“E,” “L” Counterstamps on Capped Bust Quarters

PCGS_SocialMedia

Earlier this year, PCGS started certifying 1815 and 1825 “E” and “L” Capped Bust Quarters with numerical grades noting the counterstamp. For many years, the presumption was that these counterstamps – all bearing identical “Es” and “Ls” in nearly identical locations above the bust of Liberty on the obverse – had government origins. However, in more recent times, numismatic scholars have continued shifting their thoughts behind the counterstamps as having post-mint origins. Find out more about these intriguing pieces via the link below.

https://www.pcgs.com/news/mysterious-counterstamps-on-capped-bust-quarters

CaptHenway

Would you please show the reverses of each, as well as closeups of the areas directly behind the punches? This might prove or disprove the theory that the counterstamping was done in the mint with the coins placed back into the design in the reverse die to prevent distortion of the opposite side. That process was done with the 1848 CAL. $2-1/2 counterstamps, though of course the coins were set into the obverse die that had just struck them for that counterstamping.

Smudge

@CaptHenway said:
Would you please show the reverses of each, as well as closeups of the areas directly behind the punches? This might prove or disprove the theory that the counterstamping was done in the mint with the coins placed back into the design in the reverse die to prevent distortion of the opposite side. That process was done with the 1848 CAL. $2-1/2 counterstamps, though of course the coins were set into the obverse die that had just struck them for that counterstamping.

Like the Civil War suttler’s dogtag tool that @Zoins posted recently?

yosclimber

The linked article by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez is missing the best explanation by far of the E and L quarters, which explains:

• the 1815 and 1825 dates
• the E and L
• the relative frequency of E and L
• the times when quantities of these were released to the public.

The evidence is quite strong that these were created and used by the Harmony Society, which also created the Economite Hoard.
These quarters were used as voting tokens; E = Economite, L = Leonite.

Please read Lance's post from the end of November, and the articles he linked in the John Reich Journal:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12478138/#Comment_12478138

PCGS_SocialMedia

@CaptHenway said:
Would you please show the reverses of each, as well as closeups of the areas directly behind the punches? This might prove or disprove the theory that the counterstamping was done in the mint with the coins placed back into the design in the reverse die to prevent distortion of the opposite side. That process was done with the 1848 CAL. $2-1/2 counterstamps, though of course the coins were set into the obverse die that had just struck them for that counterstamping.

For an even closer look for this coin: https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1815-25c-e/785444

CaptHenway

Thank you. I see no flattening at the 5 of 25, which assuming normal die alignment should be opposite the counterstamped E. If this alignment is otherwise and/or if somebody has a coin that shows flattening opposite the c/s, I hope they will post a message here.

The lack of flattening supports, but does not prove, the theory that the coins were counterstamped in the Mint while resting on the actual reverse die sitting on a work bench. I do not claim this as gospel, however, and am willing to be convinced otherwise.

spacehayduke

@CaptHenway said:
Thank you. I see no flattening at the 5 of 25, which assuming normal die alignment should be opposite the counterstamped E. If this alignment is otherwise and/or if somebody has a coin that shows flattening opposite the c/s, I hope they will post a message here.

The lack of flattening supports, but does not prove, the theory that the coins were counterstamped in the Mint while resting on the actual reverse die sitting on a work bench. I do not claim this as gospel, however, and am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Herez mine, no flattening.

I will be submitting for crossing at FUN. It would be interesting if a counterstamp of these was added to the CBQ registry sets, perhaps as an option but somehow counted (?).

Great article on these PCGS, I am one of those that will eventually get all 4......

spacehayduke

@yosclimber said:
The linked article by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez is missing the best explanation by far of the E and L quarters, which explains:

• the 1815 and 1825 dates
• the E and L
• the relative frequency of E and L
• the times when quantities of these were released to the public.

The evidence is quite strong that these were created and used by the Harmony Society, which also created the Economite Hoard.
These quarters were used as voting tokens; E = Economite, L = Leonite.

Please read Lance's post from the end of November, and the articles he linked in the John Reich Journal:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12478138/#Comment_12478138

This explanation needs verification if true. How would the counterstamps be added so precisely and with no damage to the reverse in this scenario? Do tell....

Best, SH

yosclimber

@spacehayduke said:

@yosclimber said:
The linked article by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez is missing the best explanation by far of the E and L quarters, which explains:

• the 1815 and 1825 dates
• the E and L
• the relative frequency of E and L
• the times when quantities of these were released to the public.

The evidence is quite strong that these were created and used by the Harmony Society, which also created the Economite Hoard.
These quarters were used as voting tokens; E = Economite, L = Leonite.

Please read Lance's post from the end of November, and the articles he linked in the John Reich Journal:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12478138/#Comment_12478138

This explanation needs verification if true. How would the counterstamps be added so precisely and with no damage to the reverse in this scenario? Do tell....

Did you see the explanation in McAuley's article (middle of page 7)?
I know @CaptHenway is interested also.
https://archive.org/details/johnreichjournal16n1john/page/7

NSP

Page 352 of the Tompkins bust quarter book does mention that there is evidence of distortion on the reverses, but since the coins are usually extremely high grade, the distortion is not readily apparent. It would be interesting to see if there was some way to generate some sort of topographic map (who knows what’s possible with computers nowadays) of the reverse of a counterstamped coin to see if the distortion becomes more evident.

CaptHenway

@yosclimber said:

@spacehayduke said:

@yosclimber said:
The linked article by Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez is missing the best explanation by far of the E and L quarters, which explains:

• the 1815 and 1825 dates
• the E and L
• the relative frequency of E and L
• the times when quantities of these were released to the public.

The evidence is quite strong that these were created and used by the Harmony Society, which also created the Economite Hoard.
These quarters were used as voting tokens; E = Economite, L = Leonite.

Please read Lance's post from the end of November, and the articles he linked in the John Reich Journal:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12478138/#Comment_12478138

This explanation needs verification if true. How would the counterstamps be added so precisely and with no damage to the reverse in this scenario? Do tell....

Did you see the explanation in McAuley's article (middle of page 7)?
I know @CaptHenway is interested also.
https://archive.org/details/johnreichjournal16n1john/page/7

I am aware of the article, and a fine theory it is. It may even be correct. However, the Economite story says that the coins were scrubbed when found, and I have seen a few decent counterstamped pieces.

As to the Tompkins book and distortion, would counterstamping the obverse while the coin was resting in the reverse die leave some sort of slight distortion on the reverse that is different than the basic flattening you get when you counterstamp a coin sitting on a flat anvil or whatever? I don't know, but am open to being convinced one way or the other by good pictures of the areas on the opposite sides from the counterstamps.

TD

ricko

Somewhere I read....years ago... that applying the stamp with a wood or tough leather backing, would avoid damage to the reverse...I have not tried this, so do not claim it to be true....Just adding to the conversation. Cheers, RickO

keets

why is it that if a counterstamp has a good story or mystery to it that it is collectible and not damaged??

CaptHenway

@Ricko ... back when I was counterstamping ANACS MUSHROOM Ikes I tried using an old leather belt as a backing piece and it absorbed too much of the energy.

ricko

@CaptHenway.... Thanks for the information... As I mentioned, I had not tried it...just read about it somewhere...Makes sense though, almost like a cushion...Cheers, RickO

bolivarshagnasty

@keets said:
why is it that if a counterstamp has a good story or mystery to it that it is collectible and not damaged??

I don't get it either. I have a set of steel stamps in my workshop that could be used for this kind of activity. I see it as permanent damage to a mint made coin, not unlike the trade dollar chop marks.

Baley

Because "Worth Less" does not mean "Worthless"

TradesWithChops

@keets said:
why is it that if a counterstamp has a good story or mystery to it that it is collectible and not damaged??

It is damaged, by definition PMD. It is still collectible due to history/interest... just like anything. Why collect coins at all, my wife would ask.

nearly all early copper is also damaged. Also, toning is damage. All of these are still collectible.

spacehayduke

I just read the whole JRCS article in the link from Lance. Part 1 has a series of observations about the coin for which I can concur with most of them. Part 2 is a history of the Economites and then adds unfounded speculation, not based on any real evidence, about how the counterstamped quarters could have fit into their story. No evidence at all, just speculation. Hence, this hypothesis is no more supported than any other.

The key for narrowing down the different hypotheses to their origin will be nailing down how the E and L were stamped in without causing obvious damage seen on chop marked coins or other post-mint counterstamped coins. The JRCS article says there is some 'bowing out'? - I would like to see visual evidence for this with good images or in hand as I can't see any damage in mine like that or others in images online and none were provided in the article. It would be great to get SEM images of many coins around the countermarks and on the reverse opposite of the countermark for each. That might tell us something.

Barring the 'bowing out' suggested in the article that would be crucial to observe and document, the Occam's razor approch - the simplest and most straightforward explanation is usually the right one, would support the Captain's point that since there seems to be no damage, so that these were stamped while in the reverse die. This is supported by the fact that there is precedence for this by the mint with other coins - 1848 CAL. quarter eagle. So Occam would support the counterstamps being mint made - but you still need the 1815 reverse die to be in good shape at the time of counterstamping at ≥1825 if this is how they were made....... However, with no mint records supporting this, the mint made hypothesis is also speculative.

Here are other observations that need to be reconciled with any theory:

1. Best I can tell is that all of the 1825's are from the same early die state and this was more or less stated in the JRCS article. So this was not random in terms of coins selected for stamping - as if they were all minted in sequence (?). 1815 die state is hard to tell so won't be useful and as far as I know, all are from the same die state.
2. Most were in mint state or high AU. As if they never circulated prior to stamping. There are a few examples that have strong wear and were likely in circulation but this clearly happened after the counterstamps were put on as they show the wear.

So 1 and 2 support that the counterstamped coins were selected from the two years of coins, all of each coming from about the same time in the minting process and remained in uncirculated condition (i.e. stored together) until stamped. Then at some point, some circulated. You need the 1815's to be stored for quite some time - unless good dies were preserved and the stamped coins were minted later for the reason of adding counterstamps - that sounds far fetched(?) and not the Occam's explanation. Even so, if the stamping of all coins were at the same time, then you need to have the 1815 die available and in good shape at the time the 1825's were stamped. Was the mint in the habit of keeping used dies around for a decade or longer and keeping them in good shape for later use? Any thoughts in this? Could they use another reverse die without causing damage?

Alternatively, the coins were indeed stored by someone who got them at the mint or a bank as uncirculated coins, possibly in 1815 and again in 1825 as the mint was not in the habit of storing minted silver at that time. Because the 1825's are from the same die state and were minted close together, this means that whatever story really happened, they were together from the time of minting, through any storage, and then counterstamped. Same is likely the case for the 1815's so there is a storage component to the story.

3. The Economite theory may be supported because all were scrubbed as the Captain notes. Most I have inspected have had a light to strong cleaning but most will grade once accepted for numeric grades at the TPG's. But, that goes for almost every single large capped bust quarter that I have seen, have been cleaned to some degree, some less some more, which is why so few meet CAC standards. So I am not sure this supports a 'cleaning up before stamped' theory in favor of the Economites or any other collective cleaning scenario.

Many other observations need to be considered, but the key is how were the counterstamps put in without observable damage or was there truly bowing out mentioned in the JRCS article? No hypothesis can be favored or eliminated until there is adequate constraints on just how these counterstamps were made as seen.

Best, SH

CaptHenway

Some background information posted on behalf of Mr. B. :

--

"Some information about the “E” and “L” counterstamps.

The Harmony Society’s town of Harmony, Pennsylvania (on Connoquenessing Creek) was sold May 6, 1815 and everyone, including new arrivals from Württemberg, moved to New Harmony in Indiana on the Wabash River.

A decade later the Society’s town of New Harmony, Indiana was sold to Robert Owen for $150,000 January 3, 1825. Payment was $15,000 up front and $15,000 per year until paid in full. No interest. Richard Flower was the selling agent in Scotland. The community moved back to Pennsylvania on land purchased adjacent to Sewickly Creek, to their new homeland called Economy.

The official and dominant language of the Harmony Society was German – mostly late 18th century Swabian dialect. Attempting to squeeze English meaning out of the “E” and “L” counterstamps is likely to be counterproductive.

Note that the Society always used the term “oikonomia” or ecclesiastical “economy.” This sense suggests the idea of stewardship, or management on behalf of others, or to the works of god; that is: on behalf of a god or superior. In Lutheran Church German the word is “Oikonomenische” not “Ökonomische.”

‘Count’ Maximillian Leon’s society was known as the New Philadelphia Society (at Phillipsburg, Beaver County, Pa) and not by the moniker “Leonites.” Use of coins as “voting tokens” is not supported by any contemporary practice in Germany, English-speaking countries, or among Harmony Society members. (The closest “stretch” might be communion tokens.) The same applies to letters “E” and “L.” "

--

Though it is more unproven speculation, I like the idea that the pieces might have been used in some sort of religious ritual. I hereby add "Lent" and "Easter" to the list of WAG's. (Did this sect celebrate Lent and Easter? I have no idea.)

They could have been counterstamped, distributed, mostly returned as part of the religious ritual, and thus ended up back in the community hoard for dispersal circa 1880. The usage may even have been annual for a while.

Of course, this still does not answer the question of where and when they were counterstamped. For this I await some good closeup pictures of the reverses behind the counterstamps.

TD

scubafuel

I don’t have much to add as far as origin stories but I have noticed that chopped trade dollars often don’t show any damage or distortion to the opposite side of the coin provided the chop is relatively shallow. Since we know chops were done outside the mint and with no reason to try to protect the coin, they seem like a useful data point. Of course, quarters are thinner than dollars...

Texast

I never knew anything about these quarter's and the counter stamp's until now.

Very educational thread, thank you all that contributed.

spacehayduke

@scubafuel said:
I don’t have much to add as far as origin stories but I have noticed that chopped trade dollars often don’t show any damage or distortion to the opposite side of the coin provided the chop is relatively shallow. Since we know chops were done outside the mint and with no reason to try to protect the coin, they seem like a useful data point. Of course, quarters are thinner than dollars...

We really need close-ups and maybe an SEM study of at least 10 or so AU and MS E-L quarters to understand how they were stamped. Then a follow up experiment on stamping techniques to see if one can reproduce the effects observed. Keep in mind that the E and L stamps are fairly deep in comparison to the quarter thickness.

Best, SH

denga

Mint correspondence for this period of time is reasonably complete
and the counter-stamped quarters are not mentioned, directly or
indirectly. It may therefore be stated with certainty that the counter-
stamping was done outside the Mint.
Walter Breen’s belief that the coins represent prizes in English or Latin,
two key subjects in schools of this era, is almost certainly correct.

scubafuel

Other than the fact that English and Latin start with the correct letters, is there any evidence to support that at all? Where’s M for math?
How well done are the placements of these stamps? Getting them all close to identical privately is doable but would take a ton of concentration. If these were voting tokens, who would care that much about exact placement?
It’s a cool mystery, and I don’t like any of the explanations

spacehayduke

@denga said:
Mint correspondence for this period of time is reasonably complete
and the counter-stamped quarters are not mentioned, directly or
indirectly. It may therefore be stated with certainty that the counter-
stamping was done outside the Mint.
Walter Breen’s belief that the coins represent prizes in English or Latin,
two key subjects in schools of this era, is almost certainly correct.

That is overstating the case, you can't say anything with certainty for how these occurred. One has to be able to understand how the stamps were put in first without damage. Any thing other than that, is conjecture at this time.

With respect to mint records at any time, they are incomplete. How is it that 1933 double eagles left the mint? Mint says this was not possible according to their records..... How is it that 1913 liberty nickels were made? No mint records. Many many examples of poor mint records in all periods........

Best, SH

NSP

From what I’ve read, Breen’s assertion that the counterstamps were for school awards was not based on any facts (i.e., Breen pulled it out of his ear as a possible explanation but there was no evidence to support it).

None of the theories are completely watertight, though out of all of them I think the Economite voting token theory is a pretty good one. The fact that these first surfaced in the eastern Ohio/western Pennsylvania region would support this theory, though there are problems with the theory that others have mentioned.

There’s also the possibility that someone was bored and decided to counterstamp some old quarters they found for no constructive reason. That would be a pretty simple explanation, and often times the most simple explanation is the correct one.

CaptHenway

For the record, my Lent and Easter suggestions were facetiously facetious.

denga

@NSP said:
From what I’ve read, Breen’s assertion that the counterstamps were for school awards was not based on any facts (i.e., Breen pulled it out of his ear as a possible explanation but there was no evidence to support it).

None of the theories are completely watertight, though out of all of them I think the Economite voting token theory is a pretty good one. The fact that these first surfaced in the eastern Ohio/western Pennsylvania region would support this theory, though there are problems with the theory that others have mentioned.

There’s also the possibility that someone was bored and decided to counterstamp some old quarters they found for no constructive reason. That would be a pretty simple explanation, and often times the most simple explanation is the correct one.

I discussed this matter with Breen and we agreed that there was no better
solution than a school award. The mass of school award medals in the 19th
century is a strong point in favor of the Breen theory. (Apparently NSP is not
aware of such awards.) I have read the Ecomomite argument and am not
persuaded at all; why use coins when pieces of paper would have served
nicely? In addition twenty-five cents was a fair amount to waste on something
of this nature.

denga

@spacehayduke said:

@denga said:
Mint correspondence for this period of time is reasonably complete
and the counter-stamped quarters are not mentioned, directly or
indirectly. It may therefore be stated with certainty that the counter-
stamping was done outside the Mint.
Walter Breen’s belief that the coins represent prizes in English or Latin,
two key subjects in schools of this era, is almost certainly correct.

That is overstating the case, you can't say anything with certainty for how these occurred. One has to be able to understand how the stamps were put in first without damage. Any thing other than that, is conjecture at this time.

With respect to mint records at any time, they are incomplete. How is it that 1933 double eagles left the mint? Mint says this was not possible according to their records..... How is it that 1913 liberty nickels were made? No mint records. Many many examples of poor mint records in all periods........

Best, SH

Unfortunately SH is comparing apples and oranges. It is true that the
1933 DE and 1913 nickel records are not to be found in the archives
but this was due to the nature of the transactions. Both had to be kept
secret even though the 1933 DE transaction was legal. The outgoing
letters for the Mint in 1815 and 1825 are complete, or virtually so, and
there is no mention, as would have been the case, had someone asked
for special counter-stamping work.

scubafuel

Denea, interesting. Can you post another counterstamped coin that was used as a school reward?
School award medals were popular, and the ones I’ve seen usually (not always) had the name of the school and/or recipient on them. Perhaps the school in question had so many outstanding scholars in English and Latin that there was no time for that sort of notation in this instance.

denga

@scubafuel said:
Denea, interesting. Can you post another counterstamped coin that was used as a school reward?
School award medals were popular, and the ones I’ve seen usually (not always) had the name of the school and/or recipient on them. Perhaps the school in question had so many outstanding scholars in English and Latin that there was no time for that sort of notation in this instance.

No, but this was early in the 19th century. We are almost certainly dealing with
only one school, one which specialized in English & Latin. The 25-cent award
would have been a significant amount to a student in those days. The adding of
names would have entailed considerable extra cost. The later award medals
were usually at the expense of a benefactor and more money was available.

CaptHenway

Not every puzzle has to have an answer. Back when I was making final decisions on authenticity for ANACS I firmly believed that the occasional honest “No Decision” made our other calls all the more valid.
It would be great if someone were to find a newspaper clipping that said that Little Johnny Fussmucker had received a Latin Award in the form of a shiny quarter dollar in 1826, but failing that let us all just take deep breaths and accept that we do not know everything.

keets

this topic seems to come up every now-and-then. I recall posting a show report around 2014-15 and including in it that we had a customer offer I think one each of these Quarters. it was a mystery then, is now and seems to always have been so, a mystery whose truth was apparently only known to a small number of people originally associated with the coins, their "issuer" so to speak.

two things about this discussion which strike me as odd:
--- why make statements which you hold are true or false about the origin?? I could posit any number of reasons, each just as valid as anything else. it's an interesting discussion but I see nothing anyone has posted which could be called factual.
--- am I the only one amazed that Walter Breen has been credited with knowing the reason for the c'stamp??

CoinJunkie

@TradesWithChops said:

@keets said:
why is it that if a counterstamp has a good story or mystery to it that it is collectible and not damaged??

It is damaged, by definition PMD. It is still collectible due to history/interest... just like anything. Why collect coins at all, my wife would ask.

nearly all early copper is also damaged. Also, toning is damage. All of these are still collectible.

Sorry, but toning is not damage.

Oldhoopster

@CoinJunkie said:

@TradesWithChops said:

It is damaged, by definition PMD. It is still collectible due to history/interest... just like anything. Why collect coins at all, my wife would ask.

nearly all early copper is also damaged. Also, toning is damage. All of these are still collectible.

Sorry, but toning is not damage.

Where is Dr. Weimar White when you need him

TradesWithChops

@CoinJunkie said:

@TradesWithChops said:

@keets said:
why is it that if a counterstamp has a good story or mystery to it that it is collectible and not damaged??

It is damaged, by definition PMD. It is still collectible due to history/interest... just like anything. Why collect coins at all, my wife would ask.

nearly all early copper is also damaged. Also, toning is damage. All of these are still collectible.

Sorry, but toning is not damage.

Toning can be considered market acceptable. At the level of science, it absolutely is damage. It's caused by nature, or humans, -- but its a reaction with the silver and some other component (oxygen or harmful chemicals).

Regardless, that's not the point of my post. The point is, plenty of changes/damage to a coin can happen post mint. Some of those things are not only market acceptable, but sought after.

Baley

Karl Moulton has a plausible theory that involves the Treasury and Planter's bank in New Orleans, and possibly the mint and JR himself.

CoinJunkie

@TradesWithChops said:

@CoinJunkie said:

@TradesWithChops said:

@keets said:
why is it that if a counterstamp has a good story or mystery to it that it is collectible and not damaged??

It is damaged, by definition PMD. It is still collectible due to history/interest... just like anything. Why collect coins at all, my wife would ask.

nearly all early copper is also damaged. Also, toning is damage. All of these are still collectible.

Sorry, but toning is not damage.

Toning can be considered market acceptable. At the level of science, it absolutely is damage. It's caused by nature, or humans, -- but its a reaction with the silver and some other component (oxygen or harmful chemicals).

What do YOU think toning is, if it is not damage to the metal of a coin?

Thanks for the chemistry "lesson". All manner of compounds oxidize naturally. It's a misuse of the word "damage" to apply it universally to such reactions. Corrosion and rust could be considered damage, but the accepted vernacular of numismatics does not classify (most) natural coin toning as falling into that category. "Damaged" coins generally won't straight grade.

By the way, according to the online Oxford dictionary, the first definition of "damage" is:

1. physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.

So explain why toning often increases a coin's value.

This is OT for this thread, so this will be my final post here on the subject.

1630Boston

@Texast said:
I never knew anything about these quarter's and the counter stamp's until now.

Very educational thread, thank you all that contributed.

I agree

amwldcoin

IMHO what destroys this theory was why were so many of them together in a hoard in the 1880's? Were they never awarded?

@denga said:

@scubafuel said:
Denea, interesting. Can you post another counterstamped coin that was used as a school reward?
School award medals were popular, and the ones I’ve seen usually (not always) had the name of the school and/or recipient on them. Perhaps the school in question had so many outstanding scholars in English and Latin that there was no time for that sort of notation in this instance.

No, but this was early in the 19th century. We are almost certainly dealing with
only one school, one which specialized in English & Latin. The 25-cent award
would have been a significant amount to a student in those days. The adding of
names would have entailed considerable extra cost. The later award medals
were usually at the expense of a benefactor and more money was available.

spacehayduke

@denga said:

Unfortunately SH is comparing apples and oranges. It is true that the
1933 DE and 1913 nickel records are not to be found in the archives
but this was due to the nature of the transactions. Both had to be kept
secret even though the 1933 DE transaction was legal. The outgoing
letters for the Mint in 1815 and 1825 are complete, or virtually so, and
there is no mention, as would have been the case, had someone asked
for special counter-stamping work.

Unfortunately denga seems to ignore the history of incomplete records from the mint.

School awards because Breen says so? Breen with a sordid history and has been shown to be wrong and full of conjecture in many of his writings? How is it a school just happens on two distinct groups of 1815 and 1825 uncirculated quarters that were each minted together at the same time as the die states show, and just happened to have die punches and the ability to stamp without damage where all through this era counterstamps placed on coins outside of the mint show that no one was capable of such a feat? Seriously. Please explain............... This will be the same issue with all hypotheses - who had the capability to produce the counterstamps in the manner we see but also had access to the 2 groups of uncirc quarters? School????????

keets

perhaps a point not yet made for the "done at the Mint" school of thought would be for someone to match the "E" and the "L" counterstamps to punches for those letters in use by the Philadelphia Mint. that would have to be from 1815 until the time when the coins were first made known.

absent any match it seems that the "made at the Mint" argument could be debunked or proven.

denga

A small added comment. The fiscal records of the Mint are complete for 1815 and 1825 > @amwldcoin said:

IMHO what destroys this theory was why were so many of them together in a hoard in the 1880's? Were they never awarded?

@denga said:

@scubafuel said:
Denea, interesting. Can you post another counterstamped coin that was used as a school reward?
School award medals were popular, and the ones I’ve seen usually (not always) had the name of the school and/or recipient on them. Perhaps the school in question had so many outstanding scholars in English and Latin that there was no time for that sort of notation in this instance.

No, but this was early in the 19th century. We are almost certainly dealing with
only one school, one which specialized in English & Latin. The 25-cent award
would have been a significant amount to a student in those days. The adding of
names would have entailed considerable extra cost. The later award medals
were usually at the expense of a benefactor and more money was available.

Yes, likely never awarded.

denga

@spacehayduke said:

@denga said:

Unfortunately SH is comparing apples and oranges. It is true that the
1933 DE and 1913 nickel records are not to be found in the archives
but this was due to the nature of the transactions. Both had to be kept
secret even though the 1933 DE transaction was legal. The outgoing
letters for the Mint in 1815 and 1825 are complete, or virtually so, and
there is no mention, as would have been the case, had someone asked
for special counter-stamping work.

Unfortunately denga seems to ignore the history of incomplete records from the mint.

School awards because Breen says so? Breen with a sordid history and has been shown to be wrong and full of conjecture in many of his writings? How is it a school just happens on two distinct groups of 1815 and 1825 uncirculated quarters that were each minted together at the same time as the die states show, and just happened to have die punches and the ability to stamp without damage where all through this era counterstamps placed on coins outside of the mint show that no one was capable of such a feat? Seriously. Please explain............... This will be the same issue with all hypotheses - who had the capability to produce the counterstamps in the manner we see but also had access to the 2 groups of uncirc quarters? School????????

I am not ignoring the question of Mint records. Unlike spacehayduke, however,
I have actually used them. The 1815 and 1825 dates were simply obtained from
a bank which in turn had received them from the Mint. I suggest SH look into how
coins were actually distributed by the Mint. The school awards scenario is still the
most likely explanation for the counter-marked quarters; I have yet to see a better
explanation. I find it interesting that SH engages in conjecture and then attacks
Breen for doing the same.

CaptHenway

One challenges denga’s knowledge of the Mint’s records at one’s peril.

CaptHenway

I like amwldcoin’s question as to why the pieces were in a hoard and not “awarded.”

keets

__Dubito habebimus anwer satis cito ad hoc sacramentum__, but may I please have my award now??

1630Boston

I agree with @keets
I doubt we will have a quick answer to this mystery

Wahoo554

@scubafuel said:

How well done are the placements of these stamps? Getting them all close to identical privately is doable but would take a ton of concentration. If these were voting tokens, who would care that much about exact placement?
It’s a cool mystery, and I don’t like any of the explanations

The placements are very well done and much care was clearly taken to make them uniform. As far as I know, the “E” and “L” counterstamps were always placed in the exact same location regardless of the date, the “E” being just above the top of the cap and the “L” being to the left just like the photos in the OP. I’ve read many of the theories and am yet to come across one that isn’t filled with holes.

spacehayduke

Something to keep in mind as to who had access and could afford to have these quarters used as tokens if indeed that is what they were. Let's take the year 1828 as the year that a 'School' for example used say 100 quarters as counterstamped tokens to give away to students.

Using: https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1828

"In other words, $100 in 1828 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $2,707.45 in 2020, a difference of $2,607.45 over 192 years".

So 100 quarters is $25. That purchasing power in current dollars would be $676, or $6.76 each. That is simply based on inflation.

Maybe somehow the quarters were saved as uncirculated and stamped just before they were first noticed in the 1880's, say in 1878.

"In other words, $100 in 1878 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $2,572.08 in 2020, a difference of $2,472.08 over 142 years."

No too different..........

Looking at the value of money:

1825

-Ten pounds of sugar cost $0.20 (1822)
-One acre in a tract of land of over 400 acres cost $2.00 (Sumter, SC, 1823)
-One bushel (35.2 liters) of potatoes cost $0.12 (1829)
-One set of blue china cost $8.00 (1828)
-One cow cost $12.00 (1829)
-One Pound of Coffee Cost $0.17

1875

-A necktie “designed to supersede all other methods for fastening the bow to a turndown collar” cost $0.10
-A dozen pairs of Levi Strauss blue jeans cost $13.50 (1874)
-One pair of shoes cost $0.98 (1875)
-One suit cost $10.00 (1875)
-One opera ticket for “The Marriage of Figaro” cost $1 (San Fransisco, 1875)
-One pound of Coffee cost $0.25

Once can also consider wages at these times:

https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/pricesandwages/1820-1829

So during those times, a quarter would have been alot of money. Who would have access to these quarters to use in a frivolous way as a token for voting, or as rewards at a school, or? I think this consideration removes alot of the hypotheses. If not mint produced, it would seem that perhaps the Economite hypothesis is best supported when considering the value of the token used - they had a large hoard and hence using the quarters in this way would not have been a big deal.

So a school would shell out that kind of money as freebies to their students? No public school today would have that kind of money, I am pretty sure they would not have in 1828 or 1878.

Best, SH