Photos and descriptions used with permission and courtesy of Stacks

Hermon MacNeil’s approved obverse design for the 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter. Possibly unique bronze cast intended for preparation of dies, September 1916.

On seeing this spectacular piece for the first time the reaction is, “Wow! So that’s what a Standing Liberty quarter is supposed to look like!” But after a moment, the eye is drawn to two playful dolphins aside Liberty’s feet, then to the motto IN GOD WE TRUST draped across Miss Liberty, to sprigs of laurel and last, the missing olive branch. What kind of Standing Liberty quarter is this? The truth is this is what Hermon MacNeil had intended his new quarter to look like.

In May 1916 MacNeil submitted his first design models for the new quarter. This first obverse looked much like the regular quarters dated 1916 and familiar to collectors. But over the next weeks MacNeil became increasingly dissatisfied with his work. With changes in mind, MacNeil requested permission from Mint Director Robert Woolley to revise the obverse. The sculptor said he wanted:

1. To bring the head of the figure a trifle lower so as not to appear to be holding up the rim of the coin.
2. To prevent the figure appearing “bowlegged.”
3. To minimize the sagging of the covering of the shield by having it pulled up a little tighter.

I should also like to see the letters of the word Liberty slightly smaller.

Since Adolph Weinman, who was designing the new dime and half dollar, had already been given permission to change his original compositions, Woolley agreed.

During July and August 1916 Hermon MacNeil radically rearranged and modified the elements of his obverse design. Except for the names given to parts of the design, nearly everything was changed. The overall relief was made more pronounced, and drapery softened. Starting with the border, the original dot-dot-dash pattern was replaced with a cable or chain surrounding the central elements. The portal walls through which Liberty steps were plain – unadorned with either motto or detail.

On the upper step at the base of the wall are two dolphins, one on each side of Liberty’s feet. The dolphins represent the Atlantic and Pacific oceans much as they did on the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition gold dollar designed by Charles Keck or Robert Aitken’s $50 gold piece. Above each dolphin’s tail is a laurel branch symbolic of civil triumph; at the upper rim is the word LIBERTY in letters somewhat smaller and much sharper than on the first obverse.

The figure of Liberty differs completely from that on the first design, although she is still semi-nude. She now wears cross-laced sandals in the ancient Roman style and carries a shield embossed with an eagle. The shield covering is also more closely fit and less baggy. A long sash or ribbon engraved IN GOD WE TRUST connects the shield and her outstretched right hand ending near the laurel branch. There is no olive branch of peace, the whole new design being more militant and actively protective.

Treasury Secretary McAdoo approved the design on August 19, and asked MacNeil to provide a photograph showing the proposed location of the artist’s monogram or initial. (This photo still exists.) This was done and the new Mint Director, F. J. H. von Engelken, replied on September 1,

Placing of signature under head of dolphin on right of Quarter Dollar approved. You are at liberty to use either the letter “M” alone, or that monogram of two letters.

MacNeil was asked to expedite delivery of bronze casts and these were scheduled for delivery on September 9. From this point forward the mint should have made reductions and struck a few pattern pieces for von Engelken and others to examine. But from here to the end of the year official records are silent. No pattern coins are known. Do some exist, hidden in an old cigar box in Virginia or Tennessee?

One bronze cast reached the Philadelphia Mint. Another, the present example, must have remained in MacNeil’s College Point, NY studio – a backup in case the first one were lost or damaged.

Pedigree of this Cast

After Hermon MacNeil died, the contents of his studio were reportedly hauled to the dump. Some of his drawings and other items were salvaged by a neighbor, commercial illustrator John A. Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin is the source of the famous flying eagle drawings purchased by Eric P. Newman, and of MacNeil scrapbooks and letters now preserved in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art located in Washington, DC. It is possible this bronze cast and its companion (lot 1379) were rescued in a similar manner. It was not until 2001 that the present consignor purchased these casts at a garage sale. They were bought mostly as curiosities although there was some thought they were connected to the Standing Liberty quarter design.

Rarity and Condition

“Rarity” is a weak term when applied to this beautiful 1916 cast by MacNeil. One copy probably is entombed in a basement vault at the Philadelphia Mint along with other casts, galvanos and models. Since first gaining national publicity in 2004, no one has come forward with anything similar. This historic piece is not only likely unique in any private collection, but it is one of only a very few original casts or galvanos of coin designs available to collectors.

The piece is in virtually perfect condition, the main designs toned in pale gold and exhibiting a few small flecks of discoloration here and there. A small incuse mark (some sort of centering mark?) is noted at center of face near the folds of drapery.

Description

This is a bronze bas-relief cast apparently made from Hermon MacNeil’s approved model for the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter. It was plated with nickel or similar metal.

Liberty is walking forward through a plain gate or portal. She holds a partially uncovered shield in her left hand; her right hand holds the end of a sash inscribed IN GOD WE TRUST. To left and right are branches of laurel, symbolic of triumph; below each is a dolphin symbolic of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. At the rim and encompassing all is a cable or chain design emphasizing unity and strength.

The graceful figure is in medium relief with somewhat soft modeling to her gown. Lettering is in strong relief, somewhat smaller than on the previous design. Motto letters are incuse and thin on the sash connecting hand and shield. Shield has 13 stars exposed surrounding an eagle. Artist’s initial (M) appears below the dolphin on the right.

Diameter of cast: 6 inches (157 millimeters) by 5-5/16 inches (150 millimeters), irregular.
Diameter of design: 5-1/8 inches (130 millimeters)
Thickness: Approximately 4 millimeters at greatest point.
Weight: 358.64 grams

Photos and descriptions used with permission and courtesy of Stacks

Hermon MacNeil’s alternate reverse design for the 1917 Standing Liberty quarter (Type II). Possibly unique bronze cast intended for preparation of dies, February 1917.

This magnificent metal cast is the product of another of the Mint Bureau’s failures to deal forthrightly with sculptor Hermon MacNeil. In October 1916 MacNeil offered to help finalize the quarter designs, but the mint decided “…it was deemed inexpedient to authorize Mr. MacNeil to come to Philadelphia.” As with the dolphin-laurel leaf obverse (lot 1378) the mint engravers had scrapped the sculptor’s original reverse design, replacing the two olive branches in front and behind the eagle, with a total of 13 small stars. The flying eagle remained low on the coin as if it were just rising skyward. This mint concoction was used on both 1916 and 1917 Type I quarters.

As 1917 opened mint director von Engelken was eager to release the newly designed quarters. A small quantity of coins dated 1916 had been struck to mark the official release year, but a revised, more detailed obverse created by the mint’s engraving department graced the 1917 coins. On the day the new quarters were to be released, von Engelken got a worried telephone call from the Philadelphia Mint. Sculptor Hermon MacNeil, the coin’s designer, had stopped in, looked at many of the pattern quarters that had been made, and left in an agitated frame of mind.

The reason for MacNeil’s distress was that, not only had the approved obverse been changed, but so had the reverse. The original reverse design had a flying eagle flanked by two branches of olive – a symbol of peace.

It took nearly a week of negotiation and intervention by the Commission of Fine Arts, but MacNeil was allowed to make revisions to his design. This resulted in the Type II quarter design. For the reverse, the artist liked the stars on the mint’s version and experimented with various arrangements. On January 26 he wrote, “I have three arrangements of the same elements now instead of only one of which I am confident is a great improvement”

A week later he noted,

I met the Director of the Mint here in New York and showed several new arrangements which I had made for the reverse of the quarter and out of them selected one for trial… the only visible change on this reverse is the taking of three stars from the top and placing them underneath the bird, the lettering to be in the same place as the 1st original design. The whole look of the design I am sure will be greatly improved by this slight change and the restoring of the lettering as first designed.

This design, as cast in bronze for MacNeil, is one of the alternatives. It is remarkably like the adopted version except in the placement of three stars. Here, they are located one in front and two behind the eagle. On the adopted design all three are placed below the eagle.

Rarity and Condition

As with the 1916 obverse, above, rarity is meaningless when applied to this wonderful piece. This is the only known cast example of any of MacNeil’s reverse designs, and although it does not have the artist’s initial or monogram, it is unquestionably original.

Like its companion, the 1916 obverse, this piece is in virtually perfect condition with deep golden yellow coloration on the face and just a few small flecks of discoloration here and there.

Description

This is a bronze bas-relief cast apparently made from Hermon MacNeil’s alternate reverse model for the revised 1917 Standing Liberty quarter (Type II).

Diameter of cast: 6-3/16 inches (158 millimeters) by 6-3/16 inches (158 millimeters), irregular.
Diameter of design: 5-1/4 inches (133 millimeters)
Thickness: Approximately 4 millimeters at greatest point.
Weight: 424.0 grams

Sources and additional information:

Burdette, Roger W. Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921. Seneca Mill Press. 2005. pp.48-50, 75-84, 113.

Cline, J.H. Standing Liberty Quarters. Fourth edition, Zyrus Press. 2007. p.32, illus.

Gilkes, Paul. “Casting About For Answers.” Coin World, June 14, 2004.

www.USpatterns.com website.

Thanks to researcher Roger W. Burdette for his guest cataloguing of this and the following lot.

Photos and descriptions used with permission and courtesy of Heritage Auction Galleries

One of Only Two Pieces Known

The special nature of this coin has been recognized since at least 1941 when it appeared in Mehl’s Dunham Sale. It has passed from one specialist to another since then, always remaining in strong hands and rarely offered to the numismatic market. The obvious reason for striking this piece, as well as the other known branch mint proof, was “resumption of coinage of this denomination at New Orleans (interrupted 1860),” as stated in Breen (1977).

It is always interesting to compare and contrast branch mint proofs with those produced in Philadelphia. It appears that employees in the branch mints were not familiar with the day-to-day striking of proofs. Rather, when called upon to strike such coins, they produced pieces that they thought resembled the proofs that were regularly turned out of the mother mint in Philadelphia. And in most cases, they did an admirable job of emulating Philadelphia proofs.

For example, the fields on this piece have a depth of reflectivity that one would never find on a coin struck for circulation. Based on this mirror-like effect alone, its status is obvious. Of course, the specimen status goes beyond mere reflectivity. The surfaces are unusually clean, indicative of a coin that was carefully handled and not mixed in with pieces intended for circulation.

It is interesting to note the differences between this New Orleans specimen and a proof from Philadelphia. Most obvious are the striking details. Some of the feather details on the eagle and the star radials lack complete high point definition. Some P-mint proofs, especially from the 1880s, also lack full detailing and this is not an absolute necessity for proof status. On this coin it appears it was only struck once. Perhaps New Orleans personnel were not familiar with the tradition of double striking proofs?

It is also interesting to note that a scribe line is clearly evident just outside the denticles on each side. Indeed, die polishing goes up to the line on the obverse but not beyond. On the reverse much of the line is still evident and it has only been polished away between 1 and 3 o’clock. On Philadelphia proofs, part of the scribe line can still be seen on some issues, but die polishing was generally done carefully enough to either show the curve of each denticle or many times the individual denticles are fully outlined all the way to the rim. These are slight differences in the nature of branch mint proofs and Philadelphia proofs, and these differences can easily be explained by the quantities of proofs or specimens produced in each mint–one need not be quite as careful about the fine points if only two pieces are to be produced vs. the hundreds of pieces struck across all denominations in the Philadelphia facility. But the texture of this coin gives clear indication of the intent to produce a special coin most likely for presentation purposes.
The roster is brief for 1891-O specimen quarters as only two are known:

1. The present coin. Ex: William Forrester Dunham (B. Max Mehl FPL, 6/1941); Gene Edwards; 1980 ANA Sale (Steve Ivy, 8/1980), lot 2024; Jascha Heifetz Collection (Superior, 10/1989), lot 3652.
2. Private collection, ca. 1968; Ahwash Collection; current whereabouts unknown.

Photos and descriptions used with permission and courtesy of Heritage Auction Galleries

1804 $1 Original PR62 NGC. It is currently not the most expensive American coin-merely the most famous. Heritage Auction Galleries offered its first public sale of a Class I Original 1804 silver dollar, the Mickley-Hawn-Queller specimen at the CSNS Auction in April 16, 2008. Possessing a long and historic provenance that extends back to noted 19th century collector Joseph J. Mickley, this coin, graded PR62 by NGC, is one of eight Original Class I 1804 silver dollars known today. Of those eight coins, only five are in private collections, with the remainder in institutional holdings.

The Heritage offering marks the first time a Class I Original 1804 dollar has appeared at auction in nearly a decade, since the PR64 Dexter-Dunham example brought $1,840,000 in the year 2000.

The 1804 silver dollar has long been renowned as the “King of American Coins.” Well before such latter-day rarities as the 1913 Liberty nickels, the 1894-S Barber dimes, or the 1907 Ultra High Relief double eagles, the 1804 silver dollars were acknowledged as the most famous U.S. coins, yardsticks by which great American numismatic collections were measured.

Acquisition of an 1804 silver dollar-especially an Original or Class I example-bestows immediate numismatic immortality upon its possessor. The Class I Originals were legitimately struck in proof format at the U.S. Mint, apparently intended for presentation to foreign dignitaries. Some, however, soon found their way into commercial and collector channels. Their long and illustrious pedigrees have names tying them to foreign royalty, exotic destinations, captains of industry, and the luminaries of U.S. numismatics: the King of Siam, the Sultan of Muscat, Joseph J. Mickley, Matthew Stickney, Louis Eliasberg, John Work Garrett, Col. E.H.R. Green, Lorin G. Parmelee.
The first 1804 silver dollar to reach collectors’ hands is also the first-and most famous-numismatic transaction that most American collectors know of: In 1843 collector Matthew Stickney traded the U.S. Mint a unique 1785 Immune Columbia cent overstruck on a 1775 British gold guinea, along with some other pieces, for an 1804 silver dollar. The Guide Book of United States Coins (Red Book) has included the story since its first edition was published in 1947, edifying generations of young U.S. collectors and providing the stuff of dreams.

Class I 1804 silver dollars have regularly set one coin auction record after another over the last century and a half. The present Mickley specimen brought the staggering sum of $750-a record for the entire 1860s-when legendary collector William A. Lilliendahl bought it from the 1867 W.E. Woodward sale. The second-highest auction price of the decade, from the same sale, was “only” $340 for an 1802 half dime, one of the most coveted American coin delicacies.
Class I 1804 dollars appear regularly in the top auction records for the ensuing decades, according to a March 2008 Coin Values compilation by P. Scott Rubin. Three of the top four auction records in the 1870s are for Class I 1804s-the first, second, and fourth spots. After the Class III Restrikes made their appearance around 1876, the Adams Class III Restrike sold by John Haseltine set the third-highest auction price for the decade.

In the 1880s the Chapman Brothers sale of the Dexter specimen marked the first time that a Class I 1804 dollar-and likely any other U.S. coin at auction-crossed the $1,000 threshold.

The trend for 1804 Class I Originals to break auction records continued. In 1890 the Parmelee specimen sold for $570, second for the entire decade only to the $900 that an incredibly rare 1822 half eagle (one of three known) brought. In 1907 the Stickney specimen took top honors for the 1900s, selling for $3,600.
1804 silver dollars marked new auction records all the way through the 1980s as prices rose steadily, first to five digits in the 1960s, then to the upper six-digit range by 1989, when the Dexter Class I Original sold for $990,000.

More recently the prices for these most regal and renowned U.S. coins show no signs of slowing: In 1999 the fabulous Sultan of Muscat-Brand-Childs 1804 Class I silver dollar, the finest known and graded PR68 by PCGS, realized $4,140,000-a record price for a U.S. coin, one that stood for nearly three years and then exceeded only by the 1933 double eagle that sold in 2002 for $7,590,020.

Today of the top 10 auction price records as listed in the 2008 Guide Book, three are Class I Originals, including the piece just mentioned and the Stickney-Eliasberg and Dexter-Dunham specimens.

The present Heritage offering of the Mickley coin is exciting not only because it will almost certainly rank among the top auction price records, but also because it is the first auction of a Class I Original 1804 silver dollar in nearly a decade. Its long provenance from Joseph J. Mickley forward provides not merely a rich numismatic history, but a real sense of the history of numismatics itself.

The 1804 silver dollar has been the object of intense desire among American collectors for more than 150 years. Before the 1894-S dimes were struck, before the 1913 Liberty nickels appeared, and before President Franklin Roosevelt’s gold recall set the stage for the 1933 double eagle to become America’s most controversial coin, numismatists coveted the 1804 dollar. As a silver coin, it was a worthy collectible in the eyes of mid-19th century numismatists-an unparalleled challenge among American issues.

In his 1999 volume The Rare Silver Dollars Dated 1804 and the Exciting Adventures of Edmund Roberts, Q. David Bowers wrote that soon after numismatics as an organized discipline blossomed in America in the late 1850s, collectors gravitated to certain issues: “By the early 1860s, specialists in the United States series were prepared to give the proverbial eyetooth for a splendid 1793 cent, or 1802 half dime, or 1804 silver dollar. By 1867 the 1804 silver dollar had become America’s most famous, most discussed, most talked about rarity.”

The Crowning of “The King”-Most Famous and Publicized U.S. Coin
Precisely when America’s foremost coin garnered the accolade of “King” is lost to time. Two 1885 auction descriptions, however, set the latest limit. One notes that the usage had been around for at least a few years, suggesting an origin somewhere between the close of the Civil War and 1880.

What is certain is that the “King of American Coins” earned its title well before it had serious challengers. In the years since, the legend of the 1804 dollar has only grown. Even the Guide Book, which gives no special mention to the 1894-S dime and only a slender paragraph to the 1913 Liberty nickel, devotes a full page to what the 2008 edition describes as “one of the most publicized rarities in the entire series of United States coins.”

The 1804 dollar is more than highly publicized, though. Rather, it is famous. For every nationwide numismatic advertisement, there have been thousands of casual notices, such as stories old-timers swap at local coin clubs about seeing an 1804 dollar in a museum. The 1804 dollar has attracted more scholarly attention than any other issue. They are the focus of countless articles, presentations, and even entire books, among them the seminal 1962 The Fantastic 1804 Dollar by Eric P. Newman and Kenneth Bressett, and the Bowers reference already cited.

The silver dollars dated 1804 have been displayed at various exhibitions including Las Vegas, Boston, Philadelphia, Colorado Springs, New York City, and Washington, D.C. As prices rose, so did media attention. When 1804 dollars sold in recent years, people worldwide learned of it on their local news. Although numismatists know of only 15 1804 dollars today, their lore has reached tens of thousands of collectors who have entertained dreams of someday seeing (or owning) an example.

1804 Dollar Owners Famous, Infamous, and Little-Known
Each of those collectors is another reason why the 1804 dollar holds so important a place in American numismatics, as are the fortunate individuals who have had the privilege to possess one. Few coins carry the sense of history the 1804 dollar does. The personalities who have come in contact with the pieces are an endless source of fascination. The Class I Original 1804 dollars, in particular, have long and interesting provenances, including stays in faraway destinations such as Muscat in present-day Oman and Bangkok in what is now Thailand, as well as domestic locales such as Denver and Omaha. Those provenances have also forged unexpected connections across time. The King of Siam specimen, which has perhaps the most varied and fascinating pedigree, links the mid-19th century royals of that Asian nation to numismatic personalities such as David F. Spink, Lester Merkin, and Iraj Sayah. As Bowers notes, some collectors’ reputations-H.G. Brown, James Dexter, L.R. French, Jr., R.H. Mull, Percy Smith, and George Weingart-are based almost entirely on ownership of an 1804 dollar.

For many others, however, an 1804 dollar was part and parcel of a widely known, highly publicized collection or numismatic career. It is impossible to think of Virgil Brand, Amon Carter, Walter Childs, Louis Eliasberg, John Work Garrett, Col. E.H.R. Green, Reed Hawn, Joseph Mickley, or Lorin Parmelee without acknowledging the role an 1804 dollar played in making them coin legends.

While B. Max Mehl’s frequent offerings of 1804 dollars make him the most prominent dealer involved with them, many other noted numismatists have handled an 1804 dollar as a career highlight. David Akers, Bowers, the Chapman brothers, Thomas Elder, Sol Kaplan, Abe Kosoff, Dwight Manley, Wayte Raymond, Warren Tucker, and Farran Zerbe are among the famous professionals appearing in the provenances of various pieces.

The institutions that own or have owned 1804 dollars have benefited from the generosity of wealthy collectors, and many others have gained from their display. The magnanimous gifts of the Du Pont family added 1804 dollars (and many other pieces) to the Smithsonian and ANA collections. The ANA Museum also exhibits an 1804 dollar donated by the Bebees. The American Numismatic Society received its specimen from the Chase-Manhattan exhibit originated by Farran Zerbe. In Omaha, Nebraska, the Durham Western Heritage Museum exhibits the Byron Reed Collection, willed to that city more than a century ago.

The Massachusetts Historical Society no longer has the 1804 bequeathed from the William Sumner Appleton estate-it deaccessioned it in 1970-but the community greatly benefited from its presence, and the proceeds from the sale of Appleton coins have helped the society record and preserve state history.

The Power of Provenance
In the October 1970 catalog in a section titled “J.J. Mickley and His Dollar,” Stack’s wrote eloquently of the power of provenance, noting that the new owner “will become part of a great line, not only of distinguished numismatists, but outstanding personalities as well.” Interestingly, the buyer of the piece is unidentified, purchasing the coin from Stack’s and later consigning it to the same firm for private treaty sale. Subsequent purchasers Reed Hawn and David Queller, however, figure prominently in its provenance.
The Stack’s section on Mickley concludes, “While it is true that all the 1804 Dollars have an interesting past, it seems to us that this particular specimen has been more closely connected with the history of our national coinage, and the best traditions of collecting in the past, than most. The pedigree of this piece gives it a special personality all its own.”

Three collectors later, its provenance seems even more alive with history, and should the next owner desire it, that person can enjoy lasting numismatic fame.

Limited Market Availability of 1804 Silver Dollars
The 1804 dollars possess an unmatched mystique, combining legendary names of the past with absolute rarity. For all the questions surrounding the 1804 dollar in its various incarnations, it remains a numismatic icon. Even though a handful of U.S. coins have smaller mintages or fewer known specimens, each 1804 dollar in the three classes-15 in all-is extremely rare. The Newman-Bressett Class I coins, corresponding to the “originals” in other references, number only eight pieces, while only six Class III examples (“restrikes”) are traced today. The Class II, “plain-edged restrike,” is known only through history and a single surviving specimen in the Smithsonian, and as such is noncollectible.

Several Class I pieces are similarly inaccessible to eager potential buyers. Among the eight Class I dollars, just five are in private collections, with three in institutions due to the Byron Reed bequest of the Parmelee example to the City of Omaha, the Mint Cabinet-Smithsonian piece, and the Du Pont donation of the Cohen coin to the ANA.
Three of the six known Class III examples are also unobtainable: the Linderman-Smithsonian specimen, the Idler-ANA coin, and the ANS-Ellsworth piece. Such donations allow numismatists to see multiple examples of the famous 1804 dollar, while simultaneously complicating their efforts to own one. Museums have been known to divest themselves of coins-the present Mickley-Hawn-Queller piece was sold on behalf of the Massachusetts Historical Society after 65 years at that institution-but it is highly unlikely that an organization of national importance, such as the Smithsonian or ANA, would sell an 1804 dollar.

Certain U.S. issues are known to have smaller surviving populations today. The mysterious Liberty nickels dated 1913, the 1885 Trade dollar proofs, and the singular 1870-S half dime and three dollar gold are examples. Still, as previously noted, the 1804 dollar was well-recognized as a rarity before any of those coins were struck. Numismatists of the 19th century knew of fewer examples than do contemporary numismatists. The Mint Cabinet, Stickney, and Mickley specimens were at the forefront of collectors’ minds in the mid-19th century, but the King of Siam piece was a mid-20th century revelation, one that caught even Eric Newman and Kenneth Bressett by surprise as they wrote The Fantastic 1804 Dollar. The scandalous debut of the Class II pieces led their creators to keep the clandestine Class III coins off the market until at least the early 1870s.
The emergence of new examples did not negatively affect prices or the passion of collectors for the 1804 dollar. While the academic side of numismatics has sometimes harshly criticized the pieces in general, the 1804 dollars have never lacked willing buyers. In the 21st century collector enthusiasm has flourished for these famous, important numismatic delicacies. Heritage’s offering of the Mickley-Hawn-Queller Class I Original 1804 silver dollar will give prospective bidders an opportunity to acquire one of the world’s most legendary coins.

Deep silver-gray patina covers the surfaces of this attractive coin. Closer examination reveals subtle iridescence and strong undercurrents of golden-tan patina. The left obverse field shows a strong element of bold blue, and areas of dusky pewter-gray appear around the peripheral devices. Minor, scattered contact marks are present on the obverse, though only a few of them would attract attention if this were a circulation strike. They appear in pairs, two on Liberty’s cheek and two to the left of the hollow of Liberty’s neck.

On the reverse, three reeding marks appear in the field between the shield and the olive branch, and a few smaller points of contact are present elsewhere in the fields. Such minor flaws are consistent with the belief that a teller at the Bank of Pennsylvania, Henry C. Young, found the coin mixed with others in a deposit sometime in the early 1850s. Both sides are luminous beneath the patina with a distinct, glossy sheen. Slight striking softness at the uppermost parts of the design and the star centers is consistent with other examples of Original or Class I 1804 dollars. A thin die crack-one that is present on both Original and Restrike pieces-passes across the tops of stars 5 through 7 and all but the last letter of LIBERTY.

The lettering on the edge is “crushed,” the result of a lettered-edge planchet entering a press with a smooth collar. The strike squeezed and distorted the edge design, rendering many letters unreadable-a distinctive diagnostic for the Class I 1804 dollars. The coin’s holder precludes viewing of this detail, but Bowers describes it in The Rare Silver Dollars Dated 1804 and the Exciting Adventures of Edmund Roberts, which was published before this piece’s encapsulation

Researchers and catalogers over the past 50 years have graded this coin as PR50 (Bowers, 1999) and “very nearly Uncirculated” (Newman-Bressett, 1962). Stack’s, despite selling this specimen twice at auction, opted not to grade the coin. Instead, it reprinted the Newman-Bressett assessment in its catalogs for both the Massachusetts Historical Society Sale (1970) and the Reed Hawn Collection Sale (1993).

The NGC-certified present grade, PR62, does not affect the coin’s consensus ranking among the eight Class I or Original 1804 dollars. The Mickley-Hawn-Queller piece, as the pedigree on the NGC holder states, is superior to the Mint Cabinet specimen and the Cohen coin, but does not rate as highly as the Sultan of Muscat, King of Siam, Stickney, Dexter, or Parmelee examples. While this specimen is not the finest known 1804 dollar, the Class I issue is so rare and famous that the relative ranking of a particular survivor diminishes in importance.

Aside from the two Stack’s sales, this specimen’s only other auction appearance took place in the 19th century, when W. Elliot Woodward offered it in October 1867 on behalf of Joseph Mickley. The first part of its lot description reads: “This piece is regarded by all American collectors as the gem of Mr. Mickley’s collection. It has been in circulation, but it is still in the finest condition, retaining its brilliancy of surface, and being entirely uninjured.” Woodward then goes on to recount the coin’s (brief) history to that time, including its purported discovery at the Bank of Pennsylvania and its status as one of only two Class I (to use a modern term) 1804 dollars known at that time.

The importance of this opportunity to acquire an 1804 dollar-the first 1804 dollar of any variety to appear at auction since 2003-cannot be overstated. No Class I Original example has sold at auction since 2000. Private transactions are infrequent at best, with only five Originals available to individuals and most tightly held in private collections. At one point this specimen was off the market for more than a century, and since 1970 more than a decade has passed between its auction appearances. A second chance to purchase this historic coin, widely proclaimed as the “King of American Coins,” may be years or even generations away.

Ex: Chief Coiner Adam Eckfeldt; unknown intermediaries; Henry C. Young, a teller at the Bank of Pennsylvania (c. 1850); Joseph J. Mickley (c. 1858); Joseph J. Mickley Collection (W. Elliot Woodward, 10/1867), lot 1676, $750; William A. Lilliendahl; Edward Cogan; William Sumner Appleton (c. 1868); Appleton estate; Massachusetts Historical Society (1905); Property of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Stack’s, 10/1970), lot 625, $77,500; Chicago collection; Reed Hawn, via Stack’s (1974); Reed Hawn Collection (Stack’s, 10/1993), lot 735, $475,000; David Queller; Queller Family Collection.

Photos and descriptions used with permission and courtesy of Heritage Auction Galleries

The 1802 proof novodel silver dollar is an issue that is usually grouped by numismatists with three others: the 1801 proof novodel, the 1803 proof novodel, and the famous 1804 silver dollars. Like the 1804 dollar, which has been referred to as the “King of American Coins” for more than a century, the 1802 proof novodels were manufactured in a minuscule quantity, some time after 1832. No more than a dozen of the 1802 proof novodels were struck, and only four pieces are definitely confirmed to exist. The specimen offered in the upcoming Heritage CSNS Signature Auction is the Newcomer specimen, and served as the plate coin in Newman and Bressett’s The Fantastic 1804 Dollar.

Much confusion has reigned in the numismatic universe where these problematic coins are concerned, which is unsurprising when one considers the deliberately clandestine nature of the 1801-1803 proofs, as well as the 1804 dollars. Numismatic heavyweights such as Walter Breen, Q. David Bowers, Eric P. Newman, and John Dannreuther (among many others) have attempted to deconstruct the history of these fascinating pieces, and have drawn at least some conclusions that seem logical and supported by the relatively few known facts of the case.

In his monumental 1993 work Silver Dollars and Trade Dollars of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia, Q. David Bowers outlines the following sequence of events: He believes the novodel dollars were produced from dies that Mint Director Samuel Moore instructed Chief Coiner Adam Eckfeldt to prepare in 1831, in anticipation of a resumption in the coining of silver dollars that never actually occurred. Since the Draped Bust motif had not been used on any U.S. coin since the 1808 half cent, Eckfeldt had to consult old Mint records to ascertain that 1804, 1803, and 1802 were the last years that dollar production featured this design. (What he did not know, however, was that the 1804 delivery contained dollars dated 1803.) By the end of 1831, the Philadelphia Mint had on hand one incomplete obverse die, three obverse dies dated 1802, 1803, and 1804, respectively, and two distinct reverse dies (designated X and Y by Eric P. Newman and Kenneth E. Bressett in their 1962 book The Fantastic 1804 Dollar). Between that year and 1836, the so-called Class I 1804 silver dollars, of which the King of Siam and Imam of Muscat specimens are the most famous examples, were produced.

The Bowers theory continues that after their completion sometime in 1831, the Mint locked the novodel dollar dies away for several decades, retrieving the 1804 obverse die along with reverse die X to strike the Class I or “Original” 1804 dollars between 1833 and 1836. The 1804 obverse die was reused, circa 1858, along with reverse die Y to strike the Class II and Class III specimens. The remaining four dies remained tucked away until the early 1870s. Sometime during 1873-1876, Mint Director Henry R. Linderman entered the story of the novodels. Under his direction, a Mint employee retrieved the 1802, 1803, and undated obverse dies from the vault, added stars and the 1801 date to the previously incomplete obverse die, mated the three obverses with reverse die X of the Class I 1804 dollar, and produced fewer than 25 novodels dated 1801-1803. To support this assessment, Bowers cites these facts:

“The Class I 1804 dollars all have weights that conform to the pre-1837 standard of 416 grains. The Class III 1804 dollars (produced sometime circa 1858) all have weights that conform to either the pre-1837 standard of 416 grains or the post-1837 standard of 412.5 grains. The 1801-1803 novodels, however, weigh between 419.5 and 423 grains. This spread is within the legal tolerance range of the 420 grain standard. Since the Trade dollar of 1873-1883 is the only coin that conformed to this standard, it seems nearly impossible that the Mint would have had planchets of this weight on hand during and earlier than the 1870s.”

Excerpts from pcgs.com, “Thoughts on Proof 1804 Original and Restrike Silver Dollars (and Their Cousins, the Proofs of 1801-1803)” by John Dannreuther, follow:

“The term that best seems to fit these coins is novodel, which denotes a coin struck from copy dies that are very similar but slightly different than original dies used for a particular series. … The 1801-1803 Proof dollars have long been called ‘Restrikes,’ but again this is a misnomer-they should also be called novodels as original dies were not employed in their striking, thus they are not restrikes of a previous coin. … Their striking quality seems to indicate a striking date of 1858 or later. They may have been made earlier but their weights indicate an even later period. However, I will give the three scenarios as I see them for the striking of the 1801-1803 coins…

“First scenario: These could have been struck between 1834 and 1849 (or pre-1858 as Breen speculates) around the same time as the Class I 1804 dollars with the same reverse. … Why would the post-1873 weight standard planchets be used is the main, and fatal, flaw with this theory. Also, the progressive rust pits on Reverse X make this time frame highly unlikely.

“Second scenario: Snowden (or the ‘Midnight Minters’) struck them in 1858-60. He could have seen the 1802 and 1803 dies, as well as the unfinished die. He had the unfinished die prepared with whatever was available to create the anomalous 1801-dated die. … The weight bugaboo again makes this an unlikely scenario. (All 1801-03 dollars are closer to the pre-1837 weight standard than the 412-grain standard in use during 1858-60.) The rust pits on Reverse X could have developed by this time, so the weight variance is the primary reason for doubting this era as the striking period. Also, none of these coins appeared on the numismatic marketplace until the mid-1870s.

“Third scenario: The X reverse die was the one stolen or ‘hidden in the Mint’ and Snowden destroyed Reverse Y thinking it was the ‘original’ as it was the one used on the plain-edge strikes of 1858-1860. Snowden may have not even known about the real ‘original’ Reverse X die. That the ‘Restrike’ reverse (Reverse Y) still existed until 1873 seems unlikely, as there are no Class III 1804 dollars struck on 420-grain planchets, while all 1801-03 Proofs are of the past-1873 standard. The fact that several Class III 1804 dollars are circulated and that virtually all 1801-03 coins are Proof 63 or higher makes one conclude that 1873 or later is the striking period for the 1801-03 dollars. The progressive rust pits on Reverse X lend even more credence for a much later striking date for the 1801-03 dollars than for the Class I 1804 dollars with that reverse. Since the size of the rust pit increases, a two or three year time frame is indicated for their striking.

“In summary, I think the case is very strong that all of the 1801-03 Proofs were made circa 1873-76, 1804 Class I dollars circa 1834-35, 1804 Class II and III dollars circa 1858-60, but one never knows! … If technology ever advances to the point that exact dating of coinage can be ascertained, we will have the answer to when these, and other restrikes/novodels, were struck. Until that time, the coin sleuths will have to expand on the theories and discoveries of their predecessors.”

Another of the more persistent theories concerning the origin of the 1801-1804 novodel dollars is the one that Walter Breen proposes in his Complete Encyclopedia. Breen asserts that, while the Class I 1804 novodel dollar dies were produced in the 1830s, those of the 1801-1803 pieces trace their roots to the 1850s. Sometime no later than 1858, an unknown party or parties retrieved the “original” 1804 dies of the 1830s from the chief coiner’s vault, along with Robert Scot’s old device punches, and created three new obverse dies backdated 1801, 1802, and 1803. On the latter two dies, the tip of a broken hair curl on the top of Liberty’s head was repaired by hand. The edge lettering on the 1801, 1802, and 1803 novodel proofs is “blundered” (like that on the Class III 1804 dollars), suggesting that this edge lettering was added to the coins by a Castaing machine at some later date, after they were first struck with plain edges. The pieces that these new dies produced remained in the hands of coin dealer William Idler for an unspecified period of time. In 1876, Idler’s son-in-law, Captain John W. Haseltine, revealed the coins to the numismatic community. He was unable to sell the pieces, according to Breen, because collectors dismissed them as fantasy pieces produced within the previous few months.

1. The Boyd Specimen: Captain John W. Haseltine; Virgil Brand; F.C.C. Boyd “World’s Greatest Collection” Sale (Numismatic Gallery, 1/1945), lot 119; Milfred H. Bolender (M.H. Bolender’s 183rd Sale 2/1952), lot 175; New York Collection; “Groves” Collection sale (Stack’s, 11/1974), lot 443; Four Landmark Collections Sale (Bowers and Merena, 3/1989), lot 1981; Superior Galleries, 1/1993, lot 615; The Rarities Sale (Bowers and Merena, 8/1999), lot 245. (Plate coin in Breen’s Proof Encyclopedia and his Complete Encyclopedia.)

2. The Cleneay Specimen: Captain John W. Haseltine; Thomas Cleneay Sale (S. Hudson Chapman and Henry Chapman, 12/1890), lot 949; Peter Mougey Sale (Thomas Elder, 9/1910), lot 962; John P. Lyman Sale (S. Hudson Chapman, 11/1913), lot 14; H.O. Granberg Sale (B. Max Mehl, 7/1919), lot 30; Virgil Brand (journal id #92339); B. Max Mehl private treaty sale 1/1937 to Ambassador and Mrs. R. Henry Norweb; Norweb Sale (Bowers and Merena, 11/1988), lot 3770; Don Hosier (Superior, 2/1991), not sold; Jack Lee Collection III (Heritage, 11/2005), lot 2199.

3. The Wilharm Specimen: Ex: Captain John W. Haseltine; Dr. G.F.E. Wilharm Collection (B. Max Mehl, 2/1921), lot 592; Virgil M. Brand Estate, via B.G. Johnson; William Forrester Dunham Collection (B. Max Mehl, 6/1941), lot 1055; 1942 ANA Convention Sale (Abe Kosoff); Michael F. Higgy Collection (Abe Kosoff, 9/1943), lot 817; Beverly Hills Stamp & Coin Co. (Max L. Justus FPL, 8/1957); Abe Kosoff; Ken Nichols; Newport Balboa Savings and Loan; Abe Kosoff; unknown intermediaries; Autumn Sale (Stack’s, 9/1978), lot 304; Ellis H. Robison Collection (Stack’s, 2/1982), lot 1884; Larry Whitlow; Larry Hanks (Superior, 7/1984), lot 171, not sold; subsequently sold by Larry Hanks to Pennsylvania collector; Harry Einstein Collection (Bowers & Merena, 6/1986), lot 1734; The Worrell Collection (Superior, 9/1993), lot 1301; Seymour Finkelstein Collection (Stack’s 10/1995), lot 696; Philip Flanagan Collection (Bowers & Merena, 11/2001), lot 4297.

4. The Newcomer Specimen: Captain John W. Haseltine; Waldo C. Newcomer; Colonel E.H.R. Green via B. Max Mehl (ca. 1932); Jack Roe Collection (B. Max Mehl, 6/1945), lot 427; Will W. Neil Collection (B. Max Mehl, 6/1947), lot 29; Amon Carter, Sr.; Amon Carter, Jr. (Stack’s, 1/1984), lot 239; L.R. French, Jr.-French Family Collection (Stack’s, 1/1989), lot 13; David Queller-Queller Family Collection. The present specimen. (Plate coin in Newman and Bressett’s The Fantastic 1804 Dollar.)

Photos used with permission and courtesy of Legend Numismatics

Only one 1870 San Francisco Mint half dime is known to exist. It was on display on Oct. 27 & 28 at the first CoinFest, at the East Greenwich (CT) Civic Center. Please see my separate article about the CoinFest event. Most collectors have either never heard of the 1870-S half dime or do not know much about it.

The most famous coins are not the rarest. Almost all collectors know about 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincolns, 1877 Indian Cents, 1913 Liberty Nickels, 1894-S, 1895-O and 1916-D dimes, 1901-S and 1913-S quarters, 1916 and 1918/7-S Standing Liberty Quarters, and other key dates in series that are avidly collected. Moreover, 1804 silver dollars are the most famous of all coins. As fifteen 1804 dollars are known, there are quite a few other coins that are rarer. Most collectors are not familiar with the rarest U.S. coins.

There are three, privately owned U.S. coins that are each unique. Before itemizing the three, it makes sense to emphasize that I am referring to privately owned coins. There are unique pieces in the Smithsonian, and these are more complicated, for at least two reasons. Most unique pieces in the Smithsonian are patterns rather than true coins. Those unique pieces that are definitely true U.S. coins are not necessarily distinct dates. The issue of whether a particular die variety is a separate date is often controversial. There is no doubt that the three privately owned unique U.S. coins are true coins and are distinct dates.

There is only one 1873 Carson City (NV) Mint dime without arrows near the numerals on the obverse (front of the coin). On dimes, quarters, and halves, arrows were added at some point in 1873 and were also employed as part of the design in 1874. On all other 1873-CC dimes, there are arrows. The presence of arrows not only signifies additional dates for coins of the year 1873, the 1873-74 with arrows Liberty Seated coins are distinct subtypes for dimes, quarters and halves. As the arrows are near the numerals and are readily visible without a magnifying glass, this characteristic is definitely part of the ‘date’ and is even often thought of as being indicative of a separate design type. So, an 1873-CC without arrows is a date that is different from an 1873-CC with arrows coin. Curiously, there are a substantial number of both Philadelphia Mint 1873 without arrows dimes and 1873 with arrows dimes.

The unique 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ dime was, unsurprisingly, in the Eliasberg collection. Louis Eliasberg, Sr., had the all-time best collection of U.S. coins. It was the most complete and it contained many coins of tremendous quality. The Eliasberg 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ dime was auctioned in May 1996 in New York City by Bowers & Merena (New Hampshire). It is also unsurprising that it was owned for many years by Jay Parrino, who certainly has owned more Great Rarities in silver than any other dealer in the history of U.S. coin collecting.

There is also only one 1870-S $3 gold coin. It is easy to guess that it was in the Eliasberg collection, and such a guess would be correct. It is now in the collection of the late Harry Bass, and is on display at the ANA museum in Colorado Springs.

Those who have guessed that the 1870-S half dime was also previously in the Eliasberg collection are wrong. The 1870-S half dime was discovered in 1978, and Louis Eliasberg, Sr., died in 1976.

At some point in the mid 1980s, the 1870-S half dime was offered to Richard Eliasberg. After Louis Sr.’s death in 1976, Richard’s brother, Louis, Jr., inherited the U.S. gold coins, and Richard inherited all other parts of the Eliasberg collection. Richard Eliasberg declined to tell me why he did not buy the 1870-S half dime. When I asked again, he just smiled and walked away. As he is not a coin enthusiast himself, and none of his living relatives are extremely interested, maybe he could not bring himself to make such an acquisition?

At the 1991 ANA convention in Illinois, Jay Parrino acquired the 1870-S half dime when he bought Martin Paul’s collection of half dimes for “several million dollars.” Parrino owned the 1870-S half dime for a long time. Perhaps it should be called the Parrino 1870-S half dime. In the 1990s, he sold it to an investor and then bought it back again a few years later.

Bowers & Merena (CA) auctioned the 1870-S half dime in July 2004. A somewhat leading coin website incorrectly lists Jim Gray as the consignor. Gray never owned it.

Laura Sperber was the successful bidder, on behalf of the current owner. The 1870-S half dime realized $661,250. Sperber was prepared to bid a much higher amount, if necessary. It is certainly worth much more in 2007.

The 1870-S half dime belongs to a collector who has been buying coins from Sperber for more than twenty years. He prefers that his name not be mentioned. As he is a lawyer, he decided to register his sets at the PCGS website under the name “Law.” He thus should not be confused with other recognized collectors who really are named ‘Law.’ He put himself through law school by buying and selling coins.

According to Sperber, “Mr. Law has always demanded the finest coins. Second best would never do for him.” In the PCGS registry, Mr. Law has the “All-Time Finest” sets of business strike Three Cent Nickels, business strike Three Cent Silvers, Proof Three Cent Silvers, business strike Capped Bust half dimes (1829-37), business strike Barber dimes, and Proof Barber dimes.

It is curious that ‘Mr. Law’s’ collection of Liberty Seated half dimes is not in the PCGS registry, as it is the only one that can possibly be complete in the present. Furthermore, it is disappointing that most of his registered sets are almost completely lacking in pedigree information. It would be helpful and fun to know which coins were earlier in some of the greatest collections of all time.

The 1870-S half dime is an attractive and interesting coin. It certainly left a strong, positive impression on me.

At first glance, from a distance, Miss Liberty and the other design elements on the obverse (front) exhibit a very light, consistent russet tone. The fields (bare areas) have a neat bluish-gray tint, and several moderate hairlines are noticeable, plus a few heavier ones.

The obverse die (used to stamp the design into the front) was very heavily polished at the San Francisco Mint, and the obverse of the coin features numerous raised die lines that are really only noticed by coin enthusiasts, but are, nevertheless, really cool. Any careful observer would notice that the obverse fields are fully reflective and dynamic.

The texture of the reverse (back) is very different from that of the obverse, though is also interesting and pleasantly distinctive. The wreath is very lightly frosted, from treatment of the reverse die at the Mint, and is toned a more subtle light russet color. The fields are naturally crisp. The reverse is slightly reflective, but nowhere near as much as the obverse. On the whole, the reverse is not as attractive as the obverse, but is still very appealing.
In a technical sense, the reverse is of a higher grade than the obverse. There are much fewer imperfections.

When tilted under a light, the obverse looks even more cool. There are touches of green and orange, plus various shades of russet about the fields and outer elements. The patches of a somewhat bright russet tone about the numerals in 1870 are enticing.

I strongly believe that all the toning on this coin is natural. Further, I did not see any evidence that it has ever been ‘dipped.’

The 1870-S half dime is not sharply struck. When seen in actuality, it is clearly better struck than it appears to be in pictures. It is better struck than many other uncirculated Liberty Seated half dimes that I have seen. Indeed, a large percentage of Liberty Seated half dimes are not well struck. Besides, even the best struck Liberty Seated half dimes, in general, lack detail in comparison to several other types of U.S. coins.

The coin does not have any wear or friction on the highpoints. There is no doubt that it is uncirculated. It has been graded MS-63 by both the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC). In 2005 or 2006, it was upgraded to “MS-64” by the PCGS.

I would tend to grade it a mid range to high end MS-63, though I understand why some experts may grade it as 64. In my view, it is definitely a business strike, not a specimen striking. Neither service has called it a specimen striking, but the topic has been mentioned to me in private conversations.

It is not unusual for business strikes from polished dies to have reflective surfaces. Raised die lines of the magnitude found on this coin’s obverse are much more unusual than the presence of reflective surfaces. Such raised lines are, however, found on a fair number of 19th century silver business strikes. It is impossible to explain all the reasons why I think that the coin’s texture is that of a business strike. The obverse could be plausibly determined to be prooflike, or maybe semi-prooflike?

How important is the 1870-S half dime? It certainly warrants more attention than it has received.

David McCarthy, senior numismatist at Kagin’s, is one of the more studious and reflective of coin dealers. He asserts that “Liberty Seated dimes and half dimes are woefully under-appreciated in general. The 1870-S half dime in particular has been overlooked. In terms of numismatic importance,” McCarthy concludes, “it is in the same category as the 1894-S dime.” There are ten known 1894-S dimes. Please see my very recent article regarding the sale of one.

I believe that Liberty Seated half dimes, dimes, and quarters are all ‘under-appreciated.’ These are attractive, rare, and, historically, very much a central part of the culture of coin collecting in the United States. The market for rare date, pre-1840 and 1907-33, gold coins boomed from 2002 to 2006 and is still hot now. Bust gold coins, in particular, have been intensely demanded for several years, and are often ‘in the spotlight.’ Moreover, post-1920 20th century coins have been receiving a disproportionate share of attention in the present and recent past. Furthermore, markets for Bust U.S. silver coins, generally dating from the 1790s to the 1830s, have been very active this year. So far this decade, people do not seem to be all that excited about Liberty Seated coins, even as type coins.

I understand why McCarthy thinks that 1894-S dimes and the 1870-S half dime “are in the same category.” He believes both these two issues, and several other Great Rarities, were struck for special, though sometimes different, purposes.

In my view, it is best to place the 1870-S half dime in a category that is much different from that of the 1894-S dime. No one really knows exactly why this particular 1870-S half dime was struck. Moreover, in my articles on 1894-S dimes, I emphasize that the 1894-S and Barber dimes in general have an unusually strong and very distinctive appeal in the traditions of coin collecting.

Of all series that started in the 19th century, Barber dimes are among the easiest to collect, and are very popular with kids. Barber coins also appeal to adults, including those that are just starting out.

In low grades, many dates in the Barber dime series may be obtained for less than $2.50 each. A collector who is willing to spend up to $50 per coin could almost complete a set of Barber dimes. Only the 1894-S, the 1895-O and the 1893/2 overdate would necessarily cost more than $100 each. As the 1894-S is a ‘Proof-only’ date, and the 1893/2 is an esoteric overdate, an 1895-O would really be the only moderately priced coin needed to complete a set of business strike Barber dimes.

Consider that many adult collectors have fond memories of collecting Barber dimes as kids, and many who start as adults collect Barber dimes for years. There may be more than five hundred thousand collectors who have, at one time or another, dreamed about owning an 1894-S dime. Not nearly as many people have dreamed about owning the 1870-S half dime.

Liberty Seated Half Dimes are a more complicated series to collect. Scarce date Liberty Seated half dimes are not that expensive, but are more difficult to obtain, at market prices, than scarce date Barber dimes. There is less trading volume in Liberty Seated half dimes. In addition to the 1870-S, there are about seven dates in this series that would necessarily cost more than $100 each. Even finding decent examples of some of the relatively inexpensive dates would require considerable time and effort.

Liberty Seated half dimes are also more difficult to grade and otherwise interpret than Barber dimes. It may also be more difficult to find Liberty Seated half dimes with original surfaces. Indeed, many half dimes have been harshly cleaned by non-experts who kept them as novelty items or conversation pieces. So, there are several reasons why Barber dimes will always be more popular than Liberty Seated half dimes, and Barber dimes have a greater role in the culture of coin collecting.

I strongly agree with McCarthy’s insight that one reason why the 1870-S half dime is not thought of more often is that “it has never been in one of the great collections of all time,” nor even in a widely recognized collection until ‘Mr. Law’ obtained it. Had it been in the Cleaney, Mills, Earle, Newcomer, Boyd, Norweb or Eliasberg collections, it would be much more famous now.

While it will never have the emotional allure of an 1894-S dime to most coin enthusiasts, the 1870-S half dime is a very appealing coin and it is deserving of much more respect and acclaim. Liberty Seated half dimes, in general, are cute, fun to collect, and more challenging to collect and evaluate than Barber dimes. Collectors who make an effort to learn about them will find themselves intrigued.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

Of the twenty-four dimes that were reportedly minted in San Francisco in 1894, only ten are believed to exist today. On Oct. 17, Stack’s auctioned a Proof-64 1894-S dime, for $1,552,500. The auction was held at the Parker Meridien Hotel in midtown Manhattan. The consignor wishes to remain completely anonymous. As the new owner of this 1894-S dime is a “new player” in the game of acquiring really great rare coins, I will refer to this dime as the “New Player’s” 1894-S.

An understanding of this auction record involves more than just a description of the bidding activity. It is necessary to discuss the two other 1894-S dimes that have sold at auction for more than $1 million each. Furthermore, there is the pertinent point that higher grade pieces are often worth multiples of lower grade coins. In addition, the demand for extremely rare coins has increased markedly over the past ten years, particularly since 2003. Moreover, 1894-S dimes are more highly demanded than several other Great Rarities. The aesthetic characteristics of this particular 1894-S dime are also an important factor

This ‘New Player’s’ 1894-S has a nice overall look. It is not very bright, but it is not dark. It is somewhat brilliant. The hair and headband of Miss Liberty, and much of the wreath, feature a cameo contrast. The white glow of these areas contrasts really well with the fields, which feature blends of blue and gray, with purplish overtones. There is a light blue tone about UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The fields on the obverse (front) are partly covered with a neat, pale orange overtone. The reverse fields are more gray than blue, though appear very purplish when the coin is tilted at certain angles.

This New Player’s 1894-S dime is very attractive. The surfaces exhibit full, strong mirrors, more so than the surfaces of the BRS 1894-S. It is true, though, that the BRS 1894-S has a great deal of attractive blue toning, with shades of green and touches of orange. The New Player’s 1894-S dime plus the Richmond-JAS and BRS 1894-S dimes all have natural toning.

Charles Browne is a grader and analyst for a leading wholesale firm. He is also an instructor at ANA grading seminars. In his view, this dime is a “premium quality Proof-64,” and it is “one of the nicest 1894-S dimes” that Browne “has ever seen in more than thirty years as a professional numismatist.” Browne makes clear, though, that “the Richmond [? James A. Stack] 1894-S dime is definitely superior to this one.” This New Player’s 1894-S dime “brought more than the $1,250,000 or so” that Browne “figured it would bring.”

The Richmond-James A. Stack 1894-S dime is widely regarded as the finest known. It was PCGS certified Proof-66 in 1990, and was NGC graded PF-66 when it was auctioned for $1,322,500 in March 2005. When it sold privately during the summer, for $1.9 million, it was again PCGS graded 66. Proofs are manufactured differently from business strikes. As all 1894-S dimes were struck as Proofs, there is not a need to keep pointing out here that particular 1894-S dimes are Proofs.

The BRS 1894-S is probably the second finest known. It was PCGS graded 64 in 1992, PCGS graded 65 earlier than 2005, and NGC graded 66 in 2005 or ‘06. It sold for $1,035,000 in Heritage’s January 2005 Platinum Night event at the Florida United Numismatist’s convention.

This just auctioned dime, the New Player’s 1894-S, is PCGS graded 64. It is at least the fifth finest known, and may possibly be the third finest.

What do these grading numbers mean? There is no way to completely explain coin grading. The state of preservation and aesthetic appeal of a coin are the central factors involved in determining its grade. Higher grade pieces are typically worth much more than lower grade coins of the same type and date. Indeed, a higher grade piece is often worth many multiples of a lower grade piece.

In May 2007, I wrote about a 67 grade 1893-S dime, which is much different from an 1894-S and it is not a Proof. It is PCGS graded, and it sold at a Heritage auction for $63,250. A Good-04 grade 1893-S dime is worth less than $15! A 64 grade 1893-S would be worth around $2000, maybe 3% of the value of the 67 grade ‘93-S that sold in May.

Before the auction, most market participants were really not sure how to value this 64 grade 1894-S dime. There was an aura of excitement in the room when the opening bid, adjusted for the buyer’s commission, was announced to be more than $1.1 million! About a half dozen bidders were in the running before a Virginia dealer indicated $1,380,000. It then became clear that the old auction record for a dime was broken.

Next, Laura Sperber bid $1,437,500 ($1.25m+15% buyer’s commission). David Schweitz immediately joined the contest with a bid of $1,495,000. Sperber hesitated, talked on her cell phone, and then raised her paddle.

Kevin Lipton, who was also talking on a cell phone, asked the auctioneer for permission to “cut the bid.” He was told that the next bid must be $1,610,000, which amounted to an extremely reasonable increment of 3.7%. Bidding increments in coin auctions often range from 5% to 10%. Lipton declined to raise his bid to that level, and Sperber became the winning bidder.

Sperber informed me that her firm, Legend Numismatics, is the buyer of record. My interpretation of her remarks is that she was buying this dime on behalf of an individual, and it has now been formally sold to him (or her).

She declined to identify or discuss the buyer other than to say that he (or she) “is not one of the usual suspects.” He (or she) is not one of Sperber’s established collector-clients nor is he the collector who calls himself ‘TradeDollarNut,’ a longtime Sperber associate. As Sperber used the term “new player” in response to my questions, I chose to name this dime the New Player’s 1894-S.

Discussions of coins are much clearer, and more precise, when individual coins have names. Besides, it is a long established tradition in the coin collecting community for Great Rarities to have names.

Prices for Great Rarities have been trending upwards for several years. In the mid 1990s, Jay Parrino was buying numerous Great Rarities and boldly expressing his opinion that Great Rarities were undervalued. Back then, there were few people who would pay more than $200,000 for a coin. Many extremely rare coins are now worth three to five times as much as they were worth in the mid 1990s.

Consider the first coin to ever sell for more than a million at auction, the Eliasberg-Parrino 1913 Liberty Nickel, the finest of five that exist. It realized $1,485,000 in May 1996. Earlier in 2007, Sperber and her partners sold it privately for $5 million.

In January 1990, the finest known 1894-S dime sold for $275,000 in the Stack’s auction of the James A. Stack, Sr. collection of dimes, the all-time finest collection of that denomination. The late James A. Stack is not related to the family that founded the Stack’s auction firm. Fifteen years later, in DLRC’s Richmond III sale, this same dime was auctioned for nearly five times as much.

Consider the value of the one 1792 half dime that has been PCGS certified as a special “Specimen” striking. In July 1993, it was then PCGS certified SP-66, and it was auctioned for $96,250. At some point over the years, the PCGS upgraded it to SP-67. In April 2006, Heritage auctioned this same half dime for $1,322,500, more than thirteen times the amount that it realized in 1993. A 1792 half dime is not even a Great Rarity!

For a coin to be a Great Rarity, there must be fewer than twenty-five coins of the same type and date (year and Mint location) known to exist in the present, including both business strikes and Proofs, and including all die varieties. Amazingly, in this same Stack’s October auction event, four coins sold are Great Rarities, three U.S. coins and one privately issued gold coin. Please look for articles about these, on CoinLink, very soon.

While it is widely believed that ten 1894-S dimes exist, only six have been seen by the coin collecting community since 1990. I have examined five of these six. The one of these six that I did not see is NGC graded AG-03 (the third lowest possible grade), and is said to have a prominent arc-shaped cut on the obverse (front). Its place in the condition rankings is obvious enough. Curiously, Laura Sperber sold this AG-03 1894-S in 1990, and she was the successful bidder for the BRS 1894-S in Jan. 2005. She has thus been involved in transactions of three different 1894-S dimes.

David Schweitz, the underbidder for the New Player’s 1894-S dime, was previously part owner of the BRS 1894-S dime, long before it was called the BRS 1894-S. In October 2002, he and John Feigenbaum bought it and later sold it to the collector who consigned it to Heritage’s January 2005 Platinum Night event. Furthermore, Schweitz advised the collector D. Rosenthal who bought the finest known 1894-S in DLRC’s Richmond III sale, on March 7, 2005.

In Schweitz’s view, the New Player’s 1894-S has “the most eye appeal of any 1894-S dime” that he “has seen.” Further, Schweitz declares that it “definitely grades Proof-65”!

Although it is deeply toned, I personally believe that the Richmond-JAS 1894-S dime has the best look of any 1894-S dime. The New Player’s 1894-S does have a lot of eye appeal, and very few imperfections. I believe that it could merit a low 65 grade.

Unlike others who are or were convinced that the Eliasberg 1894-S deserves a 65 grade, I strongly thought the Eliasberg 1894-S grades just 64. In advance of the Jan. 2005 FUN auction, Heritage cataloguers sharply argued that the BRS 1894-S, which was not yet called BRS, is of higher quality than the Eliasberg 1894-S dime. I have no reason to challenge this point.

I suggest that the New Player’s 64 grade 1894-S, which Stack’s just auctioned, is of higher quality than the Eliasberg 1894-S dime. I admit, though, that I have not seen the Eliasberg 1894-S in a long time.

The Heritage cataloguers also asserted that the BRS 1894-S is superior to the Richmond-James A. Stack 1894-S. A very prominent collector, and recognized grading expert, put forth a similar remark in an Internet forum. Most experts in 19th century silver coins, however, hold that the Richmond-James A. Stack 1894-S is the finest known, and that is my opinion as well.

Quality is one factor that determines the demand for coins. Rarity and popularity are also central factors. All 1894-S dimes are intensely demanded, including the two lowest grade ones, which grade AG-03 and Good-06, respectively. A major reason is that Barber Dimes are very popular.

The 1873-CC ‘No Arrows’ dime is rarer than the 1894-S. There is only one known, the Eliasberg piece, and it sold for $891,250 at a B&M auction in July 2004. It, however, is a Liberty Seated Dime. There is more demand for Barber Dimes than for Liberty Seated Dimes.

Like many of my friends, I collected Barber dimes when I was a kid. At coin shows, I also saw adults buying them. Many dates in the Barber dime series were then available for around $1 each. For less than $5 each, several somewhat scarcer dates could be easily purchased.

Even now, the least scarce dates can be obtained for less than $2 each, and many better dates for under $15. Indeed, a large percentage of the dates in the Barber dime series are obtainable in Good condition, at modest prices, usually less than $30 each. Only the 1894-S, the 1895-O and the 1893/2 overdate would necessarily cost more than $100 each.

So, numerous collectors, rich and poor, beginning and advanced, have collected Barber dimes ‘by date,’ and dreamed, at one time or another, about owning an 1894-S dime. As there are thousands extant of every other date in the series, it is the 1894-S date that stands out. Often, wealthy adult collectors seek the rarities that they dreamed about when they were kids. It does not surprise me that 1894-S dimes are each worth a fortune.

I was very surprised that the New Player’s 1894-S realized more than $1½ million on Oct. 17. I was only a little surprised, in Jan. 2005, when the 65 grade BRS 1894-S brought $1,035,000. Before 2005, the auction record for an 1894-S dime had been the $451,000 paid for the Eliasberg coin in May 1996, and prices at the Eliasberg sales tended to be above the market levels that then prevailed. Even given the increasing demand for Great Rarities, I expected this one to sell for less than it did.

I very much like this 1894-S dime. It was a pleasure to view it, and fun to see a half dozen bidders energetically vie for it. In all the years that I have covered coin auctions, the selling of this 1894-S dime was certainly one of the more exciting moments.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

Photos used with permission and courtesy of Rare Coin Wholesalers – Steve Contursi

Throughout the broad range of U.S. coinage from 1792 to the present day, this issue is arguably the most significant of any that has ever been struck. Although still recorded as a pattern issue in some references, most numismatists now consider the 1792 half disme to be a regular issue coin.

Slightly smaller than a modern dime and weighing half as much. Disme (pronounced, “deem”), is an early spelling of the word, dime.

Over the years, much has been speculated and much has been written, but little is known for sure. Many false and unsubstantiated claims have appeared in print about this coinage issue. Among such claims is one that suggests Martha Washington posed as “Miss Liberty” for the engraver. Another claim that remains unsupported is that the Washingtons provided their family table service for the coinage.

Both of these claims date back to 1860, when James Ross Snowden wrote: “The bust of Liberty is popularly supposed to represent the features of Martha Washington who is said to have sat for the artist while he was designing it … This piece is said to have been struck from the private plate of Washington, which is not unlikely, considering the great interest which he took in the operations of the infant mint, visiting it frequently, and personally superintending many of its affairs.”

With respect to the Martha Washington issue, Martin Logies, President of the Cardinal Collection Educational Foundation has stated, “Many 19th century collectors referred to the coin’s design as the ‘Martha Washington half disme’ because the portrait resembled the President’s wife, however, the head’s side of the coin actually depicts a symbolic female representation of Liberty.”

Regarding the issues of the source of the silver used to coin the half disme, it is generally accepted that George Washington did, in fact, provide the silver for these pieces, however Numismatic researcher Karl Moulton disagrees.

Based on original letters and documents in the Library of Congress, Moulton contends that the silver used for the half dismes was supplied by the government, and not by Washington or Jefferson. His version of the history of this issue suggests that David Rittenhouse made arrangements for the purchase of silver for these coins. Further, the coins were struck in mid-July from dies prepared by Jacob Perkins, copied in part from the other 1792 dies by Robert Birch and Joseph Wright. (Some research suggests that the single pair of dies used for these coins was designed and engraved by a British medalist, William Russell Birch, rather than the Robert Birch who was associated with the Mint in those early years and previously credited with the coin’s design.) The die sinker was John Harper, and the planchet adjuster and coiner was Henry Voigt. Karl Moulton is preparing a history of the first Mint, to be published under the title “Henry Voigt and Others Involved with America’s Early Coinage”.

However, we do know that the little half dismes were the very first coins authorized by President Washington under the Mint Act of 1792. Thomas Jefferson, who was Secretary of State at the time, personally received the coins on behalf of Washington.

A number of different pattern coins were struck by the U.S. in 1792, but the half disme is the only one that was produced in large enough quantity to be considered a regular issue. Late in the year, President Washington referred to these coins in his November 6, 1792 National address.

The President stated: “In execution of authority given by the legislature, measures have been taken for engaging some artists from abroad to aid in the establishment of our Mint. Others have been employed at home. Provisions have been made for the requisite buildings, and these are now putting into proper condition for the purposes of the establishment. There has been a small beginning in the coinage of half dimes, the want of small coins in circulation calling the first attention to them.” The entirety of this final sentence clearly tells us that these coins were intended for circulation, especially the second part of this sentence..

The actual mintage is not known, although evidence points to 1,500 coins, and this seems appropriate, based on the number that are still in existence today, estimated between 200-400 pieces. We know that these coins were struck in July 1792, prior to completion of the actual Mint buildings, thus they were struck at another location. That location is generally believed to be John Harper’s cellar,at the corner of Cherry and 5th Streets, just a short distance from the Mint site.

A period painting by John Ward Dunsmore of New York portrays General and Mrs. Washington, Alexander Hamilton and wife, Thomas Jefferson, David Rittenhouse, Tobias Lear, Henry Voight and Adam Eckfeldt inspecting these first coins.

For over 200 years, these coins have been among the most prized numismatic items ever issued by the United States. Numismatic scholar Walter Breen wrote, ‘Their historic context has made these half dismes among the most prized American silver coins.’

Specifications:

Designer: Robert Birch and Joseph Wright
Mintage: 1500 [est.]
Denomintion: Half Disme
Diameter: 17.5 millimeters
Metal content: .8924 silver, .1076 copper
Weight: 1.35 grams

Additional Resources :
The Half Disme of 1792: Introduction
Unique Specimen Floyd Starr Half-Disme to be Auctioned!

Last Updated : 10/16/2007

On Wednesday, Oct. 17, a Choice Uncirculated 1876-CC Twenty Cent piece will be offered by Stack’s in New York City. It is graded “MS-64” by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS). As of 01:30 AM on Tuesday, Internet bidding already pushed the price over $200,000. A large variety of U.S. coins and many other numismatic items are included in this auction event.

This 1876 Carson City (NV) issue is an attractive coin, and is moderately brilliant. Its reverse (back) is very attractive and features a cool, very frosty eagle that glows in vivid contrast to gray-silver fields. There are a few hairlines and small contact marks here and there, but these are not particularly distracting. As on all 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces, the letters in LIBERTY are doubled. Other design elements are doubled as well.

Twenty Cent coins were only minted for circulation for two years, in 1875 and ‘76. People confused them with quarters, and generally found them to be annoying. The silver mining industry, directly and indirectly, had influenced several members of Congress to sponsor legislation mandating a Twenty Cent coin.

Twenty Cent pieces have been favorites with collectors for a very long time. Even in the 19th century, collectors demanded them. For two additional years, in 1877 and ‘78, Proof Twenty Cent pieces were specially made, many of which were sold directly to collectors by the Philadelphia Mint.

Estimates vary widely regarding the number of 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces in existence. As it is very likely that there are fewer than twenty-five are known, it can be concluded that it is a Great Rarity. For a definition of a Great Rarity, please see my CoinLink articles on 1841 Quarter Eagles or 1856-O Double Eagles, and my relevant discussion of the concept of rarity in my article on 1888 $3 gold coins.

In the 1980s and 1990s, quite a few 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces were auctioned. The James A. Stack 1876-CC was auctioned by Stack’s in March 1995. A West Coast dealer was the successful bidder, at $99,000. It has mellow light russet and green toning, with touches of blue. After the auction, it was PCGS graded “MS-65.” James A. Stack Sr., who is not related to the family that founded the coin auction firm, bought this coin from Mehl’s mail bid sale of the very famous William Atwater collection.

Two of the finest known 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces were sold by Bowers & Merena (NH) in the 1980s, the Emery-Nichols and Norweb pieces. Unfortunately, I have not seen either of them. My understanding is that, by 1988, both had been graded MS-65 by the Numismatic Guaranty Corp (NGC). Many silver coins that were graded MS-65 in 1987 or 1988 have since been graded MS-66 or -67. As the PCGS has, along the way, graded two as MS-66, could these be the two?

The Norweb coin has (or had) attractive medium toning, while the Emery-Nichols 1876-CC is (or was) naturally bright, or so I have been told. In 1988, Andy Lustig owned them both. A few years later, Jay Parrino owned them both. My guess is that the PCGS graded MS-66 1876-CC that Parrino advertised in 1995 is the Norweb piece.

Now, the PCGS registry listing of the “Driftwood Collection” includes an 1876-CC that is said by the owner to be the Norweb coin. This listing is not accompanied by images. I have no reason to doubt that the Driftwood 1876-CC and the Norweb 1876-CC are the same. Could the NGC graded MS-66 piece that Heritage auctioned in October 2001 also be the Norweb-Driftwood 1876-CC?

In March 2001, Superior offered at auction an NGC graded MS-66 1876-CC that reportedly sold for $161,000. Coin markets were very weak at the time. The Superior cataloguer identified it as the Emery-Nichols 1876-CC. The serial number on the NGC holder was 700000-001. The evidence that I have collected so far suggests that the Emery-Nichols 1876-CC was auctioned by B&M in Nov. 1984, was owned by Lustig in 1988, was owned by Parrino in the mid-1990s, and was offered by Superior in 2001 (and maybe in 2003 as well?).

From all the hearsay that has come to my ears over the years regarding the quality of particular 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces, it seems very plausible that the Emery-Nichols and Norweb pieces are the two that are PCGS graded MS-66. It is also possible that someone at NGC made a clerical error, and the Emery-Nichols piece is still in an NGC ‘MS-66′ holder, but not included in the NGC census.

Other 1876-CC Twenty Cent pieces have ‘entered the marketplace’ in recent years. In March 2002, Stack’s auctioned an uncertified 1876-CC. It was sold privately in 2003 by the firm of David Lawrence (DLRC), after it had been NGC graded MS-65. Later, it was graded MS-65 by PCGS. Within the last thirty days, DLRC sold it again. It is said to have been earlier in the famous F.C.C. Boyd, Edwin Hydeman and Reed Hawn collections.

If I had seen the Emery-Nichols and Norweb pieces, I would probably be writing about them in more definitive terms. After I gather more information from experts who have seen these and have attended some of the pertinent auctions that I missed, I hope to put together a clear roster incorporating condition rankings and pedigrees. I would then include my comments regarding the Eliasberg 1876-CC and a couple of others that I saw long ago.

In recent years, the nicest 1876-CC that I have seen is the Neil-Richmond coin. It is a really appealing Twenty Cent piece that has been overlooked collectors, researchers and other coin enthusiasts.

This 1876-CC was auctioned by DLRC in the Richmond III sale on March 7, 2005. It is (or then was) NGC graded MS-64, and its grade is certainly at least in the high end of the MS-64 range. It has medium to deep, natural toning, though it is not too dark. It features a neat, dusky, purplish-steel tone. Several of the design elements, including Miss Liberty, are outlined in green. There is a pleasant, rich green tone about the numerals and covering much of the reverse (back) outer fields.

The Neil-Richmond 1876-CC has very few marks, all of which are minor, and has a small number of faint hairlines, especially in the upper reverse inner field. Many collectors would not even notice these imperfections.

Overall, the Richmond 1876-CC is very attractive with a soothing, balanced blend of natural tones. It was earlier in the famous Neil collection that B. Max Mehl sold, with some fanfare, in 1947. In 2005, it sold for $158,125. John Hammrick was the successful bidder. He was acting on behalf of a Southern collector.

Buyers for 1876-CC 20 cent pieces are usually either looking to complete a set or wish to enjoy owning a special rarity and view it as an entity that stands on its own. A set of business strike Twenty Cent pieces requires only five coins: 1875, 1875-CC, 1875-S, 1876, and 1876-CC. Before 1942, the absence of a mintmark almost always indicated that a coin was struck at the main branch in Philadelphia. There are a large number of collectors who have the other five dates, and need only an 1876-CC to complete their respective sets.

There is no doubt that the 1876-CC Twenty Cent piece is legendary and attracts more attention than some other Great Rarities, such as 1829 $5 gold coins. Many adult coin collectors started as kids, and kids tend to acquire at least one Twenty Cent piece, as this ’strange’ denomination is so curious. Further, kids tend to dream about owning an 1876-CC. It is common for wealthy adult collectors to acquire rarities that they dreamed about when they were kids. Moreover, thousands of coin collectors get started as adults and are intrigued by Twenty Cent pieces. Most beginning collectors learn fast that the 1876-CC is a Great Rarity and is the key to whole twenty cent denomination.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

An 1870-CC Double Eagle ($20 gold coin) is ‘in the news’ as one of the finer pieces sold privately in the middle of August. It had surfaced at the ANA Convention.

Bob Green of Park Avenue Numismatics sold this 1870-CC to a Nevada collector for an amount greater than $400,000!

As it did not come from a famous collection, at least not in recent decades, I will refer to it as the Green 1870-CC to distinguish it from others of the same date. The Green 1870-CC is certified, graded and encapsulated by the Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC). Its “AU-53” grade indicates that it is certainly one of the ten finest 1870-CC Double Eagles, possibly even one of the two or three finest?

I am not aware of any 1870-CC Double Eagles that grade MS-60 or higher. Many of those that currently grade AU were graded as Extremely Fine in the 1980s or early 1990s. Likewise, many that were graded Very Fine in the past few decades have been certified as “Extremely Fine” over the past ten years. There are two Extremely Fine grade increments, EF-40, EF-45, and four in the AU range: AU-50, AU-53, AU-55, and AU-58.

Grades of MS-60 to -70 roughly approximate the range relating to the traditional grading concept of ‘Uncirculated.’ In 1988, the late researcher Walter Breen asserted that the 1870-CC is “unknown” in uncirculated. David Akers, the foremost expert on U.S. gold coins, stated that he never saw an uncirculated or “Mint State” 1870-CC. Curiously, one other expert, in a somewhat recent book on Double Eagles, estimates, without any pertinent references, a population of one or two Mint State 1870-CC Double Eagles.

I have not found any convincing evidence of an ‘Uncirculated’ or MS 1870-CC ever existing after 1870. It may be true that no one saved any before these coins went into circulation.

The ‘CC’ mintmark stands for the Branch Mint in Carson City, Nevada, where coins were minted from 1870 to 1893. For many dates in several denominations, uncirculated ‘CC’ pieces are extremely rare. In the late 19th century, a very large percentage of coin collectors lived in the Eastern United States, particularly New England and the Middle Atlantic States. In 1870 in Nevada, there may not have been anyone who was seriously collecting $20 gold coins.

There are four categories of potential buyers for an 1870-CC Double Eagle. (1) There are a small number of people who collect all Liberty Head Double Eagles (1850-1907) ‘by date.’ (2) There are many collectors who specialize in Carson City coins, usually of more than one denomination. (3) There are always speculators and others who seek to buy and resell important and expensive coins for profit. (4) There are a sizeable number of collectors who enjoy owning very rare coins, especially famous ones, even if such coins are not intended to be parts of sets.

Most of the demand for an 1870-CC Double Eagle comes from collectors who specialize in Carson City Coins. Some collect all silver and gold Carson City coins. Others focus on just silver or gold.

The 1870-CC is much rarer than any other CC Double Eagle, and is rarer and more famous than all CC Half Eagles ($5 gold coins) and Eagles ($10 gold coins). The 1870-CC Double Eagle is the Queen of Carson City gold.

It is not the rarest, business strike Liberty Head Double Eagle. Please see my CoinLink articles on the 1854-O and the 1856-O, both of which are very likely to be rarer. If the 1861 with the Paquet reverse is deemed to be a date of its own, then it is the rarest business strike Double Eagle. Among Type 3 Double Eagles (1877-1907), there are four Philadelphia Mint dates from the 1880s that are extremely rare in business strike format. The 1854-O, ‘56-O, and 1861 Philadelphia Paquet are all Type 1 ‘No Motto’ Double Eagles (1850-66).

In addition to being the first and rarest Carson City Double Eagle, the 1870-CC is the rarest date in the Type 2 Double Eagle (1866-76) series. The Motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ was added in 1866, and, in 1877, design changes were made including the ’spelling out’ of the word DOLLARS on the reverse (back of the coin). From 1850 to 1876, an abbreviation, ‘D.’, was used.

Douglas Winter estimates that from thirty-five to forty-five 1870-CC Double Eagles exist. Walter Breen, Don Taxay, and David Akers all thought that this date is considerably rarer than Winter’s estimate would indicate. Several other experts, however, have followed Winter’s lead, without really providing an explanation or any evidence of at least thirty-five existing.

There are two varieties, which Winter explains in an awkward manner. I have attempted to simplify and clarify the distinction. (1) The CC mintmark lies above the N and the T of TWENTY D., and the mintmark sort of straddles the area above these two letters. As the CC mintmark is largely in between the N and the T, this is the ‘in between’ variety or just ‘B’ for short. (2) On the other variety, the first C in CC is clearly above the N and the mintmark is, for the most part, above the N. In my view, there are thus the B and N varieties, for ‘Between’ and the letter ‘N.’

So far, I have individually identified six 1870-CC-B coins and ten or eleven 1870-CC-N Double Eagles. It may be true that the variety ‘B’ is rarer than variety ‘N’. If so, very few collectors would care. Does anyone seriously collect Carson City gold coins, or Liberty Head Double Eagles, by die variety?

Coins are struck with dies, and, often, more than one pair of dies is used to manufacture a coin of a specific date and type. Collecting by ‘die variety’ would involve seeking coins struck from every single pair of dies, even if that means obtaining a dozen examples of one date. There are hundreds of people who collect Bust Half Dollars (1794-1836) by die variety. For technical, financial, and practical reasons, it is very unusual for anyone to collect late 19th century gold coins by die variety.

The two 1870-CC die varieties are important as they play a role in authentication and better enable experts to identify individual 1870-CC Double Eagles. For example, I am certain that the just sold Green 1870-CC is not the 1870-CC Double Eagle that was formerly in the famous Amon Carter Collection. One reason that I am certain is that the Green 1870-CC is of variety ‘B’ while the Carter 1870-CC is of variety ‘N.’

Which is the single 1870-CC Double Eagle that the NGC has graded “AU-55”? The Jeff Browning ‘Dallas Bank’ collection contained many rare gold coins that are among the finest known for their respective dates. The ‘Dallas Bank’ 1870-CC was graded ‘Extremely Fine’ when it was auctioned in 2001. In the PCGS registry, it is stated that the Browning 1870-CC is not PCGS certified and this coin is “estimated” by at least one PCGS expert to grade “EF-45.” Could the NGC have graded it as AU-55? I do not know.

In January 2004, Heritage auctioned an 1870-CC that has been graded AU-53 by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS). It then realized $368,000, the auction record for the date. I have not seen it. Could this 1870-CC have been ‘cracked out’ of its PCGS holder and then submitted to NGC? Of course, it could have been, but did the NGC grade it AU-55?

The Eliasberg 1870-CC was catalogued as Very Fine 20/30 in 1982. Later, it was “estimated” in the PCGS registry that the PCGS would, if it was ever submitted, assign an “EF-40” grade to the Eliasberg 1870-CC Double Eagle. Given trends in grading, an AU grade for the Eliasberg 1870-CC may be plausible. Perhaps it already has been certified? I would be surprised, however, if the NGC graded it as AU-55.

The NGC graded AU-53 1870-CC is the coin that Bob Green just bought and sold this month. I have identified it as the 1870-CC that Heritage auctioned in Sept. 2003 in Long Beach, California. It was then NGC graded AU-50.

Although the NGC census reports only one as being graded AU-53, Bob Green reports handling two. These are the one that he just sold in August and another that he sold to a Nevada dealer in October 2006. My impression from Green is that he bought the “Wyoming” collection 1870-CC that Heritage auctioned in August 2006 for $359,375. Before October 2006, the NGC upgraded it to AU-53.

At least three different 1870-CC Double Eagles have, at one time or another, been NGC graded AU-50. There are only two currently listed in the NGC census. When the Richmond 1870-CC was auctioned in July 2004, it was NGC graded AU-50. It realized $218,500 in the DLRC Richmond 1 auction in New York. Bob Green reveals that he bought it at the DLRC auction. Green then submitted it to the PCGS. It ‘crossed over’ and became PCGS graded AU-50. Green sold it to a “Hawaiian collector.”

In Orlando, during January 2004, Green purchased a PCGS graded AU-50 1870-CC from Christine Karstedt. She was probably acting as an agent for a collector. Green, in turn, sold it to a collector who is from Nevada, not the same collector who bought an 1870-CC in August 2007. It is common for collectors who live in or near Nevada to specialize in Carson City gold or silver coins.

PCGS and NGC listings of 1870-CC Double Eagles that grade “AU-50” include resubmissions of the same coins, coins that were upgraded from EF grades, and at least one coin that has since been certified as AU-53. Resubmissions are unsurprising. After all, an AU-53 graded 1870-CC Double Eagle may be worth $40,000 to $100,000 more than an 1870-CC that is certified as AU-50. Grading standards for circulated, rare-date gold have certainly become ‘looser’ over the past five to ten years, though have tightened in recent months.

The significant numbers of 1870-CC Double Eagles that the PCGS and the NGC have graded EF-40 or EF-45 probably amount to four to seven different coins that have not since been graded AU-50 or -53. The 1870-CC Double Eagle in the epic Harry Bass collection was PCGS graded EF-45 back in 1999. It sold for $97,750 in October 1999, a very high price at the time. Many of the coins in the Harry Bass collection have since received grades from PCGS that are higher than the grades PCGS assigned in 1999, though I am not sure that the Bass 1870-CC has or ever will be graded higher.

Another PCGS graded EF-45 1870-CC was auctioned by the Goldbergs in June 2000. A third PCGS graded EF-45 1870-CC was auctioned by Heritage in August 1999, for $92,000.

In January 2002, the “Eagle Collection” 1870-CC, NGC graded EF-45, was auctioned by Heritage for $97,750. Brett B. assembled this set. It was strange and confusing to name a set of Double Eagles the “Eagle Collection”! An Eagle is a $10 gold coin.

I have concluded that the Bass 1870-CC, the Brett 1870-CC, the PCGS graded EF-45 coin that the Goldbergs auctioned in 2000, and the one that Heritage sold in August 1999, are four distinct coins. I am not sure, though, how these four compare, quality-wise, to each other, or whether any of the four have since been certified AU-50.

An NGC graded EF-40 1870-CC was auctioned by Heritage in Sept. 2005, at the Long Beach Expo, for $184,000. It is not one of the PCGS or NGC graded 1870-CC Double Eagles that I mentioned above.

Relatively recent auction records include two problematic 1870-CC Double Eagles that have been certified by ANACS, and one that was certified by NCS. This NCS certified 1870-CC, from the Barry Donnell collection, was auctioned by Heritage in June 2004, at Long Beach. It garnered $97,750. Not long afterwards, it was auctioned by Stack’s, in March 2005, at which time it was not certified. My guess is that a dealer bought it in 2004 and removed it from its NCS holder. Stack’s graded it as “Extremely Fine” without a numerical designation. It realized $138,000 in March 2005.

When an expensive U.S. coin is certified and encapsulated by NCS, an affiliate of NGC, it usually means that the coin has problems that were considered to be too serious for it to qualify for NGC certification. The existence of 1870-CC Double Eagles with serious problems must be considered when estimating the rarity of this date.

I have definitely identified eighteen different 1870-CC Double Eagles. I have found records of another three to five that are likely to be distinct from these eighteen.

Bob Green has provided a rather startling list of the 1870-CC Double Eagles that he has personally handled. He is perhaps the foremost trader of coins of this date.

The eighteen mentioned above include 1870-CC Double Eagles that I have seen and those for which I have carefully examined pictures. My research regarding others, in combination with the information that Green provided, leads me to conclude that there are twenty-four to thirty-three in existence. The 1870-CC Double Eagle thus may be a Great Rarity, and is certainly extremely rare. I believe that Winter, Garrett and Guth have all over-estimated the number of survivors. In contrast, Akers’ estimate of twenty to twenty-five may be too low. The appeal of extremely rare Double Eagles and the popularity of Carson City coins in general suggest that the 1870-CC will be famous forever.

©2007 Greg Reynolds

During one of the auctions preceding the recent ANA convention, an 1854-O Double Eagle ($20 gold coin) sold for a record $494,500. Bowers and Merena (California), a division of Spectrum Numismatics, auctioned this 1854-O along with a wide variety of other U.S. coins on August 4. Herein, I will discuss the supply and demand of 1854-O Double Eagles, and I will put forth my findings regarding the pedigrees (ownership histories) of three of them.

The ‘O’ mintmark on the reverse (back of the coin) stands for New Orleans. All New Orleans Mint Double Eagles struck from 1854 to 1861 are very rare. The 1856-O is probably the rarest, and the 1854-O is the second rarest New Orleans Mint Double Eagle ($20 gold coin). Aside from an 1861 Philadelphia issue with a stylistically different reverse die, the 1854-O and the 1856-O are the two rarest business strike Liberty Head Double Eagles (1850-1907).

Back in March, this same auction firm, Bowers and Merena, auctioned an 1856-O Double Eagle for $356,500. It was from the collection of the late Jack Bains. That was the last time that an 1856-O has sold at auction.

This 1854-O and the Bains 1856-O are both certified, graded and encapsulated by the Professional Coin Grading Service. The PCGS and the Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC) are the two leading grading services. This 1854-O is PCGS graded AU-55 and the Bains 1856-O is graded AU-53.

In my CoinLink article on 1856-O Double Eagles, which was published just prior to the sale of the Bains piece, I estimated that fifteen or sixteen 1856-O Double Eagles exist. The 1854-O is not as rare as the 1856-O.

There are no 1854-O Double Eagles that grade MS-60 or higher. Many of those that currently grade AU were previously thought to grade Extremely Fine, when standards were stricter. There are four AU grades 50, 53, 55 and 58.

The PCGS reports grading two as AU-53 and three as AU-55, including the one that just sold. The NGC reports twelve that grade from AU-53 to AU-58, plus four in the EF-45 to AU-50 range. It is likely that the 29 that PCGS and NGC together report really amount to twelve to seventeen different coins. Consider, as an important example, that the Harry Bass 1854-O was PCGS graded AU-55 in 2000 and was NGC graded AU-58 by 2004.

For an 1854-O, the difference in value between grade increments may be anywhere from $15,000 to more than $100,000. “Probably the finest example known,” say Jeff Garrett & Ron Guth in their gold coin encyclopedia (2006, p. 428), is the 1854-O that was found in the shipwreck of the S.S. Republic, which is NGC graded AU-58. According to Garrett & Guth, “it was sold by private treaty in late 2004 for $675,000.” Monaco Financial purchased a large number of gold coins from the firm that salvaged the S.S. Republic, including the 1854-O. Did Adam Crum, the head of Monaco’s rare coin division, sell the Republic 1854-O for $675,000?

A price of $675,000 for an 1854-O is above the values listed in most price guides. In late 2004, the prevailing auction record was the $304,750 paid for the Richmond 1854-O, NGC graded AU-53, at a DLRC auction in New York in July 2004. If it is true that the S.S. Republic 1854-O is the finest known, then it would be unsurprising that it sold for a dramatic premium over the values of the second and third finest 1854-O Double Eagles.

The NGC graded AU-58 1854-O that Heritage sold at the FUN auction of January 2002 is the same as the 1854-O that Heritage sold at the January 2004 FUN auction. This point is explicitly put forth in the Heritage catalogue of January 2004. It is also evident from a comparison of the images of the two offerings. In 2002, it brought $92,000, and almost exactly two years later, it garnered $189,750. Its value thus more than doubled! If it had been auctioned again in Jan. 2006, would its price have doubled again, and realized $380,000?

The collection of Double Eagles that Heritage auctioned, at the 2002 FUN convention, was assembled by Brett B. I will thus call the 1854-O that was auctioned in Jan. 2002 and Jan. 2004 the Brett 1854-O. It may be true that the finest Double Eagles of this date are the Brett 1854-O, the Republic 1854-O, and the Dallas Bank-Browning 1854-O, and the Bass 1854-O. Three of the four are NGC certified AU-58, and the Dallas Bank 1854-O may be the fourth so certified?

The Dallas Bank-Browning 1854-O was auctioned in October 2001 for $160,000. It was uncertified. At the time, coin markets were weak, and there was not much interest in rare date gold coins that grade less than 60. It is certainly true that bidders were thinking of this coin as one of the top two or three, if not the finest. The S.S. Republic 1854-O had yet to be discovered.

Bowers and Merena (New Hampshire) auctioned most of the coins from the Harry Bass collection in New York, during 1999 and 2000. On May 26, 2000, the Bass 1854-O sold for $103,500, which was then an astounding price for an 1854-O. During the 1990s, 1854-O Double Eagles were auctioned for prices ranging from around $20,000 to $46,000 in Jan. 1999. In May 2000, the Bass piece was the only 1854-O to be PCGS graded AU-55. Now, there are three listed, at least one of which is a lower graded 1854-O that was upgraded. The Bass 1854-O is no longer PCGS graded AU-55, though it still may be one of the three listed in PCGS reports.

I have identified the NGC graded AU-58 1854-O that Heritage auctioned in July 2005 as the Harry Bass piece. There is no pedigree information regarding this 1854-O in the Heritage catalogue. In July 2005, the Bass 1854-O sold for $431,250, more than four times the price the exact same coin realized a little more than five years earlier!

Before the B&M-Spectrum auction on August 4, this $431,250 result was the auction record for an 1854-O Double Eagle. The $494,500 record for a PCGS graded AU-55 1854-O is further evidence that the market for rare pre-1880 gold coins is very hot. (Please read some of my other recent articles on CoinLink and find additional evidence.)

My research demonstrates than several auction events are repeat appearances of the same 1854-O Double Eagles. This date is thus much rarer than a list of auction appearances might suggest.

In Jan. 2005, Heritage auctioned a PCGS graded AU-53 1854-O for $368,000. The Heritage cataloguer stated that it is from the “Cincinnati Collection.” I have identified it as the same 1854-O that David Akers auctioned in July 1990 for $23,100, a small fraction of its 2005 price. Akers’ graded it as “EF-45” in 1990. I saw it. I believe that ‘AU-53′ is a fair grade. Plus, it is a really attractive coin.

I have determined that the PCGS graded AU-50 1854-O that the Goldbergs auctioned in October 2000 is the same 1854-O that Heritage auctioned at the Long Beach Expo during the winter of 2004. It realized $81,650 in 2000 and $161,000 in 2004. If it were offered in 2007, would it sell for more than $300,000?

As for the 1854-O that B&M just auctioned for $494,500, I strongly believe, though I am not completely certain, that it is the same 1854-O Double Eagle that Heritage auctioned in February 2001, for $87,400. If so, the PCGS has jumped its grade from EF-45 to AU-55! It is true that, in Feb. 2001, $87,400 was in the price range for an AU grade, not an ‘EF’, 1854-O. Was it graded “EF-45″ by PCGS years earlier, when standards were more stringent? A price increase from $87,400 to $494,500, in 6 ½ years, is another example of the increased demand for Type 1 Double Eagles (1850-1866), and for circulated rare date gold coins.

In August 2006, Heritage auctioned a PCGS graded AU-50 piece, from the “Wyoming” collection, for $301,875. Before DLRC sold the Richmond 1854-O in July 2004 for $304,750, a price of more than $300,000 for an 1854-O was almost unthinkable.

How rare are 1854-O Double Eagles? David Akers, probably the nation’s foremost expert in gold coins, has, as recently as October 1997, estimated that twenty to twenty-five 1854-O Double Eagles are around today. Winter estimates twenty-five to thirty-five.

The number of auction appearances may have led some experts to over-estimate the number of 1854-O Double Eagles that survive. In addition to the point put forth above that many auction appearances are repeats of the same coins, I hypothesize that an extremely large percentage of known 1854-O Double Eagles have been auctioned over the last quarter century. Some came from some of greatest collections of all time, which happened to be auctioned over the past quarter century or so, including the Eliasberg and Pittman collections.

From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, there was very little interest in circulated, rare date gold coins. Advanced collectors of gold coins were focused on coins that graded MS-64 and higher. So, as old-time collections, and collections built in the 1960s and 1970s, were sold, the emerging 1854-O Double Eagles were traded among dealers and speculators, and repeatedly consigned to auctions. So, observers of coin markets could certainly get the impression that there are more than twenty-five 1854-O Double Eagles in existence.

I am not asserting that all known 1854-O Double Eagles were traded during the last quarter-century, just an extremely large percentage of them. I am aware of the PCGS graded EF-40 1854-O Double Eagle that B&M auctioned in July 2005, for $241,500. It was in the same family since early in the 20th century. It is difficult to estimate how many such coins may be locked away somewhere. Could there be many families that just keep an 1854-O Double Eagle, which may be worth from $200,000 to $600,000, after the collecting family-member has long been deceased? I suspect that there are only one or two such 1854-O Double Eagles.

There are also some collectors, particularly of lower grade examples, that may never submit their coins for certification. Coins owned by such collectors, however, were often submitted at earlier or later times by dealers or other collectors. After all, both the PCGS and the NGC were founded in the mid 1980s. How many never certified 1854-O Double Eagles could there be? Garrett & Guth report that the Smithsonian has only one, and they do not mention 1854-O Double Eagles in any other museums.

I suggest that there are twelve to seventeen different 1854-O Double Eagles that have been graded by PCGS or NGC, and five to seven others. My estimate of seventeen to twenty-four is in line with Akers’ estimate of twenty to twenty-five, which should probably stand, for now. There does not seem to be any evidence that there are more than twenty-five. So, it seems that the 1854-O Double Eagle is a Great Rarity.

Copyright © 2007 Greg Reynolds for CoinLink