Home U.S. Coin Forum

The matter of the 1804 Dollar "is a very complex one"

1630Boston1630Boston Posts: 14,111 ✭✭✭✭✭

Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko

Bad transactions with : nobody to date

Comments

  • WinLoseWinWinLoseWin Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "...our book is being written, for the purpose of laying this coin to rest. It can join other phonies."

    Guess Eric P. Newman was not a fan of the 1804 dollar. Some very harsh words in that second letter.

    Does anyone know if his view ever changed about those struck in the 1830's which did have a legitimate purpose and were not simply made for collectors?

    Possibly that was not yet confirmed at the time of the March 15, 1961 letter.

    "To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin

  • NysotoNysoto Posts: 3,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2021 4:42PM

    The letter must have been written just prior to the King of Siam information that would cause a rewrite of The Fantastic 1804 Dollar as it was going to press.

    edit - the last sentence of the Preface in the original 1962 publication "Evelyn E. Newman combed through the diplomatic records of the United States with the Asian powers for the 1832-36 period." That changed everything.

    Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It looks like Newman shares my view of novodels more generally.

  • dbldie55dbldie55 Posts: 7,741 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I am pretty sure at this point he did not know the true reason they were struck. This all changed after the book had some pre-published copies released and one of the original diplomatic sets showed up in tact.

    Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,630 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ken Bressett once told me that Eric originally intended the title, "The Fantastic 1804 Dollar," to denounce the coin as a fantasy or fake. Why they kept the title after the new information came out I do not know. I will have to ask him the next time I see him.

    The great cosmic joke is that the book had the opposite effect, so that most people now use the word in the sense "Wow! These coins are really fantastic!"

    TD

    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Good post, Boston.

  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,190 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I personally love the originals.

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And so the saga continues..... ;) Cheers, RickO

  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 9,641 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Newman never wavered on the "fantastic" status. The bottom line was that the coin violated the Mint Act (not struck in the year of issue). It's a hard line to take, but that is the letter of the law. Newman had no desire to own one.

    A few weeks ago I found a letter in the New Orleans correspondence that flat out said the Mint would hold over dies to use in the following year. Whether legal or not, there is no question this was an accepted practice within the Mint.

Leave a Comment

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