Home U.S. Coin Forum

1783 Washington & Independence Silver Restrike

ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited November 6, 2021 1:44PM in U.S. Coin Forum

I follow the Washington & Independence tokens, especially the silver restrikes.

The E. Pluribus Unum Specimen is now being offered by CRO, but without the provenance or cert number.

Here's more information on these:

https://coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/WashDRAPED.intro.html

(1860) "1783" Washington & Independence - by Thomas Wells Ingram - Silver with Engrailed Edge - Musante GW-107, Baker-3A, Breen-1195 variety - PCGS PR64 POP 14/6 - Ex. E. Pluribus Unum, Coin Rarities Online

Here are the photos from the current CRO sale:


Here are the Stack's photos from the E. Pluribus Unum sale:

Comments

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 25, 2021 5:39PM

    I was posting this to document the provenance since CRO doesn't leave up all their pieces in their archives. After the documentation part, I got to look at the differences and found something surprising in the insert text.

    The two PCGS coin numbers and grades are the same and the two TrueViews look similar, but the slab notations are very different. The new slab doesn't indicate it's a reissue any more. Perhaps someone didn't like the Musante GW-107 1860 Reissue text on the label?

    The one on the left is the older Stack's Bowers E. Pluribus Unum (Nov 2020) sale and the one on the right is from the newer CRO (April 2021) sale.

  • CoinRaritiesOnlineCoinRaritiesOnline Posts: 3,662 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 27, 2021 7:24AM

    It's interesting - I did not even notice the change in slab notation.

    This coin - like many others we acquire in auction - typically arrives wth the slab all scuffed up from heavy handling during lot viewing / cataloging / shipping, so I had it reholdered. If it's going in to be reholdered anyway, I usually just go ahead and regrade it at the same time since I figured this could 64+ or even 65. I did not ask for any changes in notation on the slab or anything, this is just how it came back.

    As for the provenance, unless it is a famous name sale (Eliasberg, Norweb or something like that) I don't typically highlight it.

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 29, 2021 4:00AM

    @CoinRaritiesOnline said:
    It's interesting - I did not even notice the change in slab notation.

    This coin - like many others we acquire in auction - typically arrives wth the slab all scuffed up from heavy handling during lot viewing / cataloging / shipping, so I had it reholdered. If it's going in to be reholdered anyway, I usually just go ahead and regrade it at the same time since I figured this could 64+ or even 65. I did not ask for any changes in notation on the slab or anything, this is just how it came back.

    As for the provenance, unless it is a famous name sale (Eliasberg, Norweb or something like that) I don't typically highlight it.

    Good to know.

    In my mind, E. Pluribus Unum seems to be one of the most significant collections of Washingtonia, rivaling the William Sphon Baker collection in quality, if not breadth. It was assembled over decades and well worth following, at least for Washingtonia collectors. More on these collections here:

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1046848/e-pluribus-unum-collection-baker-redux

  • MidLifeCrisisMidLifeCrisis Posts: 10,540 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Since both slabs indicate that the coin is a restrike with "1783 Res" in the upper left corner, perhaps PCGS thought "Reissue" was redundant when they looked at it again.

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 29, 2021 7:04AM

    @MidLifeCrisis said:
    Since both slabs indicate that the coin is a restrike with "1783 Res" in the upper left corner, perhaps PCGS thought "Reissue" was redundant when they looked at it again.

    Two significant pieces of information were lost.

    Generally a date that is not in quotes or parentheses is considered the issue date but 1783 is clearly not the issue date for this. As such, the 1860 date is significant. On some issues, PCGS will put it in parens in the top left corner like:

    (1860) 1783 Res

    The other thing is that the Catalog Number (Musante GW-107) is missing now which seems unusual for PCGS.

  • MidLifeCrisisMidLifeCrisis Posts: 10,540 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here's a restrike that I owned about 15 years ago.
    1783 Washington Draped Bust Restrike, Silver
    Baker-3A, Breen-1195 variety, Engrailed Edge.
    .

  • MidLifeCrisisMidLifeCrisis Posts: 10,540 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the 1860 date is a "best guess". Even the Notre Dame article you referenced listed several theories about when these were struck.

    I don't know about the Musante catalog number - why it was included on one slab but left off the other. Perhaps PCGS doesn't think that level of detail is important enough to most collectors. It wouldn't be to me.

    As a side note, 1787 is the only date listed on the slabs of any of the Fugio Restrikes that I've owned or others I've seen.
    .

  • I've got 29 of these, I suspect there are 31 based on the population guides for NGC & PCGS. Two of mine are 'Details Cleaned' and one 'Details Damaged Rim' so because NGC Shows a 66 which is a double (67) there are two more remaining outside of my collection, (64 & 65). PCGS Shows (None) and NGC (29) - (1 Double) + (2 Scratched) + (1 Damaged Rim) - (Winslet Collection 29) = 2 Outstanding or a total known of 31.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file