Options
Longacre, did you loan this gold coin (1844-O Proof Eagle) to the New Orleans Mint?
RYK
Posts: 35,789 ✭✭✭✭✭
Link to article on DW website
After a probable absence of over a century, perhaps the most important New Orleans gold coin in existence is coming back to its ancestral home. My friend Paul Hollis, a coin dealer from Metairie (a suburb of New Orleans), has arranged for the unique Proof 1844-O eagle to be placed on exhibit at the New Orleans mint. This coin, with an estimated value of $2.5 million, goes on public display November 1 and will also be taken around Louisiana on tour by Hollis.
The New Orleans Mint began producing coins in 1838. The very first issue struck by this mint was a group of 20 half dollars to inaugurate coinage and a small group of Proof half dollars were made in 1839 (plus at least one Dime dated 1839-O is known that has been designated a “Specimen” by NGC). So, we know that the New Orleans mint had experience with making Proof coins and that the quality of these was comparable to that seen at the Philadelphia mint.
In 1844, the New Orleans mint produced at least one example of a Proof half eagle and eagle. Remarkably, both still exist and, even more remarkably, both are superbly preserved. Why were they produced and who were they struck for?
Unfortunately, contemporary documentation does not exist that gives the definitive answer to these questions, so we have to make some assumptions. I think it’s safe to say that the Proof 1844-O gold set was struck in commemoration of either a special event or, more likely, a visit to the Mint by some special VIP or dignitary. My guess would be that they were made for personal presentation to President John Tyler.
What is interesting about these 1844-O Proofs is that there were no other Proof gold issues produced at the branch mints until 1854 when San Francisco struck a double eagle in this format. But in the case of the 1854-S double eagle, the reason for producing the coin is obvious as it was made to commemorate the opening of the new mint. One would think that if New Orleans were to have made gold Proofs, they would have struck a small number of Proof quarter eagles in 1839 or half eagles in 1840. But if these were ever made, they have disappeared without a trace.
The earliest numismatic reference to the 1844-O Proofs appears to be in the Seavey descriptive catalog that was published in 1873. In 1890 when they were sold as part of the famous Parmelee collection the eagle sold (as Lot 1151) for the princely sum of $16 while its companion half eagle brought just $9.50. It was next seen in the collection of William Woodin who was famous both as a coin collector and as Secretary of the Treasury for Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.
Woodin sold his primary collection at auction in 1911 but I am not aware if the Proof 1844-O set was included in either of his two sales (it would be easy to check these in the sale catalogs but my library does not contain them). It is documented that Woodin also sold many of his coins privately to the leading collectors and dealers of the day. I do not know this with certainty but I surmise that the 1844-O Proofs went into the Brand collection.
From here on, the pedigree chain for the 1844-O half eagle and eagle gets murky. In fact, I think it is possible that the coins were split up when the Brand collection was being sold in the 1920’s and 1930’s.
The half eagle was in all likelihood sold to Waldo Newcomer and then likely went into the Colonel Green collection. From there it is believed to have been sold to King Farouk and remained in this collection until it was forcibly sold at auction in 1954. It was later sold to a prominent Texas collector (not Harry Bass, by the way...) by Abe Kosoff in 1959. I was shown the Proof half eagle in the early 1990’s by the Texas dealer Michael Brownlee. It was still in the original flip with Kosoff’s writing on it. I used it as the cover coin of the first edition of my New Orleans book. The coin is a superb Gem.
Brownlee told me soon after showing me the Proof 1844-O half eagle that he believed the Proof eagle existed but he didn’t know where it was. In fact, he claimed, he had been searching for it for many years as he desperately wanted to reunite the two coins in the prominent Texas collection (which he had built and was, rightfully, very proud of).
If Newcomer did, in fact, buy both the half eagle and eagle, it is not likely that Col. Green would have purchased the eagle as he was not specializing in this denomination. What would be interesting to learn was, if the coins were indeed split up, in which collections did it reside between the 1920’s and the 1990’s.
Did Brownlee know where this coin was all along? I have my theories but won’t expound on them here. I will say, however, that his search for the elusive Proof 1844-O eagle was rewarded when, in the late 1990’s, he announced that the coin was “rediscovered.” It was sent to NGC where it was ultimately graded PR66 Cameo. Then, it was offered for sale by dealer Robert Leece at various price levels for a number of years.
Finally, the coin was sold to a Florida collector in 2006 by Louisiana dealer Chuck Bloomfield. The price was reported to be $1.5 million.
I have had a chance to examine the Proof 1844-O eagle and it is a simply amazing coin. It is 100% unquestionably a Proof with incredible cameo contrast and a deep “black and white” appearance that one wouldn’t expect to see on a Proof gold coin from this era, let alone one from New Orleans.
If you are going to be in the New Orleans area in the coming months, I urge you to take a look at this great coin and to visit the New Orleans mint.
Doug Winter
11/5/08
0
Comments
Unfortunately, it is not my coin (but it looks incredible). Did Hollis run for congress, or was that last year? Did he win?
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
1. Gold
2. Proof
3. Branch Mint
4. Pre 1858
To certain collectors, 1 of these will have a special meaning. Gold still remains sort of elusive, kids learn at school that gold is scarce and valuable. Proof means a special striking with special care, not for general circulation and normaly sold at a premium. Branch Mint is something which was invented after 45 years of production at only 1 Mint in Philadelphia and every branch Mint has a special meaning to collectors. Pre 1858, well wasn't that when coin collecting slowly became more popular?
Combine all of this and you get something beautiful and unique as the above coin. Proof early copper is incredibly rare, Proof early gold even more so. But a branch Mint, proof gold coin minted before proof coins were generally sold for collectors is a true miracle to own, hold, study or just look at it on a computer screen.
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
As to reason for the coin’s existence, one might better look at VIP visitors to Philadelphia (particularly semi-official types from France or Britain), or State Department uses, rather than anything in New Orleans. (Records from the latter half of the 19th century occasionally include requests for coins by the State Department. These are commonly for a VIP or a national collection or some unspecified use. I would expect similar occurrences during the pre-Civil War era, too.)
<< <i>One of the few “branch mint proofs” that really looks like a mirror proof. However, my hypothesis is that all of the “real” branch mint proofs were actually struck at Philadelphia. That was the only mint that had a medal press capable of bringing up the design as on the 1844-O examples.
As to reason for the coin’s existence, one might better look at VIP visitors to Philadelphia (particularly semi-official types from France or Britain), or State Department uses, rather than anything in New Orleans. (Records from the latter half of the 19th century occasionally include requests for coins by the State Department. These are commonly for a VIP or a national collection or some unspecified use. I would expect similar occurrences during the pre-Civil War era, too.) >>
Who's to say the coin was actually struck in 1844?
Fascinating coin and story. I have no plans to visit the N.O. in the near future. Perhaps someday it may be an exhibit at the FUN or ANA?
by Harry Bass, 29 Nov 1994
Perhaps some will be interested in learning that one of the great rarities in U.S. gold coinage has reappeared after 83 years!
In 1844, the New Orleans mint struck at least one Presentation (Proof) specimen of both the $5 and $10 coins for that year.
A $5 example has been long since been located. It resides in a prominent collection (not mine).
A $10 example first appeared in the Parmalee Sale in 1890. What is believed to be the same coin subsequently appeared in the Woodin sale of 1911, where it appeared as one of the plated (photographed) coins.
The reappearance of this coin after a hiatus of so many years is most gratifying for any doubt as to its existence may now be dispelled.
That it is in fact the 1911 Woodin specimen is a certainty. The Woodin plates were actual photographs of remarkable resolution. All distinctive features evident on the surfaces of both the obverse and reverse of the coin can be seen in the respective photographs.
Coin to coin comparison of the specimen with all known die pairs/mulings used in 1844 at the New Orleans mint further reveals that the subject coin was struck from a die pair that was also used for the striking of business strike coins. This rules out any speculation that it may have been struck at other than the New Orleans mint.
Microscopic comparison of the specimen with a very nice business strike leads to the surmise that the Proof/Presentation strike was struck subsequent to the striking of the business strike. The surfaces of the specimen are clearly of Proof quality, being fully mirrored. The central figures have a "Cameo" appearance.
The occasion, if any, for the striking of the both the $5 and the $10 is not known to the writer.
Numismatics is a wonderful science! (And its fun, as well!)
Harry Bass
You would want to look at the 44-O $5 proof and see if that a different reverse too.
<< <i>RYK-
You would want to look at the 44-O $5 proof and see if that a different reverse too. >>
I am surprised that someone who is into this stuff has not worked all this nonsense out. I am more of a macro guy, not a die variety type. I have said time and again, any coin that I need a loupe (or magnified image) to appreciate, is of little interest to me. No doubt if Harry Bass had owned the coin, he would have id'ed it.
The 1844-O $10 gold piece probably
made as a gift for someone of importance is listed
in the 100 Greatest U.S. Coins at No. 39.
Even though it was created 46 years earlier, not many
people knew the $10 gold coin existed until it was listed
in an auction book in 1890.
The coin belonged to Lorin Parmelee, who had one of the
largest collections of rare coins at the time.
In 1890, the coin sold at auction for $16. The $5 companion
piece sold for $9.50. This is the last known time that both
coins were together.
The $10 coin resurfaced in 1911, as part of the William
Woodin auction, and sold for $50.
Like its $5 companion piece, the $10 coin had disappeared
until recently.
If anyone on these boards is planning to check this coin out at the New Orleans mint anytime soon, PM me- I will treat you to a dozen on the halfshell at the ACME or a po-boy if raw oysters are not your thing.
I'm serious.
-Randy Newman
<< <i>I am going to do more research on this, but the reverse of the proof issue seem different from the circulation strike issues that I can find in the Heritage archives. This may lend some credence to RWB's theory that it was minted in Philly. Perhaps we can match it to the reverse of the Philly issues (I do not have time for this now) and declare that the coin was indeed struck in Philadelphia, perhaps even at a much later date. >>
I'm going to assert that it looks like the same variety as this coin. It does not seem to be a common variety. I could not find any 1844-(P) coins that have the same high date position in the Heritage or Stack's archives. Really, I should see what Winter says in his book about 1844-O varieties.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
The coins exist, but New Orleans did not have the mechanical means to make them. With Philadelphia proofs made and sold “off-the-books” any number of special specimens could have been made for order or speculative sale. While years of reading original mint documents has quelled much of my initial “conspiracy-itis” and “delicacies” ideas, the pre-1858 period remains potentially an open cesspool of self-dealing and insider trading. (Geeez…sounds like the mortgage derivative mess…)
As for the die linkages, I recommend that be completely revisited. John Dannreuther’s work on other early gold indicates that it might be best to wipe the slate clean and start over. From the photos, the dies look too good to have been used much.
The coins are worth what that are, but I suspect we do numismatics a disservice by simply accepting the “accepted wisdom” as definitive.
The 1844-O Eagle that is the subject of this thread was first published in "The Mint at New Orleans" publication by J L Riddell dated 1845, and owned by Eric Newman, who wrote this up in the April 1968 issue of "The Numimsatist", p.439. The text is included in the article, and mentions that the dies were prepared by impression from male dies at the Mint in Philadelphia.
This coin, along with other "O" Mint coinage, was also illustrated again in a similar 1847 version of Riddell's New Orleans Mint pamphlet, which was purchased earlier this year from a British auction by a prominent mid-west bibliophile. These two Riddell publications are unique at this time, and should not be confused with Riddell's 1845 monograph of silver dollars.
FWIW, I am the only person who has have seen these two publications (in the same week no less) and can confirm that the New Orleans Mint was quite proud of this particular coin. It had to have been struck in 1844 because it appeared on the front cover of the 1845 New Orleans Mint publication.
There was no mention in either of these two publications about the Eagle that was illustrated. There was nothing on why, how, or any reasons for such a coin to have been minted, unless it was the very first strike from new dies, on the newly acquired press, which today, usually results in a "proof" designation for a Branch Mint coin.
Any thoughts on the meaning of this phrase? Can you quote the exact wording?
This is complete speculation on my part, but it almost sounds as if proof dies were prepared in Philadelphia and sent to New Orleans for striking.
Good find Karl!!!
PS: Charles Barber called a master die the "mother die," but his letters, etc never refer to"male die" or "Daddy die."
"The coining process consists essentially in compressing the prepared gold or silver blank, with very great force, between engraven dies of steel, of extreme hardness and high polish. The dies are prepared for this Mint by impressions from male dies at the Mint in Philadelphia. The letter O, placed usually under the eagle, is intended to designate the coinage at New Orleans."
Since Riddelll specifically mentions a new dollar size press now being in operation, which was variable in tonage, it is my belief (not theory) that since this was the first gold coin struck on that press, and it was the highest denomination as well, that the coiner set the striking force at the highest level for this specific example, which was saved as soon as it was struck, similar to the Half Eagle from the same year and Mint. Note also the words "high polish" used by Riddell.
According to Riddell, there were four presses in operation at the the New Orleans Mint at this point in time.
Interesting quote. A general statement about how/where dies are made, but doesn't say anything about the items in question. I recall the medal press at Philadelphia being quite a bit larger than any of the other presses – including ones used for dollars.
Does Riddell state when the new dollar press arrived? Since the first New Orleans dollars were not struck until 1846, the half dollar was the largest diameter and hardest alloy coin struck in 1844.
Coinosaurus: I gather the die shipment information is in the Archives (apparently in the correspondance files), as RW Julian included detailed tables for 1838 and 1839 in his September 1968 Numismatic Scrapbook article. I don't know if anyone has gathered the later gold die shipment information.
RWB: Interestingly, Riddell begins Part II of the 1845 pamphlet by saying: "Silver and Gold are coined at this Mint into dollars, halves, quarters, dimes, half-dimes, eagles, half-eagles, and quarter-eagles." Breen (p.438) reports that dollar dies were shipped to New Orleans for 1846 and 1847, 1848 and 1849. He makes no mention of dies shipped for 1845, however, but it's certainly possible that dies were shipped but not used, especially given Riddell's specific mention of the "new press in the New Orleans Mint, for the coinage of dollars."
firstmint: Interesting comments! I have some questions, though:
How can you tell that the eagle illustrated on the cover of Riddell's 1845 pamphlet is, in fact, the proof coin? I presume the cover is what is pictured on p. 42 of the 9/15/08 issue of Coin World, as it is the same as the copy of the pamphlet that I have. It just shows the reverse of an O-mint eagle. Has anyone compared the cover illustration with the proof coin to determine if it's the same reverse die?
How are you able to confirm that the New Orleans Mint was "quite proud of this particular coin"? As you say, there's no mention of a special coin in the text of the pamphlet.
...it is my belief (not theory) that since this was the first gold coin struck on that press, and it was the highest denomination as well, that the coiner set the striking force at the highest level for this specific example, which was saved as soon as it was struck, similar to the Half Eagle from the same year and Mint.
Can you expand on this and provide some support? Inquiring minds really want to know!
If anyone would like to read Riddell's text, an updated version was published in the
June 1847 issue of DeBow's Review. The article is unsigned (at least in this electronic version), but, in an article in the November 1846 issue, DeBow says: "Upon the United States Mint the able pen of Professor Riddell, of this city [New Orleans], will, at an early day provide us a paper." The inference, is, I think, easily drawn.
Also, a portion of the text (Part II of the 1845 pamphlet) was reprinted in Hunt's Merchant's Magazine in 1846: Article.
Finally, if anyone would like a PDF of the Numismatist article, PM me your e-mail address and I'd be happy to send it to you.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
The reverse image of the "O" Mint eagle on the front cover of Riddell's 1845 pamphlet is the same one used for Riddell's 1847 pamphlet, which displays both sides, thus confirming the 1844 date.
When I visited with the two owners of these publications this past summer, I was able to compare these interesting items and answer questions each had about the other's publication. For instance, there's two pages of plates, showing the obverse and reverse of all denominations that had been struck at the NO Mint included in the 1847 pamphlet. Only the reverse of the Eagle is displayed on the 1845 pamphlet, which is quite a bit smaller in size. Interestingly, the front blue cover has absolutely no printing on it.
I don't know if this was a lithograph from a daguerrotype or an engraving, or a woodcut. However, it was very precise, like the images in Riddell's 1845 Silver Dollar monograph, which he explains were from "metal types prepared indirectly from the coins themselves". This leads me to believe they were copied from electrotypes, which was quite the popular process at that time, having been first used at the Philly Mint in early 1841 (Jacobi invented this process earlier in the late 1830's).
The xerox image in the April 1968 Numismatist article is of terrible quality and doesn't look anything like that on the real pages.
At this juncture, I want to state that I never mentioned this coin to be a Proof. In my learning, I was taught that one of the characteristics of any 19th century American Proof coin was that it had to be from multiple strikes, which this one wasn't. A knuckle-joint steam press simply can't do this.
Since this informative publication was written about the New Orleans Mint, by the Melter and Refiner, who was also a medical doctor who later invented the binocular microscope, it would make sense that the highest denomination, most recently struck gold coin would make an interesting cover item. The fact that it was plated in another similar publication a few years later would tend to make it a desirable and admired feature for any NO Mint publicity, such as what is currently going on now. That is why I mention they were quite proud of this example - and why wouldn't they be?
The NO Mint had made several 1838-O half dollars when they got the 3 original presses, and I believe they followed that "tradition" by making this Eagle and then a Half Eagle to match; seeing how they weren't going to make any silver dollars that year (1845), for whatever reasons.
With making a first strike gold coin, which is much softer than silver, on a heavy tonage press (probably over 100 tons of pressure) all of the details of the dies would be brought out. With "high polishing" on brand new dies, the result would certainly look like a Proof coin, which it certainly does, just like the 1854-S Double Eagle, the 1855-S Quarter, Half and $3 gold coins, etc.
In my opinion, based on what William E DuBois and several Mint Directors labeled these first new strikes from regular production dies, this particular coin would certainly class as a "MASTER COIN" which was the actual terminology used by U.S. Mint personel at the time.
Hope this provides some clarifications about my comments.
Edited to add - not to be critical, but the earliest mention of these two "Proof O Mint" gold coins is NOT to be found in the 1873 Seavey descriptive list (which was sold en bloc to Lorin Parmelee). The Seavey list contains "Proof" examples for the date and denomination, but fails to mention anything about them coming from a Branch Mint, like it does for the Uncirculated 1851-O Three Cent piece and the 1844-O Half Dime. However, there were "Proof "gold coins struck at Philadelphia as part of a complete set in 1844 (ref. Pittman sale).
Thanks very much for the clarifications.
It would be interesting to compare the printed images with the actual coin - to determine if they're the same coin.
Also, you're right - I should have typed ["proof"] instead of [proof]; I was too casual with my terminology.
(I well remember the very long thread we had a while back in which many people argued endlessly about 19th century "proof" - and proof - coins!)
Check out the Southern Gold Society
(Aside: Note what Riddell says about when struck metal becomes money on p.534 of his article. That basic definition remains. The "monetization" nonsense from Treasury on the 1933 $20 is more clearly rubbish.)
This is of course an assumption on my part that the reeded coller dies were made at the Branch mints rather than shipped from Philadelphia, although evidence does exist for the different reed counts on all of the seated coinage produced at New orleans as compared to those struck at Philadelphia (see several different articles by John McCloskey in the Gobrecht Journal over the course of the last 20 years).
While the evidence presented by Karl seems to confirm the striking was done in New Orleans, perhaps the reed count can be another confirmation.
Neat discussion by the way!
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
You probably should have typed 1844, not 1944; and yes, there are so called "Proof" 1844 Philadelphia gold coins known.
It's just that I don't know the current owners of the 1844 set that was sold in the October 1997 John Pittman I sale, lot 833.
If we could somehow have these examined with the 1844-O eagle, I'm sure it would be very interesting to see the results of a side-by-side comparison, rather than just looking at the images.
Edited to add - in his 1960's monograph, Breen mentions there were six pairs of dies used for the 1844-O mint eagles. Whether or not this is accurate information is unknown to me.
The short essay by Harry Bass (quoted by Broadstruck on page 1 of this thread) does say that the dies for the eagle were identified as having been used for other eagles struck at the New Orleans Mint.
It doesn't say if the coin had been struck once or twice, though.
Edited to add: I just looked at the entry for the 1844-O eagle in the 2nd edition of DW's New Orleans book. He identifies two varieties, which apparently have the same obverse. The obverse of the coin pictured at the start of this thread is not the same as the obverse of the coin pictured in the book - the date is higher on the "proof" coin.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
And the obverse die on the 1844 Philadelphia proof is clearly different from the 1844 New Orleans proof - the date is lower on the Philadelphia coin.
<< <i>Quarternut,
The short essay by Harry Bass (quoted by Broadstruck on page 1 of this thread) does say that the dies for the eagle were identified as having been used for other eagles struck at the New Orleans Mint.
It doesn't say if the coin had been struck once or twice, though.
Edited to add: I just looked at the entry for the 1844-O eagle in the 2nd edition of DW's New Orleans book. He identifies two varieties, which apparently have the same obverse. The obverse of the coin pictured at the start of this thread is not the same as the obverse of the coin pictured in the book - the date is higher on the "proof" coin. >>
Dave, Not sure if you meant to address me or not. I was mearly stating that an examination of the reeded edge should confirm if this coin was struck at the New Orleans Mint, as the collar die used should have a different reed count than the ones used at the Philadelphia Mint.
Whether or not the obverse and reverse dies were used on other New Orleans coins, does not prove that this particular coin was struck there as well, but the reed count might.
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
Weren't the dies hardened after they arrived at the New Orleans Mint?
If so, wouldn't that mean that they wouldn't have been used at Philadelphia (before shipment)?
(Of course, there's no rule that says a die couldn't have been hardened at Phildelphia, used to strike a proof (or "proof") coin and then shipped to New Orleans.)
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Each collar die was engraved just like the working dies and if they were engraved at the Branch Mints instead of the Philadelphia Mint (which I believe there is ample evidence to support this), the reed counts will be unique to the New Orleans Mint.
I believe that at least the reverse die was not completely hardened before it was sent to the Branch Mints as the minmarks were more than likely applied at the Branch Mint. Does anyone have documentation for this or am I just way off here?
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>
Think it will sticker and/or cross?
ON THE PEDIGREE OF THE 1844-O EAGLE
1844O_10_N66_cam Saul Teichman writes:
With regard to the 1844-O Eagle, the coin was offered in Elder's sale of the Woodin collection.
It was listed as lot 1263 and sold to Virgil Brand for only $50 and was entered into the Brand journal as #57068. The coin was not appreciated then as other gold proof eagles purchased at the time brought the prices shown below:
1838 proof $10 lot 1201 $200 Journal id - 57063
1843 proof $10 lot 1203 $100 Journal id - 57065
1848 proof $10 lot 1213 $100 Journal id - 57066 – later to Pittman
1858 proof $10 lot 1223 $102.50 Journal id - 57067 same price as Jewett coin (this could also be the Jewett coin)
As most bibliophiles know, Woodin kept his half eagles which I believe were sold to Newcomer in the mid-1920s thus the 1844-O half eagle has a different pedigree.
material at the National Archives except for limited areas, primarily 1837–1841.
1) The die records are available for New Orleans in the 1840s, in both the general correspondence
and a special die record book.
2) Although the New Orleans Mint used steam presses for coinage, it is entirely possible that they
had a screw press for special purposes. This could be determined by reading the correspondence
between Philadelphia and New Orleans.
3) As a rule dies were sent unhardened to branch mints and were machined there to fit the presses.
After being machined, they were hardened by the coiner. (Dies were never prepared at the branches
from hubs in the 19th century.) Collars were normally prepared at the branches but it is possible that
a collar was sent out in 1842 for the first eagle coinage at New Orleans and was still in use in 1844.
4) Although the language of the Riddell article in the 1847 DeBow journal is a bit odd, it does correctly
describe the coining process.
5) The suggestion that the 1844–O proof eagle was struck at Philadelphia is possible but if so this would
be in the correspondence. It is more likely, however, to have been made at New Orleans.
Denga
In 1868, the Director of the Mint, H.R. Linderman, was directed to have the machinery at the New Orleans Mint examined to determine whether it could be used at the Carson City Mint, as "it is not probable there will ever be any necessity for renewing the business of coining in that city [New Orleans]."
Maximilan Bonzano, Melter and Refiner of the New Orleans Mint from 1849-1861 (and Assayer in Charge 1874-1878) and Samuel James (an "experienced machinist") visited the Mint. Their reports are dated July 24 and August 12, 1868, respectively.
Mr. Bonzano described the presses at the Mint: "One large press for double eagles, dollars, half-dollars, and eagles; in perfect order. One for half-dollars, eagles, half-eagles, and quarters; in perfect order. One for half and quarter-eagles, dimes; in perfect order. One for gold dollars, dimes, and half-dimes; also in perfect order."
Mr. James reported that, "with the exception of the hydraulic press belonging the melter and refiner's department, there is no piece of machinery that can be advantageously removed for use in the Carson City mint. The presses in the coiner's department are four in number; two only are adapted for coinage of nickel, the remaining two being too small for any coin above the dime; they are about the size of Nos. 1 and 2 presses in the Philadelphia Mint."
Neither mentions a screw press, nor does Mr. Bonzano mention any missing pieces of equipment.
Source: Senate Executive Document No. 55, 41st Congress, 2nd Session, February 1870.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
In the September 15, 2003 issue of Coin World, there is an article by Greg Lambousy, Director of Collections of the Louisiana State Museum, that discusses the inventory of the contents of the New Orleans Mint that ocurred in February 1861 at the order of the Secession Convention of the State of Louisiana. The report of the inventory was signed by William Elmore, mint Superintendent and B.F. Taylor, mint Coiner.
(I exchanged e-mails with Greg about this article when it appeared and, as I recall, he said that, as far as he knew, until the Coin World article, the inventory hadn't appeared in print since the records of the Secession Convention had been published in 1900 or thereabouts.)
According to the inventory, the only coin presses in the New Orleans Mint were four steam presses: "One large dollar coining press, One half dollar coining press, One quarter dollar coining press and One dime coining press."
If you recall, firstmint said At this juncture, I want to state that I never mentioned this coin to be a Proof. In my learning, I was taught that one of the characteristics of any 19th century American Proof coin was that it had to be from multiple strikes, which this one wasn't. A knuckle-joint steam press simply can't do this.
Therefore, I would suggest that if firstmint is correct and if the 1844-O eagle in question was minted in New Orleans, then it is not actually a proof coin, but rather a specimen (or whatever name you prefer for a specially struck coin that isn't a twice-struck proof).
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Nice job in digging up reliable accounts!
In doing research about the 1853 USAOG $20 "transfer die forgeries" that were marketed by John Ford in 1958, I came across an article in The Numismatist (March 1958) titled Coin Grading which was written by Abe Kosoff (some reading this may remember him as a coin dealer) which read in part:
"Facts are stubborn things, a proof is a proof; if it isn't, thinking or saying it is will not make it so. An early strike with a brilliant surface is veneered with a high sounding theory and sold as a proof - that doesn't make it a proof. Nor does it stop sellers from offering coins as proofs".
The TPG's hadn't been invented yet...
Mint machinery to New York but this was ruled out as well. Three points are worth making:
1) The 1868 report is interesting but not definitive. Until someone reads the letters and fiscal accounts
of the N.O. Mint we will not know just what machinery existed there in 1844. A screw press might have
been on hand in 1844 and sold off, say, in the 1850s.
2) The report mentions an hydraulic press in the refinery department. Beginning in 1894 the Philadelphia
Mint used an hydraulic press to strike proofs and medals though whether the N.O. press could have been
converted for such use is not known.
3) Screw presses were not all that rare in 19th century America and I would be surprised if one or more
were not to be found in private businesses in N.O.
Denga
In the 1887 U.S. Mint Report (page 8) a letter from Bonzano mentions that the 4 Confederate half
dollars were struck on a screw press as the relief was too high for the regular steam presses.
Denga