Only three regular issue U.S. coins are unique. The 1870-S half dime, the 1873-CC No Arrows dime, and the 1870-S three dollar gold piece are each known by a single example. Next in line is the 1861 Paquet double eagle from the Philadelphia Mint. Once considered a pattern, this coin is clearly a regular issue double eagle. Some might consider the 1866 No Motto quarter and half dollar to be regular issue coins as well, although others consider these coins to be patterns. Others might point to individual die varieties of early U.S. coins that are unique, but among regular dates within the U.S. coinage series, just three issues are unique, and the 1861 Paquet twenty is next. This important rarity is absolutely necessary for a complete set of Liberty double eagles.

Just two examples are known. One of these is a Superb Gem and the other is lightly flawed, but both pieces represent one of the most important issues in the entire scope of U.S. numismatic history. Although a third example of the 1861 Paquet double eagle has been rumored, only two have been positively identified during the 145 years since they were struck. The obverse is identical to the design created by James Longacre for the Liberty Head double eagle, which was introduced to regular issue coinage in 1850. In fact, the obverse die is from the same coinage hub that was introduced in 1859, a slight modification of the original hub. Anthony C. Paquet prepared a modified reverse design in 1860. The Paquet reverse is essentially a copy of the Longacre design, made from new letter punches that provide a taller and more compact appearance, leaving more space between words. The rays are closer to the lettering, providing more room for the oval of stars. The actual die field is slightly larger in diameter, with a narrower rim, and this was the downfall of Paquet's design. Further die differences will be discussed below, along with some fascinating comparisons between the various issues.

In the Norweb catalog, Dave Bowers noted: "Late in 1860 this new Paquet reverse was adopted as the standard design for regular coinage. Dies dated 1861 were furnished to the branch mints at New Orleans and San Francisco, and examples were made up for internal use in Philadelphia." Dies were ready at least by November 1860, for it was then that the Paquet reverse dies for the San Francisco coinage were shipped to that Mint. A short time later, on December 10, 1860, dies for the New Orleans Mint Paquet double eagle were shipped to Louisiana. A note accompanying the dies sent to New Orleans was addressed to the coiner of that Mint: "The reverse of the double eagles is from a new original die, and will require a modification of the milling to suit the border." An unknown quantity of pieces was coined at the Philadelphia Mint beginning on January 5, but coinage was soon stopped due to concerns that the larger field area on the reverse die would cause problems striking these coins due to unaligned stress points. At the same time, word was sent to the New Orleans and San Francisco mints to take the new dies out of service. In New Orleans, these instructions were received and complied with in a timely manner; however, the San Francisco Mint continued striking examples through the end of January. Mint Director James Ross Snowden sent further details to San Francisco: "In preparing the new dies for 1861, a slight deviation in the diameter of the double eagle was inadvertently made. As it is highly important that a proper uniformity of size should be maintained, I telegraphed you today to 'use the old reverse of the double eagle, and not the new one.' "

In A Guide Book of United States Double Eagles, Bowers discussed the aspects of strikingthis issue: "Although the Mint was fearful that the narrow rim would cause problems in striking, such problems are not evident in known specimens of this or of the San Francisco Mint version. Messrs. Hodder, Ford, and Rubin [Michael J. Hodder, John J. Ford, Jr. and P. Scott Rubin co-authored an article "The 1861 Paquet Double Eagles" for The American Numismatic Association Anthology] suggest that the circulation strikes made at Philadelphia in early January may have had problems and may have been melted, and that the two specimens under consideration in the present text may have been made later as numismatic delicacies, and that is why they have no evidence of striking problems."

In the same reference, Bowers made additional commentary about the "numismatic delicacy" theory posed by Hodder, Ford, and Rubin: "The authors discuss the title subject in detail, give much interesting Mint data, and suggest that the surviving 1861 Philadelphia Mint double eagles with the Paquet Reverse--two have been accounted for--may have been a special numismatic issue, rather than unmelted remainders from the January 1861 coinage. I consider them to have been regular issues. The cataloguers of the Dallas Bank Collection specimen sold by Stack's and Sotheby's in 2001 similarly presented the coin as a regular issue, not a pattern or numismatic delicacy."

The present cataloger also considers this to be a regular issue, as does David Akers. Walter Breen considered them to be regular issue coins, and Andrew Pollock, III also considers the Paquet double eagles to be regular issues and not pattern coins as they are unlisted in his reference. In A Guide Book of United States Coins, editor Kenneth Bressett lists both the Philadelphia and San Francisco Mint Paquet coins among regular Liberty double eagles. All of the evidence points to these as regular issue coins. In 100 Greatest U.S. Coins, Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth summed up the pattern versus regular issue debate: "At one time, this incredibly rare coin was considered a pattern or experimental issue. It has been shown, however, to be a regular issue United States coin struck for general circulation. In 1860, Anthony Paquet, an engraver at the Philadelphia Mint, modified the reverse design for the double eagle. The new design is very similar to the standard issue, but the reverse letters are much taller and slender in appearance. There are also several technical variations with regard to the positioning and size of the lettering. In late 1860, the Paquet reverse became the standard design that was adopted for the regular issue coinage of 1861 double eagles. Dies were shipped to the branch Mints of New Orleans and San Francisco. Actual coinage on high-speed presses began in January of 1861 in Philadelphia. It was feared that the wider fields and narrow rim would cause breakage of the dies, so the use of Paquet dies was discontinued. However, these dies that were used for coinage experienced no problems at all, proving their withdrawal was unnecessary."

Unusual Situation

Conventional wisdom suggests that, by the 1860s, reverse dies were produced through use of a hub that contained the entire design. When the Paquet reverse design was produced, dies were made for Philadelphia, New Orleans, and San Francisco. While quite a number of examples survive from the mintage in San Francisco, and two exist from Philadelphia, none are known with the New Orleans mintmark.

It is highly unusual that the Philadelphia and San Francisco reverse dies are entirely different! While logic dictates that these dies, all produced in Philadelphia, should be identical due to the use of hubs, this is not the case. Apparently, two different hubs were produced by Paquet in 1860 or earlier, to create multiple dies for each of the three branch Mints that were then producing double eagles. Pattern double eagles from the San Francisco hub are known with an 1859 obverse. Judd-260 (Pollock-311) is known in copper with just one or two currently identified. It is not positively known if this was struck in 1859 or 1860. Pattern double eagles dated 1860 are known from both hubs. Judd-272a (Pollock-321) is a unique gold pattern made from the hub used for the San Francisco Mint reverse dies, and currently part of the Smithsonian Institution. Judd-273 (Pollock-322) is an extremely rare copper pattern made from the hub used for Philadelphia Mint dies.

As the San Francisco hub had been used for several different patterns, and the Philadelphia hub was only used for a single 1860-dated pattern, it seems logical that the slightly different Philadelphia hub was intended to be an improved version of the San Francisco reverse.

This situation was discussed at length by Hodder, Ford, and Rubin. As stated previously, their article, "The 1861 Paquet Double Eagles," appeared in The American Numismatic Association Anthology. In that article, the authors took an in-depth, highly detailed examination of the reverse dies and the surrounding history of these coins. It is highly recommended reading.

In a July 2006 phone conversation, Rubin explained to this cataloger his belief regarding the two hubs. The hub used for the San Francisco Mint dies was made first, and used in 1859 and 1860, or in 1860 with 1859 and 1860-dated obverse dies. This hub had a slight difference between the obverse and reverse field diameters and dies were produced and shipped to New Orleans and San Francisco. As Paquet continued to refine his design, a second hub was produced, and used to make dies for the Philadelphia Mint. This revised hub had a greater difference between obverse and reverse field diameters, and failed to function properly when the first coins were produced in 1861. This is when notice was sent to New Orleans and San Francisco. Since the Mint in California did not receive immediate word to suspend coinage, they continued with production, and after making appropriate press adjustments, they struck perfectly acceptable coins.