Colorado Territorial vintage dies
dcarr
Posts: 8,893 ✭✭✭✭✭
Thanks to a forum member I was recently able to get a copy of the American Numismatic Rarities auction catalog from the August 2006 Denver sale of the "Old West" and "Franklinton" collections.
If anyone personally knows the buyer and/or current owner of either of the two Colorado Territorial dies from that sale, if you would, please pass along to them that I would be interested in undertaking a minting project involving the J.J. Conway die and especially the P & R.R. Smith die.
Below are cropped scans from the auction catalog for both die lots. I "photo-shopped" and image of what the P & R.R. Smith gold coin would have looked like, and I pasted that onto the catalog scan.
11
Comments
Very interesting history !!!
Sounds like a very interesting and worthwhile project. If I owned that die, I would be concerned with it being lost or damaged if it were used to produce restrikes. Not sure if my fears are unfounded or not.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Thanks for the interesting history and pictures... Cheers, RickO
Damage would be a remote possibility. But something like a die crack wouldn't necessarily reduce the value of the die.
An alternative to using the die in striking would be to instead use the die as the model for making a new die. The only risk to the original die in that scenario would be in transportation or shipping.
So do the dies usually cost 90K+ or is this a special die that commands that price? Just wondering cause that is alot of money at least in my world. You would have to have a real purpose to bid on that not something you just want to tuck away some place dark.
It's an old rare coinage die that's probably unique from the gold rush and old west era. Very cool collectable.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
It's very cool, but I was shocked by the price as well.
I think some of the J.A. Bolen dies went for only a few thousand in recent auctions. And his work is very popular
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I handled both of the dies and know where they are, but doubt the owner would allow them to be used. Interestingly, the R. R. Smith obverse is in the Colorado Historical Society (as mentioned in the lot description above) and WAS used for restrikes of Conway $5s in the '50s or '60s.
I also have a client with the original Clark Gruber Mountain $10 obverse (mountain side) die. Sadly, it is in horrible condition.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I'm with you Dan, love the old mining camps and their ability to create commerce when located so far from "civilization". Strong backs, strong minds, strong characters.
bob
If the current owner of the Smith die was worried about potential damage to the die upon actual striking with it, I could instead use the die in a totally non-destructive "touchless" modeling process (in making a new die to strike with). I would only need the die for one day. If the owner was planning a trip to Colorado for some reason, they could bring the die in the morning and leave with it in the afternoon.
Obviously, what I want to do is recreate the P & R.R. Smith coin, as close as possible to its original form. This would include using native Colorado gold, and the coins would be struck in Colorado using my Denver Mint surplus Graebener coin press.
In 1956 (on the occasion of the Denver Mint's 50th anniversary of coining) noted author and historian Nolie Mummey produced sets of brass coins using the ORIGINAL Smith obverse die, along with five of the six ORIGINAL J.J. Conway dies. 200 sets were produced consisting of the three coins shown on the left (note that the coin on the right is known as a common "Bashlow" re-strike of 1961, in brass and silver, and despite what they say on them they are NOT from any original die):
The Bashlow pieces are commonly found today (several thousand were produced). The Mumey sets are difficult to find and have a commensurate market valuation.
The six dies are, at present, supposedly in the possession of the Colorado Historical Society (CHS). I plan to contact them in the hope that they would participate in such a project and allow their die(s) to be used. I do not, however, have much confidence that such a proposal would be accepted since requests by other people to simply view items in the CHS collection have gone unfulfilled. In lieu of having access to the actual Smith obverse die, I could use one of the 1956 Mumey strikes as a model, since those were produced using the original die.
I think this would be a worthwhile endeavor for those involved. So if you know the current owner of the Smith die, please pass this info along to them, and if they are interested, I would of course be willing to discuss the potential project with them.
If you own the dies it seems odd you wouldn’t atleast toss the idea around of Dan making restrikes, I get they are high dollar collectibles and I’m sure the owner would have some very strict guidelines but I don’t see why they couldn’t come to some sort of mutual agreement. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
I would question if a purest of historical artifacts would even be remotely Intrested in having their authenticity co-opted in the pursuit of a for profit venture of made for collectors stuff.
Or if the type of person who buys 100k dies would let you scan them without a strong royalty deal drafted for every widget sold?
My 2c; Modern reproductions water down the real stuff. But I know many disagree with me.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I own a set of those Bashlow JJ Conway restrikes in copper, goldine, and silver. Interesting that you say they are not produced from the original obverse die. Were they at least made from transfer dies like his 1960s confederate cent “restrikes” or in your opinion just new dies? About 2 years ago I had a chance to buy a set of those Mummey JJ Conway pieces on eBay.
There are no such thing as confederate cents, there are confederate tribute tokens stuck privately in the north and by all evidence way after the war.
All marketing/manufacturing of those and there different iterations is just marketing BS trying to extrapolate a connection to the civil war where there is none.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
My first choice would be to use the original die in direct striking.
My second choice would be to use the die in a touchless process to make a new die.
My third choice would be to sculpt and engrave a new die using only the photo above and a physical US $5 gold piece for the eagle.
If the current owner of the Smith die was interested in either #1 or #2, I would be willing to discuss "royalties".
The main reason that I want to make the P & R.R. Smith coin is because I collect Colorado numismatic items and no genuine example has ever even been rumored to exist. In fact, the possibility of such a coin was totally unknown prior to the surfacing of the reverse die not long ago. I think it would be neat to see one in-hand. I don't think the item would be a huge seller, but I do think some select people would definitely be interested even with a $400 to $600 price tag.
The picture below shows a genuine original J.J. Conway $5 gold piece on the left. On the right is the circa 1961 "Bashlow" so-called "re-strike". The Bashlow die which says "FROM ORIG. OBV. DIE" and "RE-STRIKE" inside the "5" is obviously not an original die. None of the lettering is the same. The "5" is not the same. So that is not even a transfer die. The other Bashlow die (with the domed center) is not the original die either. The stars are in different places. And the Bashlow lettering is closer to the rim. So that is not even a transfer die either. Neither Bashlow die is original or even a transfer from an original.
The Mumey strikes are from the original dies. A nice Mumey set can easily be worth $400 to $600 or more. Some sets can be found in original blue Capitol Plastics style holders. Others originally came in cellophane inside manila envelopes with a map printed on them. I've also seen a few in NGC holders.
The Bashlow pieces can be bought for as low as $5 to $10 each, but I've seen some sell for upwards of $50 in graded holders.
Yes, the Bashlow die with the 5 I knew was a new die. I was surprised by the obverse die not being original. I see now how the lettering and stars are different. I wonder, did anyone ever call Robert Bashlow out on this at the time?
Bashlow was a liar and a scoundrel. There are rumors that he faked his death to escape his past misdeeds, but I do not know if this was true or not.
interesting story
Rumors of his death were most certainly exaggerated. I saw Bob Bashlow talking to Andy Kaufman at a tavern downtown last Thursday night......
This is not precisely true. There are a pair of white-metal, uniface Smith obverse splashers, both of which I discovered some years ago in an old collection. They're an earlier die state than the restrikes, and look to to me to be circa-1862.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
I remember studying the Dr. Mumey used dies at the museum in Denver back in the early 80’s and immediately noting that the physical characteristics of the Union die (length, diameter, texture and color) were totally unlike the five Conway dies. Does anybody have pictures of the sides and bases of the Union and Smith dies to verify that they were originally a pair?
What would be in it for the owner?
I have compared good photos of them in the past and am quite certain they're a match. They also came out of the same group that included all of the dies in the early 20th Century.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
OK thanks. Was probably but needed to be verified.
I think if you forked over that much money for a die you would be interested in having an actual coin made from said dies, have a say in production numbers which I’m sure will be extremely low, and royalties on those that Dan sells. If I’m the owner and I get to cherry pick from a handful of coins produced plus get a cut of anything sold, I’d definitely consider it. They may ultimately not go for it but to just dismiss the idea seems a little short sided in my opinion.
Shall we tap dance into the minefield as to whether a "restrike" from the Union/Smith die pair would be an "imitation numismatic item" subject to the marking requirements of the Hobby Protection Act?
Could the obverse splashers have been made by Sachs Lawlor in 1956 as a way of testing the dies prior to production of the 200 brass Mumey pieces ? If that were the case, the spashers would be a slightly earlier die state than the brass.
On the Mumey brass strikes there are die gouges on the obverse at the corner of the neck & shoulder, and above the "6" in the date. Were those die gouges present on the splashers ?
Apparently, there are no known records of any P & R.R. Smith gold coin having ever been minted, marketed, circulated, or known to numismatists.
In my opinion, a modern one would not be an imitation of any known existing numismatic item.
All of the above would be open for negotiation, if the owner was in any way inclined.
Not existing is a relative term. Here is one of the obverse splashers.
Apropos the Hobby Protection Act and fantasy coins, see P. 23220, especially the bottom of the first column and the top of the third column.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/federal_register_notices/2016/04/160420hobbyfrn.pdf
This is certainly an interesting thread. Debating the obscure and arcane.
oh, puhleeze, what Dan Carr is talking about isn't even close to what that law was trying to prevent
I think Tom's photos answer the question. Having examined both pieces in hand, they appear to be from perfect dies and looked very similar to splashers from the 1850s and 1860s that I've handled. Both pieces have sold in excess of $50,000, so the market seems to feel that they're the real deal.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Could you please cite a legal case to justify your legal interpretation?
Happens all the time. People buy something rare & expensive -- and they've no desire to use it.
For dang sure they're not sharing or selling.
Logic and common sense don't apply. Like hoarding, it's a special kind of crazy. And there's no cure.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
Well, I think there's only been a couple published HPA cases that come close to this, the Gold Bullion International case and the Freedom Tower class action case, and neither of them are directly on point. The focus of both of those cases was an attempt to deceive buyers into thinking the products were authentic, government-issued coins. That's what the law itself says it's trying to prevent - imitations that purport to be original, government-issued coins, but are in fact not. That's not what Dan Carr is doing, in my opinion. He isn't trying to deceive. He's posting a public invitation to make new dies of a private-issued coin. Nobody could ever reasonably claim to be deceived by the end product, if it ever happens. Dan Carr's work seems like a numismatic labor of love that collectors should encourage, even if we don't buy his stuff.
I know that he is not trying to deceive. However, intent and deception are germane to counterfeiting, which is not what he is proposing. I don't know why you would suggest it.
The Hobby Protection Act is germane to "imitation numismatic items." Not counterfeits. The sections I posted and pointed out relate to the definitions of "imitation numismatic items." Not counterfeits. Do you understand the difference between the two?
I don't care enough one way or the other about this to get in an internet argument over it, but you posted rulemaking stuff about the HPA, and asked for a cite, so I gave you two. I'm no expert in this stuff. I just spent 20 minutes skimming the law, rules and cases. Reasonable minds can differ on these things, but I don't think the HPA prohibits what Dan Carr proposed in this thread, for at least a couple big reasons. First, one of the themes of the cases that interpret the HPA is whether the products were made with the intent to deceive, and I don't think anyone has ever been reasonably deceived by Dan Carr's work or how he sells it. Second, we're talking about a privately-issued coin, not a government-issued coin, so I think this situation is outside the scope of the HPA.
I don't have a horse in this race. I don't know Dan Carr or buy his stuff, but as a coin collector, I think what he does is cool. I also like this hobby's libertarian lean, which to me means that we look out for ourselves, we don't like the government confiscating 1933 double eagles, and we don't invoke federal statutes on the forum as a reason why Dan Carr shouldn't be allowed to geek out over a Colorado gold rush die.
Thanks for posting the pictures of that.
That obverse die is pretty generic and could have been originally intended for use as something other than P & R.R. Smith. For all we know it could have originally been intended for use as a Civil War token. But regardless, there are no known strikes of any kind with "P & R.R. Smith" on them.
Perhaps the most curious thing that I find in regards to the Smith reverse die is how closely the eagle replicates the federal issue of the time. No other pioneer gold coin matches a Federal engraving as exactly as this. It seems very possible that the engraver of the Smith reverse die used an actual US Mint half eagle in a transfer process. Or maybe they were just very good at copying by hand engraving alone. The obverse is somewhat close to a Federal Liberty Head, but seems to be not quite as close a match as the reverse Eagle.
.
Indeed an excellent imitation of the regular issue devices, but there are numerous differences feather to feather or hair strand to hair strand.
No because it is clear that no such case exists as has been discussed in other places ad nauseam. There is no way to read the limited case law that does exist in an intellectually honest way and not see the inherent problem or potential problem with his works.
This is meant as a general comment and not specific to any one issue.
If you read the Gold Bullion International case, the intent element was indeed discussed. The Commission ruled that intent is irrelevant. If you look at the cases where the law has been applied, some of them do not remotely approximate an official issue yet the pieces were held to violate the law in borrowing elements like mottos, etc. As for government issues, the definition of the Hobby Protection Act specifically includes the word "token." Can you identify any token struck by or with the authorization of the U.S. government?
If you took a Federal half eagle reverse die and over-lapped it, the result would be practically an exact feather-to-feather match to the Smith die.
None of the case law [Gold Bullion International; Freedom Tower Dollar] involves the over-striking of genuine coins to impart fantasy elements.
Gold Bullion International (GBI) minted German Wilhelm gold pieces on VIRGIN blanks (with a non-existing date for that type) and then intentionally and deceptively marketed them as German Mint products.
Had GBI taken genuine German Wilhelm gold coins and over-struck them with fantasy dates and the marketed them as novelty items with full disclosure, there never would have been any case in the first place.
It's irrelevant as de novo pieces and altered pieces that are imitation numismatic items both are required to be marked. See
16 CFR 304.1 (d):
Restrikes and Reissues were contemplated, and there is an exception for governmental entities but not private parties. If I recall correctly, in the Gold Bullion International case there were coins with fantasy dates. Again the Commission also addressed intent. Regardless of deceptive intent or not, the law applies. Also per GBI, changing the date to a fictitious date is not sufficient to alter its status as a counterfeit, reproduction, or copy.
A genuine coin that has been altered (or over-struck) to have fantasy elements (such as a date that does not exist for the type) has never been found by a court to be an "imitation numismatic item".
All I know for a fact is that reproductions DESTROYED the antique toy market.
The essence of collecting anything rare is that the romance and allure of some things is the very fact that ...some... items in the field ARE so hard to find.
At first, the toy world segment that existed for "decorators" was the market for the repros.
It didn't take long for even the genuine collectors to say, "what the heck?" and actually begin "collecting" some of the classic rare toys.
The rest is history. I don't run 4 full page ads in international toy collector publications any more.
In fact, most all of those publications don't even exist any longer.
Availability of "substitute" collectibles of any sort can only dilute the market for ...actual...rare items.
In ANY field.
That is an assumption or at best counting on incompetent prosecution
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set