Master Die Trial for Undated (1840) Quarter, Judd-110
Zoins
Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
Just ran across this great die trial, currently owned by Kevin Lipton.
Heritage lists a pretty long provenance chain for this including well known names. I added Lipton at the end.
- Joseph J. Mickley
- Colonel Mendes I. Cohen
- Lorin Parmelee
- Woodside
- William H. Woodin
- 1914 ANS Exhibit
- King Farouk
- Dr. Hewitt Judd
- 1974 GENA Sale (Pine Tree Auctions, 9/1974), lot 1334
- Kevin Lipton.
Heritage quotes Jon Dannreuther on these pieces:
John Dannreuther wrote:
When the Contamin portrait lathe was introduced in February 1837, the Mint had only hired engravers as Chief Engravers or as second or assistant engravers ... Scot, Kneass, Gobrecht, Gardner, etc. were either plate engravers or other type engravers.
In late 1839 or early 1840 (I have not pinned down the exact date), Robert Ball Hughes, a sculptor who was famous for the day, was hired to modify Gobrecht's Liberty Seated design. Thus, we have Judd-110.
It is a master die trial ... a VERY unusual situation, as usually die trials are from working dies. I believe that Judd-110 was to show the Mint Director the new design for his approval.
Hughes seems to have created ALL the dies from 1840-1843. I believe Gobrecht, who was promoted to Chief Engraver after the death of Kneass in 1840, was pushed upstairs because his skills were diminished ... note the numerous large cents of 1839 that were rejected: Silly Head, Booby Head, etc. So Hughes was hired. Gobrecht died in 1844 and Longacre got the Chief Engraver position by political favor (Breen was correct, here).Hughes was the first sculptor hired by the Mint and the practice ended quickly, until Saint-Gaudens was employed in 1907. After that point, sculptors became common, as Saint-Gaudens pupils (Fraser, McNeil, etc.) were used.
As for the unexplained center dot, my explanation is that Hughes used a compass on a positive at some point. Whether this was done on the model or a reduction is uncertain. Why it was done is easier to explain (create guidelines for stars, lettering, dentils) than explaining at what stage it was done. Why was the compass not used on the master die (a negative) like it normally would be, instead of using it on the model/hub (positives)?
I have a feeling the concave fields were made in the reduction, as that would have allowed the model to have flat fields (easier to reduce AND another reduction could be made if the results were unsatisfactory, which they may have been, as the companion piece to Judd-110 has a different area of concavity). The model could be used numerous times, if necessary. If the sculpting of the fields was in the model, a second model would have been necessary to make the companion piece.
After the reduction, the guidelines were cut in the reduction and then a master die was made from this sculpted reduction. In the master die, the dentils of the obverse were the only item added. No rim or stars were added to this master die.
The reverse was prepared in the same way, a flat field model that was reduced. Guidelines were entered and a master die was raised from this reduction. I think the rim may have been in the model on the reverse, as it has a sculpted look. In the master die, the lettering on the reverse was added and the reverse master die was "complete." At this point the dies were installed and Judd-110 was struck.
I believe it was struck for this reason:
There is die polish in the sculpted field area. After the graver tool made these fields, they needed smoothing. On Judd-110 there is evidence of both these features. The fields have fine, raised die polish mixed with graver lines, as the polishing did not remove all the graver lines. These dies were not lapped, but were polished in specific areas, likely with a emery cloth.
As to why the front has dentils but no rim, while the reverse has a rim and no dentils ... it may have just been a time-saving measure. He wanted to show Patterson he could do all the "coin things" necessary, so he did examples of each. Or there may be some other explanation for this anomaly.
Photos courtesy of Kevin Lipton.
Comments
I wonder what the "1914 ANS Exhibit" entailed.
Calling @JesseKraft
A number of major collectors loaned coins to the ANS for an exhibition. The exhibits were published. You MUST get a copy. They are not expensive.
Or take the cheaper route here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044017609900&view=1up&seq=236
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I had a chance to examine this piece raw in the collection of one of the owners before Kevin. I tried to buy it but it was not for sale.
Will comment upon it when I get the chance.
@Zoins... Thanks for the history and picture. Cheers, RickO
See my post in the "new books to read" sticky about Roger Burdette's new book on 19th Century oddities which explains why and when this was made.
TD
Actually that has changed.
Kevin does not own it now.
NGC slabbed each seperately.
HA sold both recently seperately.
I was never able to make sense of these. Really cool that Roger did!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
For the record, I do not agree with the theory that Gobrecht was “pushed upstairs because his skills were diminished” or that Hughes created any or all of the dies from 1840-1843. The only evidence for Hughes doing any work for the Mint at all amounts to a brief receipt for payment to Hughes written out in the second quarter of 1840, which does not describe in detail any of the work performed. The existence of the 1840 trial issues and modified Seated Liberty design, and our knowledge of the differences between Hughes and Gobrecht (Gobrecht being an engraver by trade, and Hughes a sculptor), lead the assumption of Hughes having assisted with these particular changes to be entirely logical. However, any further assumptions about Hughes working at or for the Mint are purely conjecture and demonstrably flawed. There are no further records of payments made out to Hughes, and Hughes was never noted as an employee in the US Mint register in the following years.
Additionally, in a letter dated August 28ᵗʰ, 1840, one day after the death of Chief Engraver William Kneass (and after the work with Hughes had already been finished), Mint Director Robert M. Patterson detailed the following to President Martin Van Buren, regarding the appointment of a replacement for the newly vacant position:
I recommend, very respectfully, but without hesitation, that the vacant office should be supplied by the appointment of Christian F. Gobrecht, who is the present Assistant Engraver, and has filled this place for four years. Mr. Gobrecht is an artist of great skill and industry, and, in consequence of the low state of health of Mr. Kneass, has, for a long time, performed nearly all the duties of Engraver. His personal character is altogether unexceptionable.
If this appointment be made, I think it will not be necessary or expedient to supply the place of Assistant Engraver;—as our improvements in the mechanical means of multiplying dies have greatly diminished the labor formerly required of the Engraver.
In an accompanying letter of this date, addressed to Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury, Patterson again stresses that “the whole duties can now be performed by one engraver, with the aid of an able mechanician, Mr. [Joseph] Saxton, already in our employment . . .” Evidently, Patterson felt at this time that given the capabilities Gobrecht had demonstrated over the course of his employment, it would be suitable to entrust him solely with the engraving duties, and did not consider his skills “diminished” or it necessary to even employ an Assistant Engraver.
One more small piece of evidence is a letter from Gobrecht to Robert M. Patterson, Director of the United States Mint, in November of 1843, relating that “the weather being disagreeable this morning, I shall not come to the Mint. Enclosed I send the key of my drawer, in which you will find two half dollar tail dies, which, if intended for our Mint, are finished – one pair half eagle dies, and one pair turned half dollar dies, not finished. Having brought home with me yesterday the date punches, I am fully prepared to finish the last named dies, if they are wanted.” Thus Gobrecht was indeed involved in diesinking work as late as 1843.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
The pair have been reunited once again in a Midwestern collection of patterns. I know the new owner quite well. Really enjoyed the above discussion from forum members.
Cool piece!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
And what about this piece, the 1841 No Drapery Dime in Proof? It was designed this way, and is not the result of an overpolished die.
I suspect now that the die was hubbed, but not dated, in 1840, presumably tested via a splasher or two, and found wanting. I believe that the die was set aside, only to be dated in 1841 and used to make a few Proofs. Waste not, want not.
So who made the hub for this die, Gobrecht or Hughes? And how was the design modified into the Hughes design of 1840? Was a second die hubbed and then physically hand tooled by Hughes to add drapery on both sides of Ms. Liberty's body, and then used to create a master die from which a hub was raised? Or was the artist's model modified by adding clay or wax or whatever was used and a new reduction made? I suspect the former, but I may be wrong.
From Gary Fortin's website.
https://www.seateddimevarieties.com/date_mintmark/1841_101page.htm