon L. Brown, assistant curator at the Chase National Bank Money Museum. Farran Zerbe, the curator whose collection had been sold to the museum, opened the package on November 30, 1939, and told her the coins were alterations. Dunn then sold them to Zerbe personally, that action showing that she had instructions from the owner to do so. On March 15, 1941, Zerbe sold the coins as alterations to Werner for what Werner describes as —an undisclosed sum.— In 1941 and in 1944 Zerbe exhibited the coins as alterations and spoke about them at the New York City Numismatic Club, although they belonged to Werner in 1944. Fred C.C. Boyd, a member of the club, offered Werner the opportunity to trade the alterations for some genuine paper money, but Werner refused because he felt that the coins were genuine.

Werner sent rubbings of the 1805 dollar to M.H. Bolender, a U.S. dollar specialist and professional numismatist of Freeport, Illinois, and Bolender in a September 1, 1950 reply to Werner indicated that the 1805 could well be an alteration from an 1803 Bolender variety 1, but wished to see the coin. Bolender had just written his book on die varieties of dollars of the United States, but did not include any detail on 1804 or 1805 dollar matters. Werner did not send the 1805 dollar to Bolender at that time because of the risk of loss and placed an all-risk insurance policy on it for $10,000.

Werner was convinced that the 1805 dollar was —the numismatic find of the century— and exhibited it at the 1951 annual convention of the American Numismatic Association in Phoenix, causing much excitement. The 1805 dollar was unique in that no other U.S. dollar of that date, whether genuine or false, had ever appeared. Werner claimed his 1805 dollar —passed all the —tests of genuineness— including the heat test.—10

In 1952 Werner brought the 1805 dollar to Bolender—s home in Freeport and Bolender to his own surprise said that the coin appeared to be genuine and not altered. Werner apparently did not bring the 1804 dollar along to show Bolender at that time.

B. Max Mehl, a professional numismatist of Fort Worth, Texas, on December 16, 1955, answered a collector inquiring about the 1805 dollar, saying that he had heard of the coin and recalled Johnson—s opinion that it was an alteration. Werner initiated minor publicity thereafter for the 1805 dollar, but a sarcastic remark appeared in The Coin Collector (Anamosa, Iowa) for January 20, 1960, as follows: —While all the official records state no dollars were minted in 1805, the great authority on numismatics, Mr. L. S. Werner of New York City claims at least one was minted, as he owns it!—

By 1960 Werner began to consider a sale of the two coins and determined to hire two metallurgical chemists to give him their opinions as to the authenticity of the coins. He first delivered the coins to Academy Testing Laboratories, 350 West 31st Street, New York City, to be examined. On March 10, 1960, a report signed by Stephen A. Montanaro, managing director of that firm, stated that both coins had been examined under 25 to 1150x magnification, that both were die struck, and that no evidence of alteration of the dates by addition, removal or tooling was found.

In June 1960, Lucius Pittein, Inc., with laboratories at 47 Fulton Street, New York City, was asked by Werner to test and photograph the coins. The coins were examined under a Bausch & Lomb metallographic microscope with 30 to 500x magnification. The report dated June 24, 1960, signed by F.H. Wright, stated that both coins were genuine and die struck with no indication of distortion or replacement of the dates. A hardness test was also made on the coins. Werner asked for permission to publish the content of the reports of the metallurgical chemists, and received approval from them.

Werner first offered to sell the 1805 dollar to Louis Eliasberg, a numismatist of Baltimore, on August 3, 1960, with the right of Eliasberg to have the coin tested at Werner—s expense. Eliasberg turned down the proposal with the abrupt comment that there was —no record of its existence other than your communication.—

Then Werner contacted Bolender again, sending him both coins and asking for his opinion. Bolender wrote an opinion dated December 8, 1960, as to the 1804 dollar and a separate opinion dated December 10, 1960, as to the 1805 dollar, stating that each piece was authentic, struck at the U.S. Mint and not altered.

Werner then increased his insurance coverage, the 1804 being valued at $10,000 and the 1805 being revalued at $15,000. He wrote Alfred J. Ostheimer, 3rd, of Philadelphia that —I was as I feel today that both coins were the genuine strikings when I bought them.— Then in a letter dated December 12, 1960, addressed —To whom it may concern,— Werner outlined both the prior opinions that the coins were alterations and the then current opinions of Bolender and the metallurgists that the coins were genuine. Ostheimer was sent a copy of that December 12, 1960 letter.

By December 21, 1960, a contract entitled —Option and Custody Agreement— was prepared by Los Angeles attorneys (for a fee of $25 which Werner paid) in which Ostheimer had the option until July 1, 1961, to buy the 1804 and 1805 dollars for $30,000, with $8,500 payable as a deposit, an additional $8,500 installment payable on both January 15, 1962 and January 15, 1963, and the $4,500 balance payable January 15, 1964. If the option was not exercised the deposit was to be refunded. Ostheimer was to have custody of the coins until the option date and ownership thereafter if the option was exercised. There was no guarantee of authenticity—only a guarantee of title or ownership.

The option was exercised on or about June 20, 1961, and Werner wrote on that date to the Ostheimers saying: —I am just as pleased in selling you the 1804-1805 as you were in purchasing them. I am sure the coins will bring to you, besides the monetary rewards, a reward of satisfaction of the ownership and the happiness that your collection contains the only known genuine coins.—

By this time Ostheimer had written and published in the various numismatic media previously referred to his detailed articles asserting the authenticity of the coins. On reading the articles, I determined either to become convinced of or to condemn the findings but not to stay in limbo. After extensive study of the photographs which Ostheimer had kindly sent to me, I concluded that the coins were alterations and asked him for permission to examine them. When I went to Philadelphia for that purpose he showed the coins to me and asked for my opinion. I told him the pieces were definitely alterations and that Bolender had written to me on July 12, 1961, changing his prior written opinions and now agreed with me. In the course of that conversation I mentioned the superb alterations of early U.S. cents made by the alleged —Smith of Ann Street.— Werner was promptly told what I had said and wrote letters to Abe Kosoff, George Fuld and Art Kagin urgently requesting information about Smith of Ann Street and his work, never mentioning the 1804 or 1805 dollars. Werner offered to pay any expenses incurred in providing information. The replies are truly classic-Kosoff suggested asking John J. Pittman; Fuld suggested asking Walter Breen; and Paul Kagin suggested asking Eric P. Newman.

I was informed that Ostheimer had brought his lawyer and a metallurgist to Atlanta to hear my talk. Ostheimer and Werner must have disclosed to some extent what my opinion was going to be. The talk was the last of four presentations and when my turn came the seats were all occupied and people were standing and sitting in the aisles, some dealers having temporarily closed their bourse tables to be present. The talk also included an unequivocal opinion that the normally recognized 1804 dollars and their dies were not made in 1804.11 After the talk I was asked by Ostheimer to attend a breakfast the next morning to discuss the question with other numismatists. At that breakfast there was a lively commentary by others while I just listened. I was told at the conclusion that suit would be filed against me. Since the news media thrives on controversy there was a quick publication of the written version of my talk by those who published Ostheimer—s article.12

Nine years after his purchase, Ostheimer wrote Werner a letter dated August 7, 1970, that Werner should refund the money and take back the coins, noting that Werner —led us to believe that these were bonafide pieces.— Thus it appears that the installment payments due after the date of the talk had been completed. The return and refund never took place and those coins remained in the Ostheimer collection until most of the primary collection (but not the altered dollars) was sold at the August 9, 1975 auction of Superior Stamp and Coin Co., Inc. Some of the Ostheimer collection coins (including the altered dollars) were sold to an undisclosed client of Superior about that time where they remain.13 Werner had never guaranteed authenticity and had shared with Ostheimer the facts which Werner knew.

The purpose of this detailed discussion is to emphasize the importance of guarantees of authenticity; the danger of relying on testing results by numismatically-inexperienced people; the risk of reliance on the opinions of people who have a conflict of interest; the frequency of opinions being changed; and the reappearance of non-genuine coins.

Other Fake Matters

In 1973 the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered on —1804 half dollar— from an alleged burglar in Miami, Florida. The coin was an alteration of an 1805 over 1804 half dollar into an 1804 half dollar made by cutting away the parts of the 5 which were not over the 4. It seems unfair for an unsuspecting burglar to have been saddled with this deceptively altered coin just because the real owner might be too ashamed to claim its ownership and to explain why and how it was originally acquired by him.

Coin World of September 3, 1969, reported the recovery of a stolen du Pont 1804 dollar by the Florida Bureau of Law Enforcement. A sting had been arranged to purchase the coin for $ 10,000. The operation was successful but the coin turned out to be a routine alteration instead of a du Pont piece.

Electrotypes of the 1804 dollar were described on page 107 of The Fantastic 1804 Dollar. Most of these pieces seem to have been made from the Class II example and the Idler Class III example by mint employees. The modern auction record of such electrotypes is described in the McIntire Numismatic Auctions, Inc. catalogue for the 1985 National Silver Dollar Sale, Nov. 14-16, 1985, where one was sold as lot 806. The number of electrotypes is there estimated as between 5 and 10. It would seem exceedingly difficult to determine which Class II or Class III coin served as the electrotype master as edges are customarily not a part of the reproduction. Unless there is other evidence, it is difficult to assign an electrotype as being made from a specific piece. Edward Cogan in describing an electrotype as lot 509 in his September 16, 1878 sale, thought it was produced from a die made in 1858, but in his December 16, 1878 sale, corrected his comment to indicate it was made from an 1804 dollar struck in 1858.

A major distinction held by an 1804 dollar electrotype made from a Class II or Class III piece is that it is a fake of a fake of a fake, or to be more explicit, an electrotype copy of a restrike of a fantasy.

image

1. 1802 over 1801 Dollar (Bolender 9) altered into 1804 Dollar.

In 1961 Louis Goldsmith of Montreal, Canada, purchased a U.S. dollar with an 1804 date from the collection of W.C. Wilson through his daughter-in-law, Mrs. M.M. Wilson. Goldsmith promptly commissioned Warnoch Hersey Company, Ltd., a Montreal laboratory, to test it for authenticity. X-ray examination revealed no voids. Ultrasonic multiple-echo techniques indicated solid metal without voids, cracks or laminations. The thickness between the field surfaces on each side of the coin ranged from .076 to .080 inches or a maximum deviation of .004 inches. The field thickness around the 4 in the date was only slightly above average and an opinion was given that if the date had been altered the field would have been lower than average. An X-ray fluorescence analysis showed the metal on the 4 was identical to the metal on the reverse. Canadian General Electric Co. conducted X-ray diffraction and fluorodescent analysis tests. These tests were made available when the coin was finally scheduled for auction on January 24, 1971 in Montreal. The coin, however, had radial dentils and an unbroken curl tip, different from all other —recognized— 1804 dollars. There was little delay in calling attention to the fact that the coin was an alteration and it was withdrawn. The coin was an alteration of an 1802 over 1801 Bolender 9 variety. It was almost as fine an alteration as the Zerbe-Werner-Ostheimer pieces causing the customary confusion and differences of opinion. There is nothing like a superb alteration to start a superb altercation.

The process by which alterations are made is called chasing or tooling. The metal constituting raised portions of the coin is moved along the surface of the field by tapping the metal sidewise and thus creating a new shape. Sometimes the field surface is lowered somewhat to make more material available. When needed some minor amounts of metal can be removed. This delicate work is done with engraving and polishing tools and the coin can be heated to make the metal more easily reshaped. No solder is necessary. No additional metal needs to be added from another coin or other source. No voids are created if the work is skillfully done. The coin is uniformly cleaned and polished to remove discoloration and unevenness, followed by a new patina if desired.

Challenges

In 1980 Robert P. Hilt published some startling assertions about the 1804 dollar and the proof dollars dated 1801, 1802 and 1803.14 He took the position that in 1802 two obverse dies for the dollar had been completed with only the last numeral of the date lacking; that these dies were put in storage as they were not needed; that in 1834 their diameters were machined down on a lathe to the proper dimension; that a 4 was punched into one to produce the 1804 obverse die; that a 2 was punched into the other to produce the obverse die for the 1802 proof dollar; that an incomplete obverse die without legend, stars or date was also left over from 1802 and was in 1834 converted into the obverse die for the 1801 proof dollar; and that an 1803 obverse die left over from 1803 was first used in 1834 without modification and became the obverse die for the 1803 proof dollar. No substantiation was given to support these assertions and no comment made as to the reverse dies used for any 1804 dollars or for the proof dollars dated 1801, 1802 and 1803.

These theories fail because the dentilation on the perimeter of both the obverse and reverse dollar dies made during or prior to 1803 are quite different from the dentilation and border band used in 1834 and appearing on the 1804 dollars and the proof dollars dated 1801, 1802 and 1803. To machine off dentilation and replace it with another dentilation pattern and a border band would leave the diameter of the dies too small for striking the known coins. In addition if the bust on the obverse die of the dollar dated 1801 was cut in 1802, then an unbroken curl could not appear on top of the hair of a coin struck from a die made in 1803 with a defective bust punch on which the curl was already broken off.

In 1969 James C. Risk asserted that President Andrew Jackson had the power to issue a directive ordering antedated coinage to be minted despite a law to the contrary. We had argued that Jackson had no such power. Risk said, —To accuse the president of the United States of breaking the law is no light thing.—15 Robert W. Julian initially and then Don Taxay and I wrote replies to Risk—s comments in 1970.16 Risk continued the challenge17 and was answered again by Julian in addition to my second response.18

Jackson did not order any dollar or eagle denomination to be struck with a prior date, but only directed that —a complete set— was to be prepared as a gift. The dollar and the eagle were not then in circulation and had not been minted in over 30 years prior to that time. The inclusion of the antedated dollar and antedated eagle in the sets was not part of the President—s directive, but was a decision made by U.S. Mint officials. It might have been justifiable for the mint to have created dies for a dollar dated 1834 and an eagle dated 1834 with which to strike coins of the then official weight and fineness, but that was not done. It would also have been justifiable to locate for the sets choice examples of a one dollar and an eagle of the normal coinage of any earlier year as the dates on the coins included in the actual presentation sets were not uniform, consisting of both 1804 and 1834.

Some comments in The Fantastic 1804 Dollar were challenged by Stack—s in 1982.19 Our book had stated as to the proof dollars dated 1801, 1802 and 1803 that the evidence pointed to a striking in 1858, but that the dies were prepared in the 1834-35 period.20 The primary reasons given were that the coins have characteristics of the 1858 restrikes of the Class II and Class III 1804 dollars; that the existence of 1801, 1802 and 1803 proof dollars was not revealed until 1876; and that a small area in the 1803 obverse die had rusted before being used for striking. Stack—s disagreed and asserted that the 1801, 1802 and 1803 proof dollars were struck in the 1834-35 period. Stack—s stated that the 1803 obverse die could have rusted within a few weeks —in a hot and damp Philadelphia climate,— which ignores the fact that the 1801 and 1802 obverse dies for the proof dollars did not rust under identical conditions. Stack—s went on to say that the 1801 and 1802 obverse dies for proof dollars would have rusted if they had not been used until 1858, which ignores the fact that when the 1804 dollar was restruck in 1858 the obverse die did not show any rust blemishes. In our opinion, Stack—s arguments are too speculative to be the basis for assigning a new date of coinage when other data are more reliable.

Stack—s also challenged the assertion in the book that the activities of the mint officials were illegal and clandestine, using the argument that current [1982] moral thinking should not be applied to nineteenth century mint practices. If the mint officials did not think they were doing wrong, why did Eckfeldt and Du Bois deceptively select for publication an illustration of an 1804 dollar in 1842 knowing that it and its dies had been prepared in the 1834-35 period and describe that picture as a type coin with the words —Dollar, 1797-1805—?21 Why did mint officials cover up their own activity and that of their predecessors by false statements and false affidavits if they did not believe a wrong had been done? In fact they compounded the illegality by conniving to conceal and falsify what had been done. Even Haseltine was afraid his 1801, 1802 and 1803 dollar proofs and his Class III 1804 dollar would be confiscated by the government for —illegal origin— as some of his restruck patterns were.22

Finally Stack—s challenged the number of existing proof dollars dated 1801, 1802 and 1803. Our estimate in 1962 was that there were about a dozen of each. Stack—s on the basis of subsequent auction records, estimated in 1982 that there existed an aggregate of 10 or 12 for all three dates combined. Even though this is a blanket estimate covering three separate dates, we have no hesitancy in accepting this view pending an exhaustive survey.

Matters of Diplomacy

As reported in the book, a Class I 1804 dollar was included in the set of coins presented in October 1835 by the United States to Sayyid Sa—id bin Sultan, the Imam of Muscat. Our country—s relationship with Muscat, now the Sultanate of Oman, has continued to be most friendly. When I had the opportunity to visit Oman as a tourist in 1983 I endeavored to find out if there were any remaining records of the United States coin gift, since the coins themselves had long since found their way to a pawn broker. Since reciprocation of courtesies is also a well-established Arab custom, I was presented with a modern proof set of Omani coins. The coins I received bore the date of their mintage, the Islamic year 1390. Unfortunately I was much too early for the Islamic year 1804 as that will not occur until A.D. 2371.

Only one of the presentation cases for the coin sets containing the 1804 dollar remains in existence of the four which were originally made. The top cover and the inside of the case for the Siam set have been illustrated.23 The Muscat case was not with the coins it contained when the coins were located in Liverpool. The coin cases and sets for Cochin China and for Japan were not delivered due to the death of Edmund Roberts on the voyage and were returned to the U.S. State Department.24 The coins seem to have found their way into collectors— hands without specific identification.

Unpublished Observations

To the die detail presented for the proof dollars dated 1801, 1802 and 1803, an additional observation can be made as to the obverse stars and the word LIBERTY.25 The 1801 obverse die has heavy stars with 60 degree points as on the Star of David, whereas on the 1802 and 1803 proof dollars as well as on the 1804 dollar, the obverse stars have narrower, more delicate points. On page 50, we distinguished the letters in LIBERTY on the 1801 proof dollar as having serifs with right angle corners instead of sweeping curves; it should be added that the letters in LIBERTY are smaller and their elements narrower on the 1801 proof dollar than on the 1802 and 1803 proof dollars or on the 1804 dollar.26

Further comment on the striking of Class II (Plain edge) 1804 dollars has come to light in a May 21, 1908 letter written by Charles Steigerwalt, a professional dealer of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to H.O. Granberg, a numismatist of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Granberg was seeking information during his pending negotiations with John W. Haseltine for the purchase of the Idler example of the Class III (second reverse and lettered edge) 1804 dollar. Steigerwalt wrote that about 1883, William Jenks, a numismatist of Philadelphia, learned from Haseltine that after George J. Eckfeldt, foreman of the U.S. Mint engraving department, had made restrikes of the 1804 dollar in 1858, Eckfeldt—s son Cater —stole them from his father and tried to dispose of them. Such a fuss was made at the time that several were returned - one had gone to Major Nichols of Springfield, Mass. through Randall - one, however, was taken abroad and the purchaser would not return it even when requested by U.S. officials - Haseltine says it is now in Liverpool. This piece has a plain edge and the one in the Mint cabinet with plain edge is supposed to have been from this striking.—

This third-hand hearsay is not inconsistent with the data we presented in 1962.27 Whether Cater is a nickname of Theodore Eckfeldt (1837-93) or the name of another son has not yet been ascertained. The comments do indicate the possible existence of an unknown Class II (plain edge) 1804 dollar. The alleged theft is far beyond the act described in the book as that of a —wayward son.— The restriking by the father had put the matter in motion.

The letter also stated that —Mr. Haseltine thinks the edge lettering on the old planchets were lettered first or it was done by some wheel process.— This second alternative probably means lettering after striking.

Though Haseltine—s and Steigerwalt—s comments are sometimes unreliable even when they attempted to be candid, this reinforces the conclusion that Class II 1804 dollars had their plain edges lettered at a later date than 1858 whether unreleased or returned in the 1858 period.

William Elliot Woodward, a prominent Boston professional numismatist, was not willing to accept the actions of the son of George J. Eckfeldt as relieving the father and other U.S. Mint officials of blame for the sale of restrikes. In 1880, Woodward derisively commented on the restrikes as follows: —I believe that the purchasor (sic) of an 1804 dollar, or any one of many of the rarest of American coins, has no guarantee that the son of some future director or chief coiner of the Mint will not, at an unexpected moment place a quantity on the market....As Government is fond of illustrating its reports, as a frontispiece, is suggested a view of a son of a late official of the Mint, as he appeared at the store of the writer, when on a peddling expedition from Philadelphia to Boston....—28 No names were mentioned.

Woodward then wondered if there would be an investigation of the —stupid humbug and stupendous swindle— that the mint officials had engaged in. Obviously no official inquiry took place.

Conclusion

It seems reasonable to conclude that the U.S. Mint officials in 1834 believed from the mint records that dollars dated 1804 had been struck in 1804, but that for some reason none had been retained by the Mint. When in the 1834-35 period those in charge decided to include a dollar coin in the diplomatic gift sets they felt that they should include the most recent date on dollars which they thought was 1804.29 They had available many of the device punches, letter punches, numeral punches, star punches, collar dies, edge dies and planchet cutting tools of the early nineteenth century. The temptation to make up new 1804 dollar dies was too great. There was an opportunity to fill in the presentation sets and to add to the mint collection. After the dies were prepared a few extra dollars could be struck for reserve or otherwise. Thus the devilment began, and once commenced, subsequent restriking was a later consequence. They had no thought that anyone would find reason to or be able to expose or criticize their impropriety and illegality.

This thinking and action was also followed in the illegal coinage in the 1834-35 period of the U.S. gold eagle dated 1804, but in that situation the most recent date on genuine eagles was actually 1804 and genuine 1804 eagles did exist.

It is of interest to compare these conclusions with the following comment by George G. Evans in his History of the United States Mint, which was sold extensively from 1885 through 1898: —The confidence reposed in the officials of the United States Mint has never been violated, as, for nearly a century of its operations, no shadow of suspicion has marred the fair name of any identified with its history.—30

Acknowledgements

The amount of writing on the subject of the 1804 dollar has been enormous. The Fantastic 1804 Dollar contained 191 footnote references, some of which were multiple. There were very many additional references in the text. In subsequently published material and updates there were many more and each auction catalogue containing an 1804 dollar has included extensive descriptive data. These resources now number about 400 items and are almost a specialized numismatic library in itself. The authors appreciate all the research, thinking, encouragement and cooperation of others who made writing on this topic a pleasure and for the many written references to the book.

The authors wish particularly to thank Q. David Bowers for the following comment concerning the book:31

—One of the greatest of all American numismatic books is The Fantastic 1804 Dollar by Eric P. Newman and Kenneth Bressett. This book is an absolute —must——not because you will be handling 1804 dollars but rather for its approach to unraveling a numismatic mystery.—

2. OWNERSHIP CHANGES AND EXPERIENCES

Kenneth E. Bressett

Since publication in 1962 of the book, The Fantastic 1804 Dollar, something interesting has happened to most examples of these extraordinary coins. It now seems appropriate that the record of current status and ownership should be brought up to date. The pedigrees given here begin with the last owner shown in the book for each of the 15 named pieces.

Class I Pieces

U.S. Mint Specimen The piece in the Smithsonian Institution has remained unchanged in ownership and probably always will because it and its brother, the Class II plain edge piece, belong to every United States citizen and thus are a part of everyone—s collection.

Stickney Specimen Louis Eliasberg—s example passed to the Eliasberg family upon his death in 1976, and continues to be held with the remainder of his extraordinary collection except for the gold portion which was sold at auction in 1982.32

Cohen Specimen This piece, inherited by Willis H. du Pont from his father, Lammot du Pont, was stolen in a robbery in 1967 and has never been recovered.33 A more detailed account of the crime is given under the listing of the Linderman Class III specimen which was taken at the same time. Rumors abound about the possible whereabouts or appearance of the Cohen specimen, but all have proven to be fake pieces or attempts to collect reward money. This is the only piece worn from circulation and thus should be readily identifiable when it surfaces.

Mickley Specimen The Massachusetts Historical Society specimen was sold in the Stack—s Sale, Oct. 23-24, 1970, 625, for $77,500 to a Chicago collector. In January 1974, it was sold by private treaty through Stacks for $150,000 to Reed Hawn who presently owns the piece.34

Parmelee Specimen Byron Reed bequeathed his collection to the City of Omaha in 1891, and for many years his 1804 dollar was on display in the Omaha City Library. It was placed in a bank vault for safekeeping in 1966 after several burglary attempts.35 It was recently on display in the Joslyn Art Museum and has now been transferred, with the rest of the Byron Reed collection, to the Omaha History Museum.

Dexter Specimen The piece owned by Harold Bareford was sold at auction in the Stack—s Sale, Oct. 22-23, 1981, 424, for $280,000 to the Chicago firm of Rarcoa.36 In 1985 it was purchased in partnership by Leon Hendrickson and George Weingart for $500,000. A careful examination of this coin revealed that a small letter D, for Dexter, has been stamped in the second cloud from the right on the reverse.

Watters Specimen This piece, originally presented in 1835 to the Imam of Muscat, was in the collection of the C.F. Childs— family of Chicago when The Fantastic 1804 Dollar was published in 1962. There it has remained.

Siam Specimen The presentation set given to the King of Siam included the 1804 dollar and the 1804 eagle and was brought to light in 1962 by its discoverer, David Spink of London. The set had been purchased over the counter by the Spink family at the firm of Spink & Son, Ltd., sometime prior to 1961, and was held privately by them.37 It is believed that the set came from an English family, descendents of a British military officer who returned to England circa 1868 after serving in the Court of Siam. It is also rumored that the officer—s wife was a relative of the famous Anna, governess to the children of the King of Siam. Lester Merkin, a professional numismatist of New York City, arranged for the sale of the set in August 1979, for a record price of about $1,000,000. It was purchased by the family of Elvin I. Unterman, a Garrison, New York City, collector and retired U.S. Army Colonel. The set was placed on display for a short time at the Smithsonian Institution in 198338 and remains in the possession of the Unterman family.

Class II Piece

U.S. Mint Specimen Of the Class II dollars, only a single specimen has survived. This unique piece has been in the mint collection since shortly after 1858, and is now in the Smithsonian Institution. It seems likely that all other such plain edge pieces not recovered or destroyed by the mint officials were hidden until about 1869, when edge lettering was applied in an attempt to disguise their appearance as being restrikes.

Class III Pieces

Each of the six Class III pieces, known as —restrikes,— have changed hands in the 25 years since the last full pedigree history was published.

Berg Specimen The famous 1804 dollar that had been in the Johns Hopkins University collection, and before that in the Garrett family, was sold by Bowers and Ruddy Galleries (The Garrett Collection Sale II), Mar. 26-27, 1980, 698, to Larry Hanks of Pullen and Hanks for $400,000.39 On April 17, 1980, it was again sold, this time to Sam Colavita of Trenton, New Jersey, for a sum reported to be close to $500,000. Colavita subsequently offered it for sale through Texas dealer Ed Hipps, but later placed it in a Pullen and Hanks Sale, Feb. 6, 1982, 1076, where an agent for Colavita bought it back for $190,000.40 Immediately thereafter, the piece was sold privately to an unnamed western collector who held it until it was sold at the Bowers and Merena Sale, June 24-25, 1986, 1736, for $187,000 including buyer—s fee, to Martin Paul, a principal of The Rarities Group, Inc. It was soon advertised for sale at $240,000. In November 1986, the piece was purchased for an unreported amount by American Coin Portfolios, Inc. for a person identified only as Mrs. Sommer.41

Adams Specimen It has now been determined that this piece was originally offered for sale by John W. Haseltine in his auction of Mar. 30, 1876, 194, where it was guaranteed genuine and original. Haseltine himself purchased the coin for $395 and later that same year sold it to Phineas Adams for $550. In more recent times, Amon Carter, Jr., inherited this piece from his father and the 1804 dollar remained in the Carter family after Amon Jr.—s death in 1982 until it was sold at the Stack—s Sale Jan. 18-21, 1984, 241, for $198,000.42 It was purchased by dealer John N. Rowe acting as agent for an unidentified west Texas collector who also owns examples of the proof —restrike— dollars dated 1801, 1802 and 1803.

Davis Specimen The 1804 dollar purchased by Samuel Wolfson was from the so-called —Fairbanks Collection— (a New York City collector named Ben H. Koenig who had investments in Alaska). Wolfson sold his dollar in 1963 to Norton Simon who held it until 1971. It was then sold through Stack—s in 1971 to James H.T. McConnell, Jr., who earlier had been the underbidder at the sale of the Mickley Class I specimen from the Massachusetts Historical Society. Mrs. Fullerton, who was included in the original pedigree listing as an owner in 1950, was the daughter of H.P. Graves and had acted as his agent in purchasing the coin.

Linderman Specimen The Linderman 1804 dollar owned by Willis H. du Pont along with his Cohen Class I 1804 dollar were stolen together when a major portion of the du Pont numismatic collection was taken at gunpoint by five masked men during the October 5, 1967 robbery at the Cocoanut Grove, Florida, residence of Willis H. du Pont and his wife Merin. The aggregate loss was reported to be $1,500,000, principally in rare coins including the two 1804 dollars and the Mikhailovitch collection of Russian numismatic pieces. During the period up to 1974, approximately 34 of the coins were recovered through aggressive action by investigators and payment of ransom and rewards. One of the recovered pieces was a Brasher doubloon.43

In July 1980, a Las Vegas card player learned that an 1804 dollar was available there and promptly informed a Salt Lake City friend about the matter. The friend was an investor and asked Thomas K. DeLorey, the senior certifier at the American Numismatic Association Authentication Service (ANACS) in Colorado Springs to go to Las Vegas where DeLorey was to attend a meeting between the person who possessed the coin and the card player. DeLorey was asked to give a prompt oral opinion about the coin to the gambler after an examination. DeLorey and the Las Vegas gambler kept the appointment but the possessor of the coin failed to appear with it. The gambler hinted that the coin might be a du Pont piece. DeLorey was reimbursed for the expenses of his trip and returned to Colorado Springs.

In May 1981, Mark Koenigsberg of the El Paso numismatic firm of Pullen & Hanks received a telephone call from a woman who said she had an 1804 dollar and, although believing at first that it was just another fake, he was open-minded enough to suggest it be brought in to the store. The firm had received many such calls after purchasing the Berg 1804 dollar earlier that year. In June 1981, the woman with a man she identified as her son came to the store with the dollar. Hanks also looked at it and originally felt the coin was a fake, but finally agreed with Koenigsberg that it was —genuine— although neither recognized it as the Linderman 1804 dollar. Hanks advised the man (who apparently was Paul Quinn of Las Vegas) to have the coin authenticated. Hanks called ANACS and advised Edward Fleischman about the incident. Koenigsberg went to Las Vegas later that month and advised Quinn to have the coin authenticated at ANACS.

On July 20, 1981, Quinn brought the Linderman dollar to ANACS for authentication and grading and paid a $525 fee. Apparently the robbers, their fences or transferees believed that after a 14-year interval they could dispose of the Linderman 1804 dollar for a substantial sum after it had a certification of —genuineness.— The piece was immediately recognized by DeLorey who alerted ANA executive vice-president Edward C. Rochette of its provenance. Quinn left the coin at ANACS for its review and study.44 The FBI was alerted and du Pont was contacted after the piece had been positively identified through photographs, research data and records which had been assembled about 20 years before in the course of writing The Fantastic 1804 Dollar. Quinn was given a date to pick up the coin after the FBI set up a sting by arranging for an agent to pose as an attorney for a potential buyer who wished to acquire and donate the coin to the American Numismatic Association. Listening devices were set up on the telephone, on persons and in rooms at the ANA. On September 1, 1981, Quinn came to pick up the dollar and an attempt was made by the FBI to get Quinn to offer it for sale. Quinn received a local telephone call from an associate warning him that the place was —crawling with Feds.— When this message was overheard, the FBI seized the stolen coin as Quinn attempted to leave with it. Quinn was not arrested, but served with papers to appear at the grand jury investigation of the matter. The coin was first returned to Harold Gray, du Pont—s attorney, on March 16, 1982, and then placed on display in the ANA museum in Colorado Springs by du Pont in appreciation for the recovery of the coin.45

Quinn and another Las Vegas resident, Salvatore Manarite, were indicted on charges of interstate transportation of stolen property. Quinn was a relative of Manarite. The case was tried in September 1983 in Denver in Federal District Court. The trial, with Judge John P. Moore presiding, lasted two and a half days. Quinn had claimed that the coin was given to him by his grandfather. The identity and ownership of the Linderman specimen were established by witnesses from the ANA, including the writer, and other numismatic experts, so that there was little dispute that stolen property was involved. At the conclusion of the case, the judge dismissed the action against Manarite because the prosecution had failed to prove that the coin had been transported by Manarite across state lines. The jury, after 16 hours of deliberation, found Quinn not guilty.46

At the conclusion of the trial Gerald S. Rafferty, Assistant U.S. Attorney for Colorado, left the coin on the table for du Pont. Quinn, of course, had no right to it despite his acquittal; the FBI and federal prosecutors were all anxious to relinquish their custody of the coin; even du Pont after his experiences and the results of the trial seemed to feel that the piece was jinxed—so it was agreed that the coin would be lent to the ANA for safekeeping, study and display, where it remains.47

Rosenthal Specimen When the Chase Manhattan Museum of Moneys of the World was disbanded in 1978, a 10-year loan gift arrangement was made for transferring the Rosenthal dollar (also known as the Zerbe dollar) from the Chase to the collection of the American Numismatic Society in New York City.48 The gift was completed in 1979. The coin was exhibited in November 1986 at the Coinage of the Americas Conference on —America—s Silver Coinage— at the ANS and is clearly in extremely fine condition rather than very fine as previously classified. In reviewing the published pedigree, it should be mentioned that Farran Zerbe purchased this piece through Wayte Raymond in 1924 rather than in 1925.

Idler Specimen The Edwin Hydeman coin was sold at auction by Abe Kosoff, Mar. 3-4, 1961, 994, for $29,000 to an undisclosed buyer. The ownership from 1961 to 1972 remains a mystery, but may have been a joint venture of Kosoff and Sol Kaplan. In 1972 it was advertised for sale by Abe Kosoff on behalf of the owner for $ 100,000 and was sold to World Wide Coin Company for a reported $80,000. The next purchaser was Bowers and Ruddy Galleries who bought the piece in October 1972 for a price in excess of $ 110,000 and reported as $ 150,000.49 It was then offered for sale at $ 165,000 in January 1974, and eventually sold in September 1974, to Mark Blackburn for $200,000.

The piece was subsequently shown for sale by Continental Coin Galleries at $225,000 and later rumored to have gone to the Swiss Bank Corporation in Zurich. Superior Stamp and Coin Company acquired it in February 1979, and sold it the same month for $200,000 to Jerry Buss, who held the piece until the sale of his collection by Superior Galleries, Jan. 28-30, 1985, 1337.50 It realized $308,000 and was purchased by Aubrey Bebee of Omaha.

Unfortunately, the illustration shown for the Idler piece in The Fantastic 1804 Dollar was actually that of the Adams specimen from Mehl—s 1950 Golden Jubilee Sale, rather than the Idler coin. The correct photograph did appear in the Atwater and Neil sales as well as all subsequent sales.

image

2. Idler Class III 1804 Dollar.

End Notes

1
Eric P. Newman and Kenneth E. Bressett, The Fantastic 1804 Dollar (Racine, WI, 1962) (hereafter cited as Newman-Bressett).
2
American Numismatic Association, An Index to The Numismatist, Vols. 52-71 (1939-58), D. Dee DeNise, ed. (n.p., 1959).
3
The Numismatist 1961, pp. 723-28; Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine 1961, pp. 1457-62; Coin World (June 9, 1961), p. 12; Numismatic News (Jan. 1940), p. 6.
4
The Numismatist 1940, p. 6.
5
Jacob R. Eckfeldt and William E Du Bois, A Manual of Gold and Silver Coins (Philadelphia, 1842), pl 2,3 and explanatory comment on p. 190.
6
Edward Cogan, Table of Gold, Stiver and Copper Coins Not Issued by the United States Mint (New York City, 1871), p. 4.
7
—The 1804 Dollar(?),— The Numismatist 1904, pp. 273-75.
8
1939, p. 799.
9
See above, n. 4.
10
Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine 1951, p. 742.
11
A transcription of the talk taken from a recording was reprinted in Numismatic News (Feb. 13, 1982), pp. 6-7, 20.
12
See Newman-Bressett, n. 177 for references.
13
See also Lester Merkin Sale, Sept. 18, 1968; as to theft and recovery see Eric P. Newman, —Keeping Up with 1804 Dollar History,— The Numismatist 1970, pp. 310 f.
14
Robert P. Hilt II, Die Varieties of Early United States Coins (Omaha, 1980), pp. 74-75.
15
—Further Thoughts About the 1804 Class I Dollar and Proof Eagle,— The Numismatist 1969, pp. 1523-37, especially 1527, 1528.
16
—Origin of the 1804 Dollar,— The Numismatist 1970, pp. 5-13; Eric P. Newman and Don Taxay, —An Answer to 1804 Dollar and Eagle Challenges,— The Numismatist 1970, pp. 173-77.
17
—1804—The Continuing Story,— The Numismatist 1970, pp. 1105-13.
18
The Numismatist 1970, p. 1620 (Newman) and p. 1790 (Julian). That the President of the United States is subject to law was made crystal clear in the proceedings against Richard M. Nixon.
19
Stack—s Sale (Robison), Feb. 10-13, 1982, p. 263.
20
Newman-Bressett, pp. 80-81.
21
See above, n. 5.
22
Eric P. Newman, —Updating the Fantastic 1804 Dollar,— Whitman Numismatic Journal (Sept. 1964), pp. 40-51, especially pp. 47-48.
23
Newman-Bressett, p. 70; Whitman Numismatic Journal (Sept. 1964), pp. 42, 43; The Numismatist 1969, pp. 1528, 1530.
24
Newman-Bressett, pp. 126 and 65.
25
Newman-Bressett, pp. 45-50.
26
For the letter D punched on a cloud in the Dexter specimen, see the second part of this article by K Bressett.
27
Newman-Bressett, pp. 75-83. See also Ted Schwarz, Coins as Living History (New York City 1976), pp. 146-47.
28
W. Elliot Woodward Sale (Haines), Oct. 13-16, 1880, p. 39, cited in Newman-Bressett, p. 81, n. 95.
29
Newman-Bressett, pp. 111-14; Whitman Numismatic Journal (Sept. 1964), p. 40; The Numismatist 1970, pp. 1620 and 1790.
30
Cited from the 1890 edition (Philadelphia), p. 13.
31
Coin World (Mar. 24, 1982), p. 74.
32
Keith Zaner, —Eliasberg Driven by Collectors— Dreams,—— Coin World (Aug. 21, 1985), p. 134.
33
Coin World (Mar. 20, 1968), p. 1.
34
Arnold Jeffcoat, —Texas Rancher Pays $150,000 For 1804 $1,— Numismatic News (Jan. 22, 1974), p. 1.
35
Numismatic News (Oct. 15, 1985), p. 1.
36
Numismatic News (Sept. 26, 1981), p. 1.
37
Numismatic News (Nov. 3, 1979), p. 1.
38
Numismatic News (Nov. 24, 1979), p. 3.
39
Numismatic News (Jan. 24, 1981), p. 1.
40
Numismatic News (Feb. 27, 1982), p. 3.
41
The Numismatist 1986, pp. 2062 and 2469.
42
Coin World (Nov. 12, 1986), p. 3.
43
Numismatic News (Jan. 28, 1984), p. 1.
44
Coin World (Aug. 9, 1978), p. 1.
45
Edward C. Rochette, The Other Side of the Coin (Frederick, CO, 1985), pp 9 10.
46
Coin World (Mar. 31, 1982), p. 1.
47
Coin World (June 22, 1983), p. 3; (July 6, 1983), p. 14; (Sept. 14, 1983), p. 3; (Oct. 5, 1983), p. 3.
48
New York Times (Jan. 8, 1978).
49
Numismatic News (Oct. 15, 1974), p. 1.
50
Coin World (Sept. 26, 1984), p. 1.

The Dollars of 1794-1803

Robert Stark

Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American Numismatic Society, New York City

Beginnings

Robert Morris, Superintendent of Finance, formulated a brilliant coinage plan for the Congress of the Confederation in 1782. By shrewdly valuing the new coinage unit to facilitate conversions of circulating foreign coins, especially British and Spanish, he increased the likelihood that the new coinage unit would be accepted in domestic trade and for the eventual retirement of the foreign coinage. These domestic considerations motivated the choice of a silver standard. From among the many names for crown genre coins, he fixed upon the name —dollar— and for a decimal system he coined the name —cent— that appears on the lettered edge.

It is a peculiarity that he did not envision a need for a dollar coin; only —that the value of the unit be precisely known.—1 He may have been a visionary. A dozen years later the ill-fated early dollar series commenced and still another dozen years later it concluded. But that—s ahead of the story.

Recognizing the limitations of Morris—s plan, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, Secretaries of State and Treasury respectively, also collaborated with Morris to report to the Congress in 1791. That Report became the basis for the fundamental Coinage Act of April 2, 1792. In addition to a bimetallic standard (gold was included to foster international trade), a pure silver weight of 371.25 grains (an average of the popular circulating Spanish issues) and a gross weight of 416 grains (again, to better match the Spanish coin) were proposed. The resulting fineness, an awkward 0.892 (as contrasted to the 11/12 or 0.916 British standard) has a role in our story.

Early Obstacles

If these were the beginnings, next came the early obstacles. David Rittenhouse, then in his later years, became Director of the Mint. Henry Voight became the first chief coiner and Albion Coxe, the assayer/refiner. Voight was to remain chief coiner for many years and throughout the early dollar series. Coxe was to die in 1795 leaving an incredible legacy. The financial bonds Congress initially specified for these posts proved unrealistically high and had to be reduced to facilitate getting on with precious metal coinage. The Senate passed a bill that a likeness of George Washington appear on the coinage. The House countered with an insistence that an emblematic —Liberty,— as well as the word, appear on the obverse and an eagle on the reverse. Denomination was omitted, consistent with the British practice for precious metal coinage. Other aspects of the design were left to the Chief Engraver, Robert Scot. The available coining press was considered less than ideal for minting dollars and the results confirm that judgment.

The trying preludes to the early dollar coinage continued. Assayer Coxe may have persuaded Rittenhouse that silver coinage of less than 0.900 fineness could darken in circulation. With —all eyes— on the impending coinage, that had to be a disturbing prospect. Additional delays resulted from difficulty in refining the French billon coinage, which comprised much of the first silver deposit. Soon after this Bank of Maryland deposit, Rittenhouse deposited some silver.

The 1794 Dollar

While the law specified coining of deposits in the order of receipt, nonetheless Rittenhouse—s silver was coined first and the 1,758 pieces coined in October 1794 were to his account. It follows that the pedigree of every 1794 dollar begins with David Rittenhouse.

image

Flowing Hair Design, 1794-95

Growing Pains, 1795

With precious metal coinage established, Rittenhouse resigned and was succeeded by Henry W. De Saussure in July 1795. De Saussure—s tenure was short-lived. By Autumn 1795 he was gone; a victim of a din of criticism of the mint and its products. A congressional investigation headed by Elias Boudinot was largely favorable to the mint. A proper coining press had arrived in the spring, so that quality and quantity could improve. The reverse eagle was replaced by a more natural one and the —young— Liberty obverse by a —matronly— one. Gilbert Stuart—the country—s leading artist—was enlisted in the quest for a —world class— coinage. And in November 1795, Boudinot became the third Director of the Mint, as well as the third in that year.

image

Gilbert Stuart Bust and Perched Eagle, 1795-98

Recall that slightly more silver than Congress had specified was coined into each dollar. Whether or not Boudinot knew of this at the time of his report to Congress isn—t clear. If he didn—t, he learned soon after his appointment to the mint because he ordered a halt to precious metal coinage. An accounting was made of all precious metal handled by the mint from its start. Depositors apparently received the full measure of bullion they had deposited. However, they received slightly less in face value coinage than their silver should have commanded. Congress settled at least one suit by a depositor when the practice became public.

Slowdown; 1796 and 1797

Precious metal deposits were sparse in 1796 and 1797, so that coinage was small. The reported coinage of 7,776 pieces in 1797 is almost surely less than the number of pieces coined with that date based upon the frequency with which the three known varieties are offered.

The 8/7 star arrangement of 1795 and 1796 gave way to 9/7 and 10/6 arrangements in 1797. The admission of Tennessee is reflected in the added star.

image

Observe Star Arrangements of 1797

The —matronly— Liberty obverse stood for the remainder of the coinage.

High Points; 1798 and 1799

image

15 Stars Obverse

image

Small Letters Reverse

The highest mintages of the coinage were reached in 1798 and 1799. The popular —small letter— reverse made the last of its four curious appearances—each in very small mintages. Two varieties, both scarce, of presumably early 1798 coinage continued the perched eagle reverse. Their obverses require a remark. First, an 8/7 star obverse appeared, the first since 1796 coinage. Second, the practice of adding obverse stars for newly admitted states ends. Subsequent obverses bear 13 stars, all but one variety in a 7/6 arrangement.

The year 1798 marks the appearance of the Heraldic Eagle reverse. Although it is an adaptation from the Great Seal, at least one peculiarity is that arrows appear in the right talon—a warlike gesture and inconsistent with the Great Seal.

image

Reverse Star Arrangements

Most of the 1798 reverse star arrangements are linear. The later 1798, and virtually all 1799, reverses have stars in an arc arrangement. Whether this reflects a minor design improvement and/or a change of engraver isn—t clear.

image

1799/98

image

8/5 Stars

By January 1799, Boudinot could write confidently to President Washington assuring him of a continued robust coinage.2 Still, not everything was ideal.

The first overdates 99/98 appeared. Also an 8/5 star obverse appeared, for which no other explanation than carelessness seems plausible. An arc reverse with 15 stars shows that some mint engravers deliberately hid their work under a cloud.

image

"15 Stars Reverse"

To aid the circulation of the coinage, Boudinot apparently exchanged fresh mint coinage for circulating foreign coins extracted from everyday commerce. Records indicate his deposits of foreign coinage for refining, recoining, and redistribution.

Decline; 1800-1803

Some dollar coinage drifted to Central and South America and was counterstamped for local use. A portion went to the West Indies to be melted and exchanged for worn Hispanic coinage. Some may have gone to the Orient in international trade. Forwhatever reason, the dollar coinage became dispensable and only two reverse dies were needed for most of the coinage dated in the early 1800s.

image

Main Reverse dies 1800-1803

Rusted dies, overdates, numerical variations, and a popular —Americai— variety marked (and marred) the waning years of the coinage. In President Jefferson—s administration, the dollar coinage ended with 1803-dated coins.3

image

Rusted die, date variations and overdates

So much more can be said of these remarkable early coins that it is timely to recall Arthur McIlvaine, writing some 45 years ago in an American Numismatic Society monograph on the subject: —No apology need be offered in introducing ... the silver dollar. The apology comes with the writer—s realization of his inadequacy to do more than a small measure of justice to so worthy a subject.—4

image

Last of the Early Dollars

End Notes

1
Cited in Arthur McIlvaine, The Silver Dollars of the United States of America, ANSNNM 95 (New York City, 1941), p. 6.
2
U.S. Congress. Report of the Director of the Mint for the Year 1798 (January 3 1799).
3
I am indebted to a number of people; too many to mention fairly. Robert Julian—s writings are a pleasure to acknowledge. They form the basis for many of my remarks. Uncountable hours with Jules Reiver have been numismatically invaluable. Besides, he cheerfully provided all of the fine photographs and some of the coins.
4
McIlvaine (above, n. 1), p. 1.

Liberty Seated Half Dollars

Randall E. Wiley and William Bugert

Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American Numismatic Society, New York City

— The American Numismatic Society, 1987

1. DIE VARIETIES OF LIBERTY SEATED HALF DOLLARS

Randall E. Wiley

The Liberty Seated half dollars comprise a series of federal silver coinage for which numismatic exposure to date has been limited to the point that I refer to it as the —dark ages— of numismatics. I believe that the lack of knowledge in this series can be mainly attributed to the following three factors: the extensiveness of the Liberty Seated series, the stabilization of the Liberty Seated design, and the half dollar denomination as compared with other smaller denominations.

The first factor, extensiveness of the Liberty Seated series, is the most apparent. Seated half dollars were struck each year at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia (1839-91), and at the Branch Mints, in New Orleans (1840-61), San Francisco (1855-78) and Carson City (1870-78). Accordingly, a collection of seated half dollars by date and mint without regard to any other die varieties would span 53 years and 4 different mints and would contain 108 coins. Assembling a basic set of these half dollars would be a formidable challenge for any collector. Additionally, with a total seated half dollar coinage of more than 155 million pieces and an average expected die life of about 155 thousand coins per die, it is reasonable to expect that about 1,000 different obverse dies and 1,000 different reverse dies were used to strike these coins. Likewise, since a single reverse die was often paired with more than one obverse die and vice versa, it is reasonable to expect that several thousand different die pair combinations exist for the series. For example, I have identified three different obverse dies and three different reverse dies used to strike five different die pair combinations of the rare 1870-CC half dollar which has a reported mintage of 54,617. Accordingly, identifying and assembling a complete set of die varieties for each date of the seated half dollar series appears to be impossible.

The second factor, stabilization of the Liberty Seated design, is a consequence of the progress made in the development of federal coinage between the Turban Head half dollar type of the early 1800s and the seated half dollar type introduced in 1839. Preparation of working dies to be used for coinage of Turban Head half dollars involved hand punching of individual stars, letters in the legend, and numerals in the date. Accordingly, a multitude of small individual punches were used in conjunction with a working hub or puncheon which impressed the main design of the coin into the working die. This process made it fairly easy for numismatic scholars to identify later a variety of individual Turban Head half dollar dies used to strike a particular date. Conversely, working dies used for seated coinage were prepared from hubs which incorporated much more of the details of the final design of the coin. In fact, individual punches were limited to letters for mint marks and numerals for dates, and, in the latter case, multiple numerals (2, 3 or 4 digits) were often incorporated into a single logotype or ganged punch which was used to impress the date into the working die. Advancement of federal coinage in this era was facilitated by the development of more powerful and precise machines and was desirable not only from a standpoint of manual work reduction, but also because design stabilization was a deterrent to the evil of counterfeiting. However, this boon of the 1800s ultimately compounded the difficulty of individual die identification for the numismatist as it left him only with dates, mint marks, and die imperfections as —fingerprints— for die identification. To get an impression of how the difficulty of die identification was compounded, one need only look at Beistle, which is the only published work with individual die descriptions for seated half dollars.1 Beistle took 113 pages to describe the Turban Head half dollars (1807-39), but his description of only the Philadelphia minted seated half dollars (1839-91) was limited to 41 pages. In other words, Beistle said much less about seated half dollars than he did about earlier types.

The third factor, half dollar denomination, is not so apparent. The seated dime and quarter dollar series are almost as extensive as the half dollar series, and design stabilization equally affected all denominations of seated coinage. However, there are two aspects of the half dollar denomination that have further restricted variety identification of this series as compared to smaller denominations. One aspect is die life. Larger denomination coins are physically bigger, and the dies used to strike them have a larger diameter and require a higher striking pressure. This results in a shorter die life. I would estimate that during the Liberty Seated era, the die life for quarter dollar dies was about double that of the half dollar, and the die life for dimes was four times as great. A shorter die life led to smaller mintages for each half dollar die variety, and made variety identification more difficult; especially when combined with the second aspect that I associate with different coin denominations— monetary value. The practice of placing a substantial monetary premium on a coin because of condition and/or rarity is a trend that has experienced much of its growth over the past few decades. Prior to modern times, coin collecting was, among other things, an interesting way to save money, and the value of many coin collections was restricted to the approximate face value of the coins contained. For this reason, a collector would encounter an accumulation of half dollars less often than quarters, dimes or half dimes, and half dollar accumulations would generally consist of a smaller number of coins than those of smaller denominations. Thus, the likelihood of discovering a seated half dollar die variety by direct comparison of two coins of the same date was not as great, and the likelihood of being able to afford to keep a half dollar variety if discovered was also not as great. In short, collecting goals were substantially limited by the face value of the collection, and this factor was to the detriment of collecting half dollar die varieties. It should be noted that both aspects of the third factor affect seated dollars even more so than half dollars, but the basic seated dollar series (44 pieces) is not even half as extensive as the half dollar series such that the overall effect of the three factors is not as great.

All three of the above factors contributed to the —dark ages— stigma I have associated with Liberty Seated half dollars. However, there is still hope for the numismatist who is patient, determined and resourceful. My approach to keep from being overwhelmed by the extensiveness of the seated half dollar series was to break down my collecting goals into smaller areas. For example, the first area I researched was S-Mint varieties. By concentrating on San Francisco half dollars (1855-78), the basic collection was reduced from 108 pieces to a more manageable 24 pieces. If I had chosen to concentrate on only —No Motto— reverse varieties of San Francisco half dollars, my basic set would have been further reduced to 12 dates (1855-66). Perhaps the old saying —divide and conquer— best describes this approach.

My interest in exploring die varieties of seated half dollars and S-Mint varieties in particular was kindled by my exposure to the Liberty Seated Collectors Club and articles by John McCloskey and David Brase in some early issues of the Gobrecht Journal. Accordingly, I set a goal to identify every individual S-Mint reverse die used for coinage of seated half dollars. My approach to attaining this goal was to establish a reference collection from which to examine coins by direct comparison, and to expand the reference set as I discovered new varieties. In most cases, different reverse dies for a particular date were identified by comparing just the size and location of the mint marks. In a few cases, two dies of a given date with mint marks which seemed to be identical in size and location were determined to be different by die imperfections or different die crack patterns which usually developed in later die states.

As my reference collection grew and new discoveries became few and far between, I decided that I needed to put some limits on the number of die varieties I could expect to find. The solution to this problem was to be found in Bureau of the Mint records contained at the National Archives where I examined correspondence files between the Director of the Mint in Philadelphia and the Superintendent of the San Francisco Branch Mint. Within these files, which consisted of loose correspondence sorted by date, I found letters relating to die shipments from Philadelphia to San Francisco. These die shipment records were fragmented and dispersed throughout the file and had to be extracted laboriously and pieced together. Unfortunately, my records are presently incomplete, but they still have been very helpful in quantifying the varieties that might be expected to exist for a certain date or era. Also, the value of the die shipment records is greatly enhanced if the shipment records can be coordinated with other mint operational correspondence, such as monthly coinage records, which can be used to break down the familiar annual mintages reported in standard reference books.

In contrast to the record of die shipments to San Francisco in this era, the record of die shipments to the New Orleans Branch Mint in the 1840s was very well documented and self-contained. Minting of federal silver coinage of the New Orleans Mint began in 1838. An analysis of correspondence files and operating procedures in effect at the time indicate that the Mint Director, R.M. Patterson, was very concerned about the evil of counterfeiting and felt that strict control over working dies was essential to deter counterfeiting.

Some steps taken to control working dies are described in the following list:

  • All working dies were totally prepared at the Philadelphia Mint, except for final die hardening which was done at the branch mint.
  • All reverse dies prepared for seated coinage at the New Orleans Mint were identified with a mint mark; the letter O being punched into the working die just prior to shipment. I believe that one distinct original purpose of the mint mark was to affix responsibility in the event that branch dies were misused and counterfeit coins surfaced.
  • All die shipments were forwarded to the New Orleans Mint under the frank of the Secretary of the Treasury.
  • Dies were supplied to New Orleans in small quantities for fear that a surplus of dies in the coiner—s vault would result in one or more dies being lost or stolen without immediate recognition. This practice resulted in dies often being used in a broken condition and being used for several months into the next calendar year beyond the one for which they were dated. For example, I know of three varieties of 1841-O half dollars which I believe were struck after the rare 1842-O small date, and they are accounted for in the coinage reported for February and March 1842.
  • The Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint was instructed by Director Patterson to be particular in acknowledging receipt of all dies.
  • The Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint was given specific instructions regarding disposition of dies. Early each calendar year, dated obverse dies of the previous year and worn out reverses were to be cancelled at the branch mint in the presence of the Superintendent by cutting a cross or —X— across the face of each die. A detailed list of dies cancelled was to be sent to Director Patterson when accomplished.
  • A formal Register of Die Shipments was maintained by the Engraver of the U.S. Mint (1839-54). This self-contained record documented on a yearly basis in checkbook fashion each die shipment during a given year as well as reports received from the branch mints regarding annual die cancellations, along with a list of any unused dies which were reserved for the next year.

At San Francisco, the process concerning die shipments during the period starting 1855 was somewhat different than that just described for the 1840s. Several months prior to the start of a new calendar year, the Chief Coiner at the San Francisco Mint would make a requisition to his Superintendent for dies needed for the coming year. The Superintendent would enclose the Coiner—s requisition with his next general correspondence to the Mint Director in Philadelphia, who would pass the requisition to the Engraver of the U.S. Mint with instructions to prepare dies. These requisitions were not usually filled with a single die shipment, but rather with two or more partial shipments, and sometimes the total shipment would vary slightly from the requisition due to error or instructions from the Director. Die shipments were made by steamer or overland express coach and later by rail under contracts to companies, such as Freeman Express Company and Wells Fargo. The contents of each die shipment were invoiced by the Engraver and forwarded to the Superintendent at San Francisco by the Director under a separate cover letter. Receipt of die shipments was usually acknowledged by the Superintendent in the next piece of general correspondence back to the Director. These acknowledgements were usually not specific, but rather referred to the Director—s letter. If additional dies were required during the course of a year, a separate requisition was made and filled in the same manner. Because the completeness of the correspondence file is questionable, it is possible that special requests were made and filled in this era of which I am not aware. There are also a few instances where I have found forwarding letters describing an enclosed requisition for dies or an invoice of a die shipment, but the actual requisition or invoice was not attached to the letter and the detailed die shipment information is lost.

S-Mint, —No Motto— Half Dollars

Having established a good general understanding of the complexities of identifying and collecting die varieties of Liberty Seated half dollars, I should now like to follow through on my —divide and conquer— approach by presenting some very specific information on one particular example, the —No Motto— half dollars of the San Francisco Mint (1855-66). A basic set of seated half dollars in this era would consist of 12 coins (one each 1855-S through 1866-S). Counting reverse die varieties only, my reference set now contains 46 coins. Four of these coins are transitional; meaning that the same reverse die was paired with two different obverse dies having —different— dates. Therefore, at least 42 different reverse dies were used for coinage in this era. How does this number compare to the die shipment records for this same period?

Table 1 is an extract from my die shipment records. It shows only the die shipments made to the San Francisco Mint during 1855-66 which contained half dollar reverse dies of the —No Motto— type. It should be noted that there were many other die shipments in this period containing half dollar obverses and dies of other denominations, but they are not included in Table 1. The next shipment of reverse dies to San Francisco after those listed in Table 1 was in March 1866 when 6 dies of the new —With Motto— type were shipped. Based on Bureau of the Mint records, I can verify 9 shipments and estimate a 10th shipment for a total of 42 reverse dies of the —No Motto— type shipped to San Francisco during 1855-66. This total agrees exactly with the number of actual coins identified and contained in my reference collection.

Table 2 lists the 46 coins in my reference set and correlates them with the 10 die shipments listed in Table 1. Following Table 2 are reverse detail enlargements of the 46 coins listed.2 Specific details contributing to the uniqueness of 42 out of 46 of these dies will not be addressed in this paper. Rather, the purpose of the photographs is to expose the reader to the concept of die variety identification and the collectability of these die varieties.

Table 1 S-MINT —NO MOTTO— REVERSE DIE SHIPMENTS (1855-1866)
Shipment Date Die Quantity Descriptiona
S1 Jan 1855 4 all large S
S2 Dec 1855 12 all large S
S3 Dec 1856 0-4 variousb
S4 Jan 1857 3 all medium S
S5 Feb 1857 3 all medium S
S6 Apr 1857 2 all medium S
S7 Mar 1858 2 all small wide S (perfect)
S8 Apr 1862 2 all small wide S (broken)
S9 Mar 1863 5 variousc
S10 Oct 1863 5 all small thin S
TOTAL DIE QUANTITY 38-42

Hopefully, the reader will be able to identify most of these dies based on some general criteria. The first criterion is mint mark size. The average height of the mint marks, measured in thousands of an inch, are: Large (.065), Medium-Large (.061), Medium (.055), and Small (.040).3 The second criterion is mint mark position. Many variations in position can be seen from the illustration; the most dramatic example is 1865-S (coins 41-45), where the small thin S type mint marks for shipment S 10 were punched to the far left, left, center, right, and far right. Other criteria for die identification include mint mark orientation (1858-S coins 11 and 12 have mint marks which are very similar in size and location, but the S on coin 11 leans to the right and the S on coin 12 leans to the left), diagnostic die imperfections (1864-S coin 35 has a tine on the top of D in DOL), and diagnostic die cracks often seen in late die states (1862-S coin 30 and 1865-S coin 39 have similar mint mark sizes, descriptions, and locations, but each has a unique die crack pattern around LF DOL in the legend).

As a general rule, when examining two coins with the same date and mint marks of the same size and position, I consider the two reverses to be the same reverse unless I can find some specific diagnostic difference. Conversely, when two coins with different dates have mint marks which appear identical in size and position, I consider the two reverses to be different unless I can find some specific diagnostic link between the two dies indicating that they are transitional. An example of one such transitional pair is 1856-S coin 5 and 1857-S coin 6, which are linked by a raised die scratch line which cuts perpendicularly across the tail feathers in the area between the two arrow feathers.

Table 2 REFERENCE COLLECTION OF S-MINT REVERSE DIES (1855-1866)
Coin Date S-Mint Size Shipmenta
1 1855 large S S1-1
2 1855 large S S1-2
3 1856 large S S1-3
4 1856 large S S1-4
5 1856 large S S2-1b
6 1857 large S S2-1b
7 1857 medium S S4-1
8 1857 medium S S4-2
9 1858 large S S2-2
10 1858 large S S2-3
11 1858 large S S2-4
12 1858 large S S2-5
13 1858 medium S S4-3
14 1858 medium S S5-1
15 1859 medium S S5-2
16 1859 large S S2-6
17 1859 large S S2-7
18 1859 large S S2-8
19 1859 large S S2-9b
20 1860 large S S2-9b
21 1860 medium S S5-3
22 1861 large S S2-10
23 1861 large S S2-11
24 1861 large S S2-12
25 1861 medium S S6-1
26 1861 medium S S6-2
27 1862 large S S3-1
28 1862 large S S3-2
29 1862 medium S S3-4
30 1862 small wide S S8-1
31 1862 small wide S S8-2
32 1863 small wide S S7-1
33 1863 small wide S S9-1
34 1863 small wide S S9-2
35 1864 medium-large S S3-3
36 1864 small wide S S7-2
37 1864 small wide S S9-3
38 1864 small thin S S10-3b
39 1865 small wide S S9-4
40 1865 small thin S S9-5
41 1865 small thin S S10-1
42 1865 small thin S S10-2
43 1865 small thin S S10-3b
44 1865 small thin S S10-4
45 1865 small thin S S10-5b
46 1866 small thin S S10-5b
image

1. 1855-S, lg. S

image

2. 1855-S, lg. S

image

3. 1856-S, lg. S

image

4. 1856-S, lg. S

image

5. 1856-S, lg. S

image

6. 1857-S, lg. S

image

7. 1857-S, med. S

image

8. 1857-S, med. S

image

9. 1858-S, lg. S

image

10. 1858-S, lg. S

image

11. 1858-S, lg. S

image

12. 1858-S, lg. S

image

13. 1858-S, med. S

image

14. 1858-S, med. S

image

15. 1859-S, med. S

image

16. 1859-S, lg. S

image

17. 1859-S, lg. S

image

18. 1859-S, lg. S

image

19. 1859-S, lg. S

image

20. 1859-S, lg. S

image

21. 1860-S, med. S

image

22. 1861-S, lg. S

image

23. 1861-S, lg. S

image

24. 1861-S, lg. S

image

25. 1861-S, med. S

image

26. 1861-S, med. S

image

27. 1862-S, lg. S

image

28. 1862-S, lg. S

image

29. 1862-S, med. S

image

30. 1862-S, sm. wide S

image

31. 1862-S, sm. wide S

image

32. 1863-S, sm. wide S

image

33. 1863-S, sm. wide S

image

34. 1863-S, sm. wide S

image

35. 1864-S, med. -1. S

image

36. 1864-S, sm. wide S

image

37. 1864-S, sm. wide S

image

38. 1864-S, sm. thin S

image

39. 1866-S, sm. wide S

image

40. 1865-S, sm.thin S

image

41. 1865-S, sm. thin S

image

42. 1865-S, sm. thin S

image

43. 1865-S, sm. thin S

image

44. 1866-S, sm. thin S

image

45. 1865-S, sm. thin S

image

46. 1866-S, sm. thin S

End Notes

a
Mint mark descriptions are speculative rather than absolute. Mint marks for a given date were usually the same type because the dies were prepared in batches. Starting with S7, all dies were from a new hub.
b
The quantity of dies in this shipment is not known since the invoice listing the individual dies was not enclosed with the forwarding letter. It is my belief that 12 pair of half dollar dies were requested and shipped for 1857, as was done in 1856. This would place the quantity of reverses shipped in Dec 1856 at 4 and increase the total quantity shipped to 42, which exactly matches the number of pieces in my reference collection. I believe these 4 dies were 2 large S, 1 medium-large S, and 1 medium S. (I believe the smaller size punches were selected because the mint mark from the large S punch was often punched into the olive stem.)
c
I believe these 5 dies were 2 small wide S (partially broken), 2 small wide S (broken) and 1 small thin S. The small thin S was the first die marked from a new punch, the old punch now broken beyond further use.
a
Shipments correspond to those listed in Table 1.
b
Transitional reverse die used with two different dates.

2. SOME INTERESTING SEATED HALF DOLLAR VARIETIES

William Bugert

This paper presents four interesting Seated Liberty half dollar issues—three of the New Orleans Mint and one of the Philadelphia Mint. The early years at New Orleans were troubled times. Mint officials were being replaced for incompetency and corruption and the mint was trying to establish itself as a reliable source of coinage. To that end, the object was to produce coinage to meet public demand. All available dies were used as long as possible (halves struck from cracked dies are typical of this period). In keeping with the policy of the times, dies were received from the Philadelphia Mint ready for use, except for final hardening; the mint marks and dates were already punched into the dies. These 1840 circumstances gave birth to a unique opportunity for the New Orleans Mint to unknowingly create a major numismatic blunder.

image

Every knowledgeable seated half dollar collector is familiar with the 1840 bust reverse half dollar as depicted in fig. 1. This variety has been a source of interest and mystery for many years. It has been identified as being everything from a pattern to a regular issue of the Philadelphia Mint, yet it can be shown to be a regular issue of the New Orleans Mint. This variety is unlike the more recent S-less proof sets where the mint mark was unintentionally omitted from the die. This is a branch mint regular issue with the mint mark omitted due to an error of transition.

The Registry of Dies in the National Archives contains the die shipment information for the branch mints from 1839 until 1854 when the book—s use was discontinued. At that time, dies were often shipped over hostile, unsettled U.S. territory and mint officials were concerned that these dies would fall into the hands of counterfeiters. This book was used to track branch mint die shipments. It is a matter of record that 3 pairs of half dollar dies were shipped to the New Orleans Mint for use in 1839. On hand from previous shipments (probably from 1838; the book does not say) were two other reverse dies. It must be assumed that the three obverses were of the Turban Head (Reeded Edge) type and the five reverses were of the Bust/Eagle type. In February 1840 a total of 3 obverse dies dated 1839 and 4 reverse dies were cancelled, as was the custom of the time by cutting a deep X across the face of the die to prevent further use in later years. It is also a matter of record that the Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint reported that one reverse die, the fifth of these 5, was reserved for use in 1840. As this one die was intended to have been used in 1839, it would have been of the bust design; seated half dollar design coinage did not begin at New Orleans until 1840. It is important to note that the bust half dollar issue of 1839-O had the mint mark on the obverse above the date; the reverse was used to annotate mint of issue starting in 1840.

If this one reverse die reserved from 1839 was later used with the seated obverse design, the variety would have the 1840 date with a bust reverse without a mint mark. I theorized that this could account for and may be the well-known 1840 with bust reverse half dollar always assumed to have been a Philadelphia issue. When I recently speculated on this to Randall Wiley, he noted that my theory could be proven correct if, by chance, the 1840 obverses paired with the bust reverse were transitional with the other known obverses of the 1840-O half dollars, which was quickly verified. The 1840 bust reverse half dollar is actually an 1840-O no mint mark bust reverse of 1839. This makes sense for another reason. The New Orleans Mint issue half dollars of 1839-42 have a slightly smaller diameter than the Philadelphia issues of the same years. This was probably due to differences in the collars used. The 1840 with the bust reverse is of the same diameter as the New Orleans issues and this alone would lead one to believe it was struck at New Orleans.

This interesting variety actually has two 1840 dated obverses paired with the one bust reverse die (see fig. 1). Those two obverses are also paired in combinations with three 1840-O reverse mint-marked dies.

Obverse 1 of this no mint mark variety was struck from a very rusty die. There are heavy die polish lines on the denticles and die lines run horizontally from the TY of LIBERTY into Liberty—s skirt slightly slanting upwards toward her shin as shown in fig. 2. There are many less obvious die lines throughout this obverse, This same obverse is paired with 1840-O reverse varieties 7 and 3 where the exact same die lines are prominent as shown in fig. 2.4

image

Obverse 2 paired with this bust type reverse was struck from a heavily polished die. The lower obverse shield is weak, all stars are recut, the die is only slightly rusty, and die lines run southwest from Liberty—s sandal into the foot support, as shown in fig. 3. This same obverse was paired with 1840-O reverse variety 6 with the same die lines below Liberty—s sandal (see fig. 3). It is interesting to note the extensive die polishing that ground away the lowest arrow, the lower portion of the olive branch—s stem and the eagle—s tail feathers, as shown in fig. 4. By close scrutiny of the die pairings, a striking order can be ascertained. Table 3 displays the die pairings and the emission sequence. The numbers on the connecting lines for obverse and reverse dies indicate the striking order. Die pairing obverse 1 and reverse 3 was struck some time after number 2, but its relation to later die pairings cannot be estimated.

image
image
image

Table 3

So ends the mystery of the 1840 with bust reverse, more appropriately named the 1840-O No Mint Mark Bust Reverse of 1839 (1840-O NMMBR39). Perhaps the only connection left to finalize is this reverse paired with either the 1838-O or 1839-O halves. I have seen the 1839-O paired with two reverses different from this noted die.

The second issue is the 1842-O small date. This expensive rarity is high on the want list of many seated half dollar collectors. Few specimens come on the market, and when they do, often command high prices. There is only one obverse die dated 1842, but it is paired with two different reverses (see fig. 5). Table 4 depicts these pairings with emission sequence annotated on the connecting lines. The date is small (.064 inches high as compared to the .081 for the medium date), but it has telltale die lines by Liberty—s right hand that rests on the obverse shield, as shown in fig. 6. These die lines are plainly visible on low grade as well as high grade specimens and were on the obverse die when used to strike both reverse pairings. All 1842-O small date obverses I have seen have these die lines. In its later die state paired with the second reverse, the foot support is weak and there is a die crack at the left of the date from the rim to the base of the rock. This die crack appears on later die states of the first pairing and all of the second.

Reverse A has a large O set left, small letters, and is usually weakly struck, as depicted in fig. 5. Reverse B in fig. 5 also has a large O, but set right. The legend also has small letters, but is usually fully struck. There are die cracks, the most prominent of which is from the rim between AL in HALF to the eagle—s right claw. There are also die clash marks in the reverse shield. Interestingly enough, Randall Wiley discovered this reverse to be transitional with 1841.

image

Table 4 DIE PAIRINGS OF 1842-O SMALL DATE HALF DOLLARS

image
image
image

The third New Orleans issue is the 1846/5-O half dollar. M.L. Beistle lists an 1846/5 New Orleans Mint issue and describes the obverse as such: —1846 O 2 B. Over 1845. Weakly struck date. Upper serif of 1 is a straight, light line, and 6 is recut over 5. No drapery at the elbow. Six heavy akcidefect [clash marks] lines are across the legs at the knees.—5 He lists it paired with three different reverse dies. The obverse and three reverses are depicted in fig. 7. The obverse has weakly struck stars and has a medium date (.081 inches high) as opposed to the tall date (.091 inches high). The reverses have medium letters with a large mint mark (.054 inches high).

I have to take issue with Beistle—s conclusion that this is an overdate issue. His descriptions are of later die states, but I—m still mystified as to why he thinks this is a 6 over a 5.

The prominent features of the obverse are easy to distinguish without magnification: clash marks across Liberty—s knees and no drapery. Both these features also appear on other dated varieties of the seated half design. An enlargement of the 46 on the latest die state I have (the B-2aE) shows the die crack along the base of the date beginning to develop and the knob of the 6 slightly doubled (see fig. 8). This doubled knob is visible on all three die pairings. Does this appear to be a 5 under the 6? I don—t believe so. Next to it is an enlargement of an 1845-O triple date for comparison. One can conjecture either that the dies clashed so hard that what Beistle thought was a 5 was actually clash marks, or Beistle—s coin may have indeed had a 5 but its remnants were removed when the die was polished to remove the clash marks. He then wrote up the later die state. Perhaps the specific coins Beistle studied have more visible characteristics of a 5. My research of the Archives— records has not helped to prove or disprove the use of 1845 obverse dies in 1846.

image

The last issue to be discussed is the 1846/5 Philadelphia Mint half. This also is described by Beistle with one obverse die paired with two different reverse dies, as depicted in fig. 9. The enlargement of the obverse date (fig. 10) shows what this overdate looks like. The tip of the 5 appears to be inside the loop of the 6, as indicated by the arrows. In late die states a fine die crack joins the base of the date and another joins the foot of Liberty with the rim.6

image
image

End Notes

1
M.L. Beistle, A Register of Half Dollar Die Varieties and Sub-Varieties (Shippensburg, PA, 1929).
2
All photographs for this joint article are by William Bugert.
3
For more specific information on mint marks, see Randall E. Wiley, —Mint Mark Varieties of San Francisco Half Dollars (1855-1878),— in John W. McCloskey, ed., The Gobrecht Journal; Collective Volume Number One (Kettering, OH, 1980), pp. 277-82.
4
Variety designations are those identified by John W. McCloskey, —1840-O Half Dollars,— in John W. McCloskey, ed., The Gobrecht Journal; Collective Volume One (Kettering, OH, 1980), pp. 283-91.
5
Beistle (above, n. 1), p. 194.
6
For a detailed description of this variety, see William Bugert, —1846/5 Philadelphia Mint Seated Half Dollars,— The Gobrecht Journal 34 (1985), pp. 23-/hi>=""26.