The matter of the 1804 Dollar "is a very complex one"
1630Boston
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
4
Comments
"...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
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.
It looks like Newman shares my view of novodels more generally.
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.
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
Good post, Boston.
I personally love the originals.
And so the saga continues.....
Cheers, RickO
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.