A So-Called So-Called Dollar? 1886 Albany Bicentennial

GoldenEgg

At first glance, the medal below appears to be an HK-601a so-called dollar, a commemorative medal of the 1886 Albany NY Bicentennial. However, upon closer inspection, it is not indeed HK-601a as listed. The obverse die used on the medal below is far different than the listed medal. Most notably, it is missing the beaded border.

So does it qualify as an HK-601a? Or is it forever banished to the category of “unlisted so-called dollars”?

Has anyone seen another?

For comparison, the medal below is an HK-601a as photographed by PCGS.

trueblood

The faces are very very different, including the clothes and hair, wig and head piece. The obv is very different, while the reverse is practically the same. I would call it another medal that was possibly made before the HK-601a was approved. The engraver did 2 different versions of the obv, we know which one won.

coinsarefun

I agree obverse has two completely different details on face, clothes, hair etc.... as noted above by trueblood. Does it qualify as HK-601a? Or perhaps another letter, probably. Will it be? Not for a long time
to come in my opinion. It will be like many others in the “unlisted” category.
.
The scd’s really do get updated but very slowly.

Zoins

That is a very exciting discovery @GoldenEgg!

HK didn’t generally segregate on varieties, but Jeff Shevlin and Bill Hyder are. I would reach out to them for cataloging.

Are you collecting So-Calleds now?

keets

the bottom medal is a piece that I own, that's pretty cool!!

I would caution everyone to go slow and not rush to any kind of judgement on "2 different versions" or even "an unlisted" new variety. upon first glance what I see is two completely different planchet alloys and it's possible that the first medal listed is a more modern copy of some type. it is well documented that SC$'s have had copies made over the years, medals such as HK-125, HK-299 and HK-465(one is currently listed at Heritage). generally they are tied to yet another "Anniversary" of the original event commemorated, sometimes not as in the case of the HK-299 copy.

with the two medals listed in the OP this is what I see: the top medal is probably Bronze, the bottom is listed in HK as Bronze but it looks more like Bronzed Copper which was typical from that era. although the top medal could be some kind 1886 original variety we are now just discovering, it could just as likely be a copy from a 1936 Jubilee Celebration of the original BiCentennial.

Zoins

@keets said:
the bottom medal is a piece that I own, that's pretty cool!!

I would caution everyone to go slow and not rush to any kind of judgement on "2 different versions" or even "an unlisted" new variety. upon first glance what I see is two completely different planchet alloys and it's possible that the first medal listed is a more modern copy of some type. it is well documented that SC$'s have had copies made over the years, medals such as HK-125, HK-299 and HK-465(one is currently listed at Heritage). generally they are tied to yet another "Anniversary" of the original event commemorated, sometimes not as in the case of the HK-299 copy.

with the two medals listed in the OP this is what I see: the top medal is probably Bronze, the bottom is listed in HK as Bronze but it looks more like Bronzed Copper which was typical from that era. although the top medal could be some kind 1886 original variety we are now just discovering, it could just as likely be a copy from a 1936 Jubilee Celebration of the original BiCentennial.

Hopefully we can find out more information on this piece. The thread on the Battle of Groton Heights Centennial pieces as nice.

GoldenEgg

My original thoughts matched what @trueblood indicated. It must be a rejected design or a die that failed early on during production.

But as @keets was saying, it could definitely be a later strike, in this case using the original reverse die with a new obverse die, because the original obverse die was either lost or broken. And if there is no original documentation indicating either scenario, we don’t have much proof.

I do believe the reverse dies are the same. The exact same die markers are present on both medals. Before anyone says that a new reverse die could have been created using the original die or a medal as the basis for a “transfer” reproduction, even the fine die scratches are the same between both pieces. This is seen best in the upper, blank portion of the shield. These are details that would likely be lost in such duplication, either in the original transfer, or after die finishing/polishing is performed.

If the reverse die details are the same, then we should be able to use other die markers to possible determine the die emission sequence. However, after a quick review, I am not seeing any markers that can help us. All of the die markers I see are present on both examples (which may lend credence to them being struck around the same time).

There is a small dent below the first 8 in 1886 and a small pit near the bottom serif of the F in OF. They’re present on both examples.

As is obvious, the obverse dies are completely different. However, in my opinion, they appear to be done by the same hand.

First, the die punch style and size appear to be identical. However, the periods do appear to be different sizes.

Second, the trim/edge of the coat on the right-most gentleman appears to have been created using the same method, a zig-zag pattern that is not very common.

There are many other similarities as well. My question, if indeed my piece was struck in a celebration possibly 50 years later, why not replicate the right-most gentleman as closely as the other two were replicated? Why make him so different from the original?

My bias is obvious. I would certainly like my new piece to be a pattern or trial strike, however, we may never know for sure. I would love to see another example, though!

By the way, I am not so sure the surfaces/composition are all that different. My photos are lacking (and I’m doing all this on my phone). The look is largely impacted by lighting.

@zoins, I’m definitely not collecting SCDs! When I pick one up, it’s usually because I’m picking up a medal that I like, that just so happens to be a SCD. However, I did buy this one due to the differences from other examples of HK-601a that I had seen previously.

Zoins

@GoldenEgg said:
My bias is obvious. I would certainly like my new piece to be a pattern or trial strike, however, we may never know for sure. I would love to see another example, though!

Either way, it's a great discovery. This is one of my favorite SCDs.

@zoins, I’m definitely not collecting SCDs! When I pick one up, it’s usually because I’m picking up a medal that I like, that just so happens to be a SCD. However, I did buy this one due to the differences from other examples of HK-601a that I had seen previously.

You say that now, but what will you say when you have a Box of 20 of them

keets

we may never know for sure. I would love to see another example, though

honestly, this is the way progress is made. without being familiar with this medal I would believe most collectors would overlook the differences in the two. having been posted like this it might cause others to look more closely and find medals they have which are similar. stay tuned for those to be shown.

keets

I just did a quick review of every image I could find, HK-601/601a, which was about 30-40 medals and none are of the first image type.

GoldenEgg

@keets said:
I just did a quick review of every image I could find, HK-601/601a, which was about 30-40 medals and none are of the first image type.

Thanks! I think I looked through about the same number as well, and I did not see another example. I think this indicates that this “new variety” is likely less common than the variety commonly accepted as HK-601 and HK-601a.

If I submitted it for encapsulation, I wonder if it would be designated HK-401a. My guess is yes, if they are not looking for specific die varieties when attributing.

& by the way, your medal shows evidence of being double struck. That is not uncommon for medals with a relief much higher than seen on coinage, but I thought it was cool, regardless.

jonathanb

FWIW, I have pictures of a white metal example. I've asked the owner to join the thread if he wants to share.

Zoins

@jonathanb

Good to know about the white metal version.

Do you think these warrant new HK numbers?

jonathanb

Speaking for myself I think not a new number. I can't explain why I think that way, though. It's a judgement call.

jonathanb

@GoldenEgg @Zoins The owner is busy and won't rejoining the thread, but I have permission to post his pics.

Based on the holed / looped and somewhat circulated condition, I'm pretty confident that this was a period piece and not a later restrike.

yspsales

I love new discoveries on a Monday morning!

Fascinating.

GoldenEgg

Wow! Thanks for posting it @jonathanb

It’s interesting to me that this example is a holed white metal version. I would tend to agree that it suggests a period striking. I wonder how many more will surface!

Zoins

@jonathanb said:
Speaking for myself I think not a new number. I can't explain why I think that way, though. It's a judgement call.

Thanks for your thoughts and the photos of the white metal specimen. It's awesome to see another one of these.

Of note, Jeff and Bill are providing numbers for varieties so that may be a difference between HK and SH numbers over time.

Zoins

@GoldenEgg said:
Wow! Thanks for posting it @jonathanb

It’s interesting to me that this example is a holed white metal version. I would tend to agree that it suggests a period striking. I wonder how many more will surface!

It's great to see the white metal example. It's always nice to see another for confirmation.

Given that the white metal version is holed, I'm wondering if that weakens the case for it being a pattern? Perhaps it was a die that suffered die failure early. We may never know.

Zoins

So-CalledDollars.com does indicates that 2 obverse dies are known, but H&K 2nd edition does not.

Obv. Three conjoined male busts l. (Indian, early American and modern), microscopic Tracie Mark on truncation of busts; above Bi-Centennial; below busts Jul. 22. 1886. Two dies known, one with a flower in the lapel and one without.

https://www.so-calleddollars.com/Events/Albany_Bicentennial.html

GoldenEgg

@Zoins, is that a new edit to the website? I don’t recall seeing that note when I was researching previously.

Goldminers

I like the eagle pin attached to this version lifting two cannons and sword.

Zoins

Here's my HK-601 "no flower" major variety for comparison. This is pedigreed to @THOMAS655.

Zoins

@keets said:
we may never know for sure. I would love to see another example, though

honestly, this is the way progress is made. without being familiar with this medal I would believe most collectors would overlook the differences in the two. having been posted like this it might cause others to look more closely and find medals they have which are similar. stay tuned for those to be shown.

Agree. This is great work by @GoldenEgg! It's great to find and post about these major varieties.

Hopefully they will get their own catalog numbers for differentiation