Quick Links:   Collectors Corner | PCGS | PSA | PSE | PSA/DNA | CU



Navigation:


FORUMS > U.S. COIN FORUM [ REFRESH ]
Thread Title: 1866 NO MOTTO Dollar
Created On Saturday August 23, 2003 8:24 PM
Pages: [ << 1 2 3 >> Previous Next ]


MrEureka
Coin Hound

Posts: 16891
Joined: Jan 2003

Sunday August 24, 2003 1:44 PM

User is online View users profile View thread in raw text format

I understand that there is no trace of any undertype from the supposed host coin on the 51-O. Is this why you strongly disagree with the theory? It's a proof - was it struck twice? Would striking the coin twice destroy any evidence of the undertype if it was perfectly aligned? What is your theory of how it was made?

Yes, if it was struck over another coin I expect that you would see a lot more than just the squashed mintmark.

My theory is that a midnight minter did one of the following:

1. He punched a hardened die with an "O" mintmark.

2. He punched a hardened die with an "O" mintmark punch that had not itself been hardened.

If I knew more about the minting process, I'd limit myself to one of the above. Truth is, I don't know if dies are hardened before or after they are punched with a mintmark. I also don't know if mintmark punches need to be hardened in the same way as dies. Can anyone answer these questions?

-------------------------
 Andy Lustig

USPatterns.com

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.


Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Conder101
Choose Your Title

Posts: 12750
Joined: Feb 2001

Sunday August 24, 2003 11:21 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

The dies are hardened AFTER being punched with the mintmark. The punches are also made of hardened steel. If the punches weren't hardened they would wear out or be damaged too quickly punching steel dies. If the dies were hardened before the mintmarks were punched in the metal would have a tendency to chip or spall.

The question is why would he punch the reverse die at all since the minter was trying to create a restrike of the 1851 dollar, and there were no 51-O dollars issued? I would think that it was more likely that an O mint die was ground down to try and remove the mintmark. But the grinding was incomplete for some reason, possibly because they realized that to do so might remove a significant portion of the surrounding design as well.

-------------------------
 slab collector and researcher
reported as of 02/11/05
119 companies
322 production varieties

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



tradedollarnut
been there - done that

Posts: 19292
Joined: Oct 2001

Monday August 25, 2003 5:47 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

I would think that it was more likely that an O mint die was ground down to try and remove the mintmark. But the grinding was incomplete for some reason, possibly because they realized that to do so might remove a significant portion of the surrounding design as well.

If that had occurred, there would be a huge bulge in the area of the mintmark - one that was not apparent when I viewed the coin at ANA.

-------------------------
 Trade Dollar Website

Gobrecht, Seated, Trade Dollar Q&A

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



billboat
Collector

Posts: 2418
Joined: Apr 2002

Monday August 25, 2003 6:39 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format



<< The 1866 no motto coins irritate me, because the guide books insist on listing them in the regular series even though they are fantasy pieces.

You mean like the 1913 Lib nickel? >>

Not to mention the 1804 Dollar (ClassI, II and III)

-------------------------
 Curmudgeon in waiting!

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



drainbamage
Senior Member

Posts: 351
Joined: Jun 2003

Monday August 25, 2003 6:48 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format



<< I keep wondering how long it will be until the missing DuPont coin turns up in another box of junk coins being sold over the counter to a California dealer? >>



No kidding on this one..... if some dumb idiot stole it then he might of sold it to some pawn shop for almost nothing.... makes me sick to think about it.

-------------------------
 Alexandria Collection

It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house. - Proverbs 25:24

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



MrEureka
Coin Hound

Posts: 16891
Joined: Jan 2003

Monday August 25, 2003 6:52 AM

User is online View users profile View thread in raw text format

I would think that it was more likely that an O mint die was ground down to try and remove the mintmark.

If you look at the 51-O in person (I have), it is obvious that the mintmark has been squashed, not ground down. The mintmark is fat, flat and irregular.

Don't rule out the possibility that the midnight minter thought he could sell a 51-O dollar. These guys had a lot of imagination. (Take a look through Judd if you have any doubts about that!)

It is interesting to think that the 51-O dollar was the coin that taught the midnight minter not to try that stunt again. It's the only mintmarked restrike of its era.

BTW, the marks on the mintmark occurred after the coin was struck. Apparently, somebody tried to remove the mintmark, but he quickly gave up. (Edited to say that the post-striking damage did not cause the flattening of the mintmark!)



-------------------------
 Andy Lustig

USPatterns.com

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.



Edited: Monday August 25, 2003 at 7:05 AM by MrEureka

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



BillJones
Choose Your Title

Posts: 14127
Joined: Dec 2001

Monday August 25, 2003 7:12 AM

User is online View users profile View thread in raw text format

The 1866 No Motto silver dollar has never done much for me. It's just a mule that was struck at time when the mint was willing to supply you with about anything you wanted for a price. I don't can much for the 1913 Liberty nickels for the same reason.

The 1804 Original Silver dollars (struck for diplomatic purposes), the 1822 half eagles (3 known and a "natural" rarity because the mintage was low and most of the others were worn out or melted) and even the 1933 double eagle and 1876-CC twenty cent pieces (Coins stuck legally but mostly not released), THOSE are "good" rarities so far as I'm concerned. They were struck under legitimate circumstances, and the “contrivance factor,” if there was one, was pretty low.


-------------------------
 Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



tradedollarnut
been there - done that

Posts: 19292
Joined: Oct 2001

Monday August 25, 2003 7:43 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

Great picture, Andy!

Two things come to mind:

1) If the 'O' were unevenly raised above the surface, it could be evidence of a weak punch from a mintmark punch after hardening rather than strike flattening.

2) If the 'O' was flattened after strike, the metal would naturally flow outward and inward as it was flattened. What is the thickness of the mintmark compared to an 1850-O? If the same, I would tend to agree with your theory. If thicker, I would tend to agree with the overstrike theory.

-------------------------
 Trade Dollar Website

Gobrecht, Seated, Trade Dollar Q&A

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



MrEureka
Coin Hound

Posts: 16891
Joined: Jan 2003

Monday August 25, 2003 7:47 AM

User is online View users profile View thread in raw text format

TDN - More likely, the punch itself flattened in the process of impressing the mintmark into the hardened die. Hence, the fat mintmark.

-------------------------
 Andy Lustig

USPatterns.com

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.


Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



ddink
Expert Collector

Posts: 2870
Joined: Aug 2003

Monday August 25, 2003 8:04 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Do you think that the price on this piece might be held back by the knowledge that there is one more out there somewhere, though presumed to be lost?

-------------------------
 I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



tradedollarnut
been there - done that

Posts: 19292
Joined: Oct 2001

Monday August 25, 2003 8:18 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

More likely, the punch itself flattened in the process of impressing the mintmark into the hardened die. Hence, the fat mintmark

I have a tough time with that one. I'd be more inclined to believe the overstrike theory with perfect alignment on the first strike.

-------------------------
 Trade Dollar Website

Gobrecht, Seated, Trade Dollar Q&A

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



MrEureka
Coin Hound

Posts: 16891
Joined: Jan 2003

Monday August 25, 2003 9:00 AM

User is online View users profile View thread in raw text format

I have a tough time with that one. I'd be more inclined to believe the overstrike theory with perfect alignment on the first strike.

The Gallery Mint should very easily be able to prove me right or wrong. If I owned the 51-O, I'd have already commissioned the experiment.

-------------------------
 Andy Lustig

USPatterns.com

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.


Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Sunnywood
Expert Collector

Posts: 2717
Joined: Feb 2002

Monday August 25, 2003 11:20 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

In my opinion, the 1863, 1864 and 1865 With Motto sets were produced in late 1867 - early 1868, based on the reverse dies used. (I have owned an 1864 and 1865 With Motto, J-396 and J-434 respectively, as well as copper strikings of the 1863 and 1865, and also silver strikings of the quarters.) For example, there were probably seven complete sets 25c-50c-S$1 of the 1865 With Motto produced for collectors.

By contrast it appears that there were two sets of the 1866 No Motto produced. I believe they were likely produced in 25c-50c-S$1 sets just like the backdated With Motto coins. They were probably produced at the same time, and are thus likely backdated fantasy pieces. These coins are interesting and valuable, but they are NOT NOT NOT part of the regular series. The 1866 No Motto has been the subject of a long-term campaign to turn it into a "million-dollar rarity." It is included in the PCGS numbering system, the Redbook, etc. It does not belong there.

There are many other unique "patterns" included in the Judd series. The is merely one of them. I think it is a cool coin, and when I was collecting proof seated dollars, I would have loved owning it along with the backdated With Motto pieces that I had. But let's not start hyping it up even beyond what the coin merits...

I am most interested in legitimate REGULAR ISSUE rarities, not 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, 1894-S dimes, 1870-S pieces, 1885 trade dollars, etc. , although needless to say, I would love to own them all ... These coins have achieved notoriety and high values due to their questionable origins.

Sunnywood

-------------------------

Sunnywood's "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" Toned Morgans - Primary Set (Retired)

Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



tradedollarnut
been there - done that

Posts: 19292
Joined: Oct 2001

Monday August 25, 2003 11:57 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

I am most interested in legitimate REGULAR ISSUE rarities, not 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, 1894-S dimes, 1870-S pieces, 1885 trade dollars, etc. , although needless to say, I would love to own them all ... These coins have achieved notoriety and high values due to their questionable origins.

Understandable - tho in my opinion the 1870-S dollar was a legitimate regular issue. It seems to me that the quality of the surviving pieces precludes them from being presentation coins.

-------------------------
 Trade Dollar Website

Gobrecht, Seated, Trade Dollar Q&A

Edited: Monday August 25, 2003 at 11:58 AM by tradedollarnut

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



MrEureka
Coin Hound

Posts: 16891
Joined: Jan 2003

Monday August 25, 2003 2:21 PM

User is online View users profile View thread in raw text format

I have a tough time with that one. I'd be more inclined to believe the overstrike theory with perfect alignment on the first strike.

One more thought. Take a look at the mintmark on an 1854-O Huge "O" quarter and then tell me what you think.

-------------------------
 Andy Lustig

USPatterns.com

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.


Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Conder101
Choose Your Title

Posts: 12750
Joined: Feb 2001

Tuesday August 26, 2003 11:40 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format



<< f that had occurred, there would be a huge bulge in the area of the mintmark >>


Not if the entire field was ground, not just the mintmark area. Kind of like the 37-D three legged buffalo. The relief od the entire coin wa reduced until the foreleg was missing. But I will admit that the picture posted of the mintmark area does not look like the die was excessively ground down.

The shape of the mint mark does not match that of the O on the 54 Huge O quarter. I can't tell for sure but I don't think the positioning of the mintmark matches that seen on the 1850-O dollar, but it is close. One question would be, Why overstrike another dollar, especially an O mint coin? If it was produced at the Philadelpia mint they would have had planchets readily available. If it was created in New Orleans an overstrike might make sense.



-------------------------
 slab collector and researcher
reported as of 02/11/05
119 companies
322 production varieties

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



MrEureka
Coin Hound

Posts: 16891
Joined: Jan 2003

Tuesday August 26, 2003 1:08 PM

User is online View users profile View thread in raw text format

The shape of the mint mark does not match that of the O on the 54 Huge O quarter.

Correct, but both "O"s look like they have similar origins. In other words, I think that the "Huge O" was also produced by punching the mintmark into an already hardened die.

-------------------------
 Andy Lustig

USPatterns.com

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.


Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Sunnywood
Expert Collector

Posts: 2717
Joined: Feb 2002

Tuesday August 26, 2003 2:21 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

As an addendum to my post above, regarding the 1863, 1864 and 1865 With Motto issues, I have just learned that while the 1865 With Motto seated dollar (J-434) does have a reverse from 1867-1868, the earlier-dated 1863 (J-345) and 1864 (J-396) coins in the upcoming ANR Sale have reverse dies used on regular issue proofs dated 1870 and 1871 respectively.

It looks as though the Mint first made the 1865 sets in 1867-1868, then decided it was a profitable venture, and went on to make the 1863 and 1864 sets in 1870-1871. I still believe the 1866 No Motto sets were similarly backdated.

Sunnywood


-------------------------

Sunnywood's "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" Toned Morgans - Primary Set (Retired)

Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



EVillageProwler
Expert Collector

Posts: 3954
Joined: Aug 2001

Tuesday August 26, 2003 2:28 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

Sunnywood,

For J345 and J396, do they use a reverse die that have doubling that is evident in the motto as well as in the feathers in the left (our view) wing?

Condor,

The position of the MM varied greatly from year to year, and even intra-year. Look at the 1870-CC, which had something like 5 different reverse based on MM positioning.

EVP


-------------------------
 I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Russ
Coin Ferengi

Posts: 63070
Joined: Apr 2002

Tuesday March 02, 2004 4:29 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

TTT for a thread related to a recent event.

Russ, NCNE

-------------------------
 eBay consignment sales.

Coins, Currency and Collectibles from Resco CCC.

If everything looks bleak...
maybe you're facing in the wrong direction.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

Pages: [ << 1 2 3 >> Previous Next ]
FORUMS > U.S. COIN FORUM [ REFRESH ]
View Member Listing | Add To Member Listing

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Terms of Membership

Collectors Universe, Inc., or any subsidiary or affiliate is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any messages.

FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.