FIRST STEAM COIN-NOT ORIGINAL & NOT MODERN YELLOW BRONZE-ANYONE KNOW ABOUT THE 1862 STRIKE?
CoinNewBee
Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
I have a First Steam Coin. It's not the original strike but it's also definitely not the modern yellow bronze.
It has a very fine texture. It's 28mm. The color is a very attractive brown with a hint of olive green. To the eye, it doesn't look as thought it has a textured. It's not a rough sand blasted surface the way the modern re-strike is. It has a shine and almost glow. I do know that a new set of dies were done in 1862 when the coin was re-struck and issued for public sale. I can't find any specific information about that early re-strike. I'd appreciate any additional information.
It has a very fine texture. It's 28mm. The color is a very attractive brown with a hint of olive green. To the eye, it doesn't look as thought it has a textured. It's not a rough sand blasted surface the way the modern re-strike is. It has a shine and almost glow. I do know that a new set of dies were done in 1862 when the coin was re-struck and issued for public sale. I can't find any specific information about that early re-strike. I'd appreciate any additional information.
Always more to know!
0
Comments
The original dies were re-made in 1862 and those coins were sold to the public through the mint. My coin isn't the smooth surfaced copper 1836 original, it's not the "modern" bright yellow. It's a slightly textured medium brown with a hint of olive green. I can't find any information about the 1862 strike like size, color and was it textured.
Always more to know!
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The very first issues were dated Feb 22, but those are a whole different story.
Hope this helps.
njcc
As mentioned, the original medals were made to commemorate the first use of the steam press at the Second Philadelphia Mint, and bore the date February 22, 1836. The original dies were designed by Christian Gobrecht. There was to be a large ceremony at the Mint on that date, at which time the medals would either be sold or handed out. However, the steam press developed mechanical problems, forcing the Mint to cancel the celebration and reschedule the ceremony for the following month, on March 23, 1836. Accordingly, the original medals were melted down, the dies were repunched with the new date, and correct date medals were struck for the rescheduled ceremony. As stated, remnants of the date digit 2 can be seen under the 3 on the corrected medals struck in 1836. However, apparently not all of the original medals, with the February date, were destroyed, as a few are extant and are quite rare. Later, in 1861, Anthony Paquet redesigned the dies, and restrikes were produced using these new dies up into the 1960's.
I have been fortunate to acquire examples of all of the above versions of the 1836 Steam Press medals mentioned above, including the February 22, 1836 dated original. What has not been mentioned by the previous respondents, and one important fact that I have never seen mentioned by anyone regarding these medals, is the following:
1. On the original March 23, 1836 medals, on the side exhibiting the Cap and Rays, there will always be a rim cud at K6:30. This is not seen on the February 22, 1836 originals or on any of the restrikes.
2. The March 23, 1836 original medals have coin rotation, and not medal rotation. I have never seen this mentioned about these medals, but it makes it significantly easier to distinguish the originals from the restrikes. The February 22, 1836 dated medals also exhibit coin (180º rotation, while the restrikes all exhibit medal rotation.
Edited to correct the rotation of the February 22, 1836 medals, which are coin rotation.
<< <i>I have a First Steam Coin. It's not the original strike but it's also definitely not the modern yellow bronze.
It has a very fine texture. It's 28mm. The color is a very attractive brown with a hint of olive green. To the eye, it doesn't look as thought it has a textured. It's not a rough sand blasted surface the way the modern re-strike is. It has a shine and almost glow. I do know that a new set of dies were done in 1862 when the coin was re-struck and issued for public sale. I can't find any specific information about that early re-strike. I'd appreciate any additional information. >>
It is likely that this medal was struck between 1862 and 1901 when sandblasted real bronze, rather than
chemically treated copper, was first used. It is not possible to narrow the time of striking down to a given
year because the finish on the medal, called copper-bronzed by modern collectors, varied according to
the skill of the operator doing the work. The bronzing process used after 1870 was devised by Anthony
C. Paquet, who was also responsible for the new reverse Steam Coinage die of 1862.
<< <i>Coinosaurus may have some information about this for you. >>
You have photographed a few of these for me
I do have some early exotic examples, but I am no expert on the later varieties. It is quite rare that I print out something from the Forum, but I am making a hardcopy of MrHalfDime & Denga's comments.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>Coinosaurus may have some information about this for you. >>
You have photographed a few of these for me
You mean like this one?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
So this is likely struck between 1862 and 1901. The color of my coin is very different from the modern yellow bronze. This is very pretty medium brown with a hint of olive green. Although I couldn't capture it with my photographs, it has a glow to the fields. Is my coin copper bronze or bronze?
The color of my coin is most like, but a little darker than the reverse shown in my original photos at the top of this link.
Always more to know!
There seems to be astounding refined knowledge that you all have about so many coins and medals that are not applied to them during the grading. This coin maybe an example. There is a distinct visual difference between my coin and the modern yellow copper bronze with the dramatic pitting of the surface. Not only do I collect (this coin is probably staying with me) but it's becoming a nice business as well. There would be a monitory difference between the pre and post 1901 strike of this coin. What would it take to have these now additional variety refinements acknowledged by PCGS or NCG?
Always more to know!
<< <i>Mr. Denga I believe you've solved my mystery of the very fine sandblasting.
So this is likely struck between 1862 and 1901. The color of my coin is very different from the modern yellow bronze. This is very pretty medium brown with a hint of olive green. Although I couldn't capture it with my photographs, it has a glow to the fields. Is my coin copper bronze or bronze?
The color of my coin is most like, but a little darker than the reverse shown in my original photos at the top of this link. >>
The questions about this particular medal, and the points raised by MrHalfDime, prompted me to get my
specimens out of the lock box. I have both of the originals, as follows:
1) February 22, obtained from Craig Whitford, from his October 1995 auction. Weight 10.59 grams, VF-XF.
Coin turn.
2) March 23 (recut date from February 22), obtained from Presidential Coin & Antique (Joe Levine), date
not recorded but before 1998. Weight 10.77 grams, R&B Uncirculated, coin turn. No trace of cud on obverse
although the dentils are slightly less struck up at 6:30.
3) I do not own one of the post–1862 pieces.
The February 22 piece is rarely seen; the only current auction price noted is a Stack’s/Bowers result of
$4600, which includes the buyer’s premium. The Heritage archives, which contain a very large number of
coins and medals, do not have the February 22 medal, a further indication of rarity.
The standard weight for the large cent in 1836 was 10.89 grams (168 grains) but the weight of 10.59 grams
noted above, considering the wear, is close enough to have been struck from a light-weight planchet. The
March 23 uncirculated piece, at 10.77 grams, merits a similar comment.
MrHalfDime reports different results on the coin vs. medal alignment, indicating that the specimens he has
seen vary from mine. It would perhaps be of value if those persons owning either a February 22 or pre–1862
March 23 medal (i.e. with repunched date) would post the alignment and exact weight. There is clearly more
to the Steam Coinage medals than meets the eye.
I have looked again at the photos posted by CoinNewBee and must admit some uncertainty. It does appear
to be a striking from after 1862 but before 1901 and therefore pure copper. About 1890 some changes were
made in the bronzing process, creating a darker finish but the piece now in question appears to have a lighter
shade and thus likely pre–1890. It is possible, however, that the piece was actually struck just after 1901 in
real bronze with very light sandblasting. The piece would need to be examined in hand to be certain one way
or the other.
One interesting point concerns the reverse of the posted medal. The letter M of MAR 23 has what appears to
be a mispunched letter at the upper left, probably an M. This point may help distinguish early and late strikes
as well as a different reverse die.
Note: MrHalfDime made a correction to his post on alignment which should be taken into account.
Very cool history. Is there a good literature source for these or should I be printing out the thread as well?
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I have a client who has several of these as well. I remember seeing one of his that was struck over a period large cent.
Julian's book tells a little of the history of these, but no where near the whole story.
njcc
re-punched as well as the M in MINT. There are other elements on the reverse that clearly have been reworked.
Always more to know!
<< <i>Mr. Denga, again you hit the nail on the head. What appears to be a re-punched M in MAR is a piece of lint. HOWEVER as I looked carefully at the coin the 1 in the date has definitely been
re-punched as well as the M in MINT. There are other elements on the reverse that clearly have been reworked] >>
The photography is superb! I have looked at the new views carefully and it now appears that there
is a fine sandblasted field, tending to make me think that this piece was struck after 1901 and is real
bronze rather than copper. I have also re-examined my own March 23 piece and need to correct an
earlier statement. My specimen is struck slightly off center and there is no rim between the denticles
and the edge of the medal at 6:30; I therefore cannot say with any certainty that there is no cud at this
point.
And I also picked-up this nice chocolate brown one, which I thought to be an earlier restrike:
The March piece is noted as having a thick planchet, 13.1g, double struck (most noticeable on the date side).
Always more to know!
<< <i>Mr Denga or anyone reading this thread, did the pieces struck between 1862 and 1901 have a fine sandblast? >>
No. Prior to 1901 the copper planchets were struck as often as necessary to bring up the fine details
in the dies. This gave the medal a fine prooflike appearance. The medal was then chemically treated
to produce the copper-bronzed finish. The sandblasting technique was used after 1901 in an effort to
have our medals look like those struck in Europe, especially Paris.
Always more to know!
<< <i>Mr Denga, so that means the metal I've shown here if post 1901 even though the sandblast is very fine compared to the later 20th century coins with the very course texture and yellow color? >>
Yes.
Especially Mr Denga, great information. Better than anything I've found in references. You can't beat this kind of knowledge!
Always more to know!