Options
Awesome 1795 Dollar on Small Copper Planchet from Parmelee-Newcomer - Pollock-34
Zoins
Posts: 33,910 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here's a wonderful small dollar from way back in 1795!
It's a 1795 Bust Dollar struck on a Half Cent planchet!
It also has a great, long provenance noted below. It's noted as the Parmelee-Newcomer coin by PCGS, but I like to think of it as the Lustig-Byers coin 
More information is available on this at MintErrorNews:
Some interesting things and questions about this coin:
- This is cataloged as in Pollock but not Judd. Since this is a U.S. Mint piece, should this also be in Judd?
- Why does the PCGS slab not mention the Pollock-34 catalog number like they mention Judd numbers?
- It's cataloged as a die trial for 1795 but since full-sized die trials are available fro 1794, could this be a mint error?
Here's the pedigree. It would be nice to identify the people role as dealer or collector. Also,
- William Elliot Woodward 1863
- Lorin Gilbert Parmelee 1890
- George D. Woodside 1892
- William Woodin (exhibited at ANS 1914)
- Waldo Newcomer
- Frederick Charles Cogswell Boyd
- Abraham Kosoff 1951
- Stack's 1975
- Private Collection
- Andy Lustig
- Mike Byers
- Private Collection
20
Comments
Calling @MrEureka, @Byers and anyone else who has seen this coin in hand
An amazing piece!
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
@Zoins
It is an amazing and unique coin with a famous pedigree. The color and overall look is very attractive. I purchased it from Andy less than 2 weeks ago. It was immediately sold it to a customer in the mid-six figure range. It is the plate coin in previous Judd editions as a mint error, and is on the uspatterns website. It’s one of the most fascinating coins that I have ever handled.
It looks like a great coin! I bet it was great seeing it in hand and picking it up from Andy!
It's also very interesting that it's the plate coin in Judd. Do you know the Judd number? Here's the USPatterns.com page which doesn't indicate the Judd number:
https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/p34.html
It is a cool piece, but I think I would rather have a 1794 silver dollar in AU, for about the same price.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I bet the buyer doesn't have to choose.
It is the plate coin in previous Judd editions as a mint error. Mint errors did not get Judd numbers.
The customer/collector has an amazing collection of U.S. coins and can purchase any coin that he wants. This coin is a combination of rarity, history, and pedigree.
FWIW, I believe the piece should be listed in Judd and given a Judd number. Based on QDB’s comments in his Silver Dollar Encyclopedia, he agrees. But there’s no actual proof of why it was made, so it remains a bit of guesswork.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Its a pretty cool off metal strike of an early dollar on the vwrong planchet. Nice to see it resurface and be placed in a collector set. The small planchet apparently allowed it to be valued greater than other 1795-1797 half eagle or eagle copper patterns in Judd. I think this prices it like a very cool error, as opposed to off metal pattern. But it does engender enthusiasm from Dollar, Error and Pattern collectors as discussed. I saw the coin in hand and thought it had great eye appeal for the AU grade as well.
Andy, I hesitate to say this as you and QDB have each forgotten more than I'll ever know, but when there isn't any known documentation on why a piece was struck, it always defaults to the lowest possibility.
Andy- I agree it should be given a Judd #.
It’s plated in Adams and Woodin, and in Judd:
that is amazing!
seeing stuff like this pedigreed going WAY back really puts my mind at ease about some of this stuff that has been coming out of the woodwork. not really mainstream error(s) and there are a LOT of them. not necessarily ones like this, just wonky stuff moving powerfully yet silently in the background.
96 Grains is a Half Cent planchet.
Yes!
That is what I mentioned in the Mint Error News article, regarding the possibility that it is on a Half Cent blank planchet:
“ This unique 1795 Small Eagle Dollar was struck on a 96 grain copper planchet. Certified by PCGS as AU 55, it still retains much luster and is absolutely stunning. In my professional opinion, this 1795 Small Eagle Dollar was struck on a half cent planchet. This scenario seems most logical since the weight of 96 grains falls between the two weights of early dated half cents, 84 grains and 104 grains. Early half cents are known to have different weights and even the Red Book states that "the figures given are statutory. Actual weights will vary."
.
for the sake of numismatic conversation, why this piece and not a myriad of other esoteric pieces?
** It's a 1795 Bust Dollar struck on a Large Cent planchet!**
Definitely not struck on a large cent planchet.
The thick lettered edge planchet used early in 1795 weighed ~ 207 grains.
The thin plain edge planchet used later in 1795 weighed only ~167, but still far more than this incredible piece.
But a minor nitpick, this is a great post!
If it’s not a mint error, and is an intentional creation or die trial, like many other coins that are listed in Judd, it should be given a Judd #.
The 2 Headed 1859 Indian Cent was assigned a Judd #, even tho there is debate whether it was a mint error or intentional creation.
Due to that fact, and that this $1 1795 in copper is plated in Adams and Woodin AND Judd, it’s a reasonable decision to assign it a Judd #!
appreciate the commentary. patterns don't get talked about enough, in-depth these days, so a little goes a long way. i really have no dog in the fight what is listed or isn't for patterns but enjoy the convo about why/how either way.
Hi Lance-
Yes, it’s a great discussion!
When I sold it, I gave my opinion why I think it’s on a Half Cent blank and why it should be assigned a Judd #, but that there are no guarantees that this will occur.
And whether it is a mint error, die trial, or intentional creation, and whether it’s on a Half Cent blank or cut down Large Cent blank, its unique, historic, amazing and has a fantastic pedigree starting from 1863.
Congratulations to the new owner who added an amazing coin to his collection!👍
It's definitely amazing no matter what it is!
Definitely! Hopefully the collector will be willing to add his name to the provenance list some day!
@Zoins
I will ask him
Certainly the price was very high compared to other patterns of that period struck in off metals. So i think it's been valued more as an error. Be interested to hear how the buyer thought about it. It sold for a greater price than many amazing patterns of the era including the platinum half dollar and potentially the 1804 silver eagle, which are historic well known patterns. I didn't see the value that high for this oddity as a pattern, but I also am not an error collector and I don't know that market. I know errors can go for crazy prices when they are unique with a good story. Just follow Mike Beyers cool reports to get a sense of that market. The early dollar collectors are a very deep pocket group as well. I'm curious if the buyer liked it as a dollar error first and foremost.
I'm curious to hear from the buyer / Mike as well.
My guess is that it's being valued as an extension to the bust dollar series first, regardless of being a pattern or error.
This unique 1795 $1 struck on a small copper planchet was very well known and on the wish list of many customers. People have been staring at the 50 year old 5th edition of Judd, where it is plated, along with the unique 1851 $20 struck on a Large Cent blank planchet (which I also handled.). Both of these are very famous pieces and unique.
I think that it transcends just one coin category and fits into mint errors, patterns, die trials, Bust Dollars, and unique pieces.
I had several places to go with it as soon as I purchased it from Andy.
Here are both plated in Judd:
Here is the $20 1851 on the Large Cent blank that I sold in 1975:
i do recall, just ONE time, seeing a pattern book with color pages/plates, packed wall-to-wall with simply amazing specimens. i really don't recall if it was a full listings from j1 to jxxxxx or not.
PRETTY sure it wasn't an auction catalog.
does this sound familiar to you pattern collectors/dealers?
It's a gorgeous, well-centered piece. I can definitely imagine several people vying for it!
It's certainly possible that it's on a half cent planchet. Still, there's enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that it was an intentional creation that I think it belongs in Judd. Three things point in that direction. First, the dies are very dramatically rotated, which is very unusual (if not previously unknown) for the type. Second, the obverse and reverse dies do not match any known silver 1795 Dollars. (That doesn't prove anything, but it does make it seem more likely that the dies were never used to strike silver pieces, and were possibly only later taken off the shelf to produce a single copper piece.) And third, there are what appear to be some unusual die defects, which could be why Mint employees decided to shelve the dies before striking any silver pieces for circulation.
Again, none of this proves anything. It just seems to me like the most likely scenario, and I think that's enough to justify a listing in Judd. Regardless, a listing in Judd would not automatically make the coin any more or less valuable. Opinions will vary, and are essentially meaningless unless backed up by a live check.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I personally don't think of it as an error coin but a test piece or die trail.. No collars in those days of course yes, but this was done on purpose not on accident.. Why call it an error?
Good info on this piece Andy. It's certainly a mystery which makes it fun to think about! It seems like dramatic coins that have an interesting story can see strong demand.
Years ago, I explored the creation of various errors using Gallery Mint's "Special Orders" option.
I always wondered why this 1796 $ struck on their 1793 vine & barrs edge 1c planchet expanded further compared to Judd plate coin which I drew inspiration from. Now I see Judd example was more likely struck on 1/2 cent blank due to diameter & handy weight on slab.
Very cool piece. Way out of my price range.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
An amazing coin and an incredible provenance. Must have been quite the experience to hold it and examine it in hand. Cheers, RickO
Andy’s 3 points add to the mysterious, enigmatic and fascinating discussion regarding why it was struck and whether to classify it as an error, die trial, or intentional striking.
Having stared at the photo in the Judd book off and on for decades, having it literally in my hands for a few days was not sufficient. It’s an amazing coin!
There is also the scrap copper struck on known 1798 dollar dies that Craig Sholley described as a press set-up piece, distinct from a die trial. This was found by metal detectorists during construction on property adjacent to the First Philadelphia Mint.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/596844/stacks-1798-b30-dollar-copper-die-trial-for-serious-collectors
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/595782/newly-discovered-treasures-dug-up-in-philadelphia
Since the OP piece was struck with previously unknown working dies (obv numeral tops different position, leaves different), possibly Scot and Voigt were making a selection of which dies gave the best strike and appearance on the new design. Another possibility is an experimental piece that focused on the central devices to determine if the working hubs were sinking working dies in the manner that Scot intended, or if the design needed more adjustment. They did spend considerable effort on this design change with the Eckstein plaster models.
If a true die trial piece, I think it would have been on a full size planchet.
BTW, I did consider the possibility that it began as a full size copper dollar, and was then cut down for use as a large cent planchet. But an inspection of the edge convinced me otherwise.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
My assessment might be totally wrong, but given the information regarding its pedigree, size, and weight, I think this could actually an experimental piece reusing a 1795 silver dollar die and struck on a blank for a two cent piece.
The timing of the first known documentation of the coin, in 1863, is key to my reasoning. The first copper two cent patterns were struck this year and thus the planchets would have been available at the time. The weight of a two cent piece is 6.22 grams which equals 96 grains, however the aforementioned contemporary half cent blank would weigh 6.74 grams and that equals 104 grains which is a significant discrepancy for the posted coin.
We know also that the Mint was in the habit of playing around with its dies, creating restrikes and selling them privately to collectors and dealers. Again, knowing that the coin in question is stated to have first appeared in 1863, who is to say with absolute certainty that it wasn't made and sold privately?
I still think it is a fascinating piece, and again I know I could be totally wrong about it. Just wanted to put my two cents in.
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer, see my portfolio here: (http://www.donahuenumismatics.com/).
Just to throw another log on the WAG pyre, why do we assume that a “test piece” was testing dies? Imagine that Adam Eckfeldt was building, repairing or otherwise modifying a coin press and he wanted to test the press. Slap a couple of dies in it in no particular alignment, toss a planchet between them to prevent clashing and tell the swing gang to swing away.
I can see why a prospective buyer might take that position, but pretty sure there is no actual rule.
Besides, I don't really know what "the lowest possibility" means, much less what it would be.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Thank you sir. I understand your point.
Nysoto said:
With closer examination of the OP 1795 Pollock-34 reverse, I believe it is 1795 Reverse K which was paired with the B-14 Off-Center Obverse for it's first usage (but the OP P-34 obverse die is different).The olive and palm leaves are hand cut and not hubbed, and they line up along with the berries (lowest berry on the OP coin is softly struck and not visible). Also, two reverse letters are visible in the blown-up TrueView 44551874 of the OP P-34, the lower serif of N is visible and where it should be on Reverse K, along with the lowest loop of U. A quality overlay would confirm this.
The OP P-34 obverse appears to be different than the two known dies for 1795 draped bust (off-center and regular). The top of the 7 is a slightly different angle than the B-14 off-center obverse.
I looked for obverse hub differences with the OP P-34 and B-14 off-center, the strike on the P-34 is slightly soft which can account for the lack of full drapery lines and mushy nose and lip details. The P-34 is also AU55, so some of these details such as drapery lines can be slightly worn on the high points. The P-34 obverse die could still be from a hub and working die that was not fully finished.
I have attached TrueViews of the OP P-34 and the B-14 SP66 (an early strong strike) to compare the differences and reverse similarities that I noted above:
Take a look at the position of the leaf between the U and N of UNITED.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The SP66 has been lapped which could account for the slightly smaller N serif and shorter leaf than the P-34. An overlay would confirm or not, if all the berries and leaves are in the same position.
edit - calling @lkeigwin, @LanceNewmanOCC , need some help with an overlay, scaled size for OP TrueView and the 1795 SP66 off-center dollar that I posted, to verify IF they are possibly the same reverse die. Thanks!
Very interesting. I wonder if dies are still available to strike one of a 1/2 cent blank now?
Not an overlay, but here's a side by side. Not the exact size but allows magnification on some interesting areas.
On the full-size coin, the rear talon on the eagle's right (viewer's left) talon appears noticeably longer.
With unknown dies, has it been clearly established that its a mint product. The 1794 dollar, 1795 half eagle and 1797 eagle have all been matched (at least in one side) with coins produced for circulation. Would two dies be used and then tossed in that era?
This item is an enigma.
I would guess 1796 Gallery Mint Dollar limited production dies used 24 years ago are long ago discontinued/destroyed, but then again, we have seen recent gold reproduction dies overstrikes made last couple years using closed mintage dies from a couple decades ago. I am good with the one I special ordered back in 1996.
Concerning the 1795 $ on 1c above it seems a better guess is maybe a 2c pattern planchet from 1863 that perfectly matches the 1795's grain weight was used to create The Judd plate coin. This makes more sense to me as the Philly's Midnight Minters were producing numerous unavailable collector patterns for their friends in that era. And this first daylighted in 1863.
i concur. it is not only longer but they are different shapes/width/length.
the part i focused on was the ribbon/branch angle/gap.
the full size is going down at an angle while the error one is almost parallel. (there is a small chance there is variance because there is no collar holding back the copper, so broadstruck pieces are subject to have weird stuff happen at the edges and really for the rest of the coin since the flow of metal is NOT operating as normal. the collar REALLY REALLY changes how the flans/dies react when it is or is not in place.
since these are struck on VERY different metals, we ought to give some leeway to diagnostics not matching up.
for my part though, i really don't think they were struck from the same dies.
@ikegwin you're up.
Since there are different opinions on whether this piece is a die trial, pattern or mint error, is the same type of confusion going on with the buffalo nickel struck on a $5 planchet? It seems like a similar situation to me.
Young Numismatist
Thanks, so far. The eagle is hubbed and should not be different, along with the ribbon. The leaves are hand engraved on the working dies along with the berries. Remember 1807 O.115, different design but same process.
Question: Since the berries are hand punched on each working die, if an overlay shows Exactly the same berry placement, how could the working dies be different? There is one way they could be (I worked with design transfer tooling 36 years), but I don't believe they would do that in 1795, berry placement was always different for each working die on the small eagles.