Controversial Undated $20 Lib Pattern in the Bass Collection...
MrEureka
Posts: 24,330 ✭✭✭✭✭
This gilt copper pattern in the upcoming Bass auction. The question is, when was it actually struck? My opinion will follow later.
Cataloged as follows:
1850 DT$20 Twenty Dollar, Judd-126a Gilt, Pollock-Unlisted, R.8 PR64 PCGS. CAC. Ex: Harry W. Bass, Jr. Collection. The obverse features a head of Liberty facing left, with 13 stars around, similar to the regular issue dies, but without a date. The reverse is also similar to the regular-issue dies. Struck in copper with a reeded edge, gilt. This design was also struck in silver (Judd-126, Pollock-148).
USPatterns.com notes this was Longacre's second design for the double eagle, created as a replacement for the high relief motif used on the unique 1849 double eagle, which would not stack properly. Pollock listed the silver examples as P-148, and mentioned the Bass coin in his roster, but did not list it separately as a gilt copper piece. This design was also rejected and a third design was finally adopted for regular-issue production.
This coin first surfaced in the remarkable collection of George Woodside (New York Coin & Stamp, 4/1892), lot 92:
"(1859) Double Eagle: same as regular issue, but no date: copper: gilt: uncirc.; rare."
Noted pattern collector William Woodin acquired this coin. Possibly because of the (1859) citation in the Woodside catalog, Adams and Woodin erroneously listed the dateless silver and copper patterns (AW-279 and AW-280), under the 1859 date in their standard pattern reference. Judd and Pollock followed suit with the 1859 listing for the copper piece (Judd-259, Pollock-309), but USPatterns.com believes it should be delisted under this date in future pattern references.
This spectacular Choice proof exhibits sharply detailed design elements throughout. The lustrous honey-gold surfaces show a few specks of amber on the reverse. No mentionable distractions are evident and the high quality within the grade is confirmed by CAC. This unique and historically interesting pattern should find a home in the finest collection or Registry Set.
Ex: George Woodside Collection (New York Coin and Stamp, 4/1892), lot 92; William H. Woodin, exhibited at the 1914 ANS Exhibition; Waldo Newcomer; Abe Kosoff; purchased by Harry W. Bass, Jr. on August 3, 1971; Harry Bass Core Collection, HBCC #15126.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Comments
It's...cool. But strange.
I find the ephemera around the production of a new series interesting. The uniface plaster molds, the artist renderings.
But to me, they're kind of like bootleg tapes of your favorite band. They tell part of a larger story. But they're rarely (never) as good as the finished product the artist intended to release.
I think I'd rather have a nice example of a rare production date than an undated gilt mock up.
--Severian the Lame
Some coins to consider in the discussion:
Paquet's amateurish 1859 pattern dollar. (The workmanship is so poor that some question it's status as a US Mint product.)
Paquet's 1859 pattern $20, J-257. Intriguingly, the date has been moved to the reverse.
1859 pattern $20, J-258, which pairs a dateless Longacre obverse with Paquet's reverse.
A crazy muling, J-270, which uses a Longacre pattern small cent obverse of 1857 and a 1860 $2.5 reverse that I attribute to Paquet. (Paquet never got around to creating an obverse die for the quarter eagle.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Workmanship looks pretty good to me on the $20.
In addition to the pieces shown above, the following exist:
A muling of an 1859 $20 regular issue obverse and the Paquet reverse that was (most likely accidentally) used in 1861.
A muling of an 1859 $20 regular issue obverse and the Paquet reverse used on J-257.
A dateless muling of an undated $20 regular issue obverse and the regular issue reverse.
An regular dies 1859 $20 struck in copper.
Without connecting all of the dots at this time, I'll jump to my conclusion and say that the Bass coin clearly seems to be part of this family of patterns. So yes, it may have been created using an experimental 1850 obverse hub, but it was almost certainly produced in 1859 or very shortly thereafter.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Looks like 1849 to me.
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
who knows but I would assume most patterns come as "originals" or novodels
I think this is the case. The distinct similarity to J-259 cannot be ignored, and I don't think its a stretch to say that the gilt piece may have been part of the same 1859 mintage.
Coin Photographer.
Doesn't this have the Blundered LLBERTY seen on all regular issue coins dated 1850-1858?
Bump
Yes, but I'm not sure what that proves.
For more on these coins, check this out:
https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/j126p148.html
I'm not sure I agree with Saul about all of this. Hopefully we can figure it out before the auction.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I have an idea Andy, but I need to be 🤐
If this is from the blundered LLBERTY master die which is the ancestor of all working dies used from 1850 to 1858, I don't see how it can be said to have been "rejected."
Unless of course there were TWO different master dies with LIBERTY spelled LLBERTY. I can see a scenario where perhaps Longacre was missing the "I" punch from this partial lettering set (I assume that the engravers only stocked the letters that they knew they were going to need) and so he punched first a normal L into the master die and then punched another L tilted to the side to minimize the foot of the L. The B punch would then have helped minimize it further. The same procedure could have been used for both master die #2 and master die #3.
That said, I think that this is the artwork used for all working dies 1850-1858. If there are any design differences that prove otherwise, I would love to have them pointed out to me.