Home U.S. Coin Forum

1823 B-1 Bust Quarter : 200 Year Anniversary ~ Montroville Dickeson Private Restrike

1TwoBits1TwoBits Posts: 452 ✭✭✭✭
edited May 28, 2023 9:38PM in U.S. Coin Forum

Due to the fact that we're in the lean years for bust quarter varieties, it's been a while since I've posted one of these threads.  1823 has only one variety (B-1) and it is the rarest date (R6) in the entire bust quarter series with approximately 30 examples known. 

Like the 1822 Browning-3 variety discovered in 2017, the 1823 B-1 shares the same reverse die T with it's top arrow shaft incomplete and lowest arrow shaft and arrowhead also incomplete.  Because of it's rarity, the 1823 bust quarter has been extensively researched and written about over the years.

I'm going to add a twist to this thread in tribute to Broadstruck since I was sad to learn the recent news and always enjoyed his "Copper" posts.  I wish he had gotten to see this thread as I think he would have liked it.

Back in 2007 while reviewing eBay, I came upon an interesting piece I had never seen before.  The eBay listing stated "Dickeson US Pattern, Early Bust Quarter."  After some spirited bidding at the end, I was able to win the coin.  I showed it to the authors of both of the newer bust quarter books, and the piece is listed and photographed in the book by Steve Tompkins.  Steve lists this under Private Restrikes in his book, noting the reverse as the 1820-1828 bust quarter reverse incomplete working die muled with Montroville W. Dickeson "Eagle On Shield" for the obverse.  There is also an example of the same reverse incomplete die struck in lead with no obverse die muling which was likely struck by Dickeson at around the same time (Judd Plate Coin JA-1823-1).

Steve lists an example with the exact same muling as the copper example from eBay as Haseltine 4/6/1882 Lot 50, so I am guessing that coin is not plated in the Haseltine catalog since the photo is not available, but it is noted that it could be the same example as the eBay piece.

Further note that there are other Private Restrikes that have been cataloged and numbered by Judd and Pollock such as:

  • 1805 B-2 bust quarter obverse muled with "Eagle On Rock" reverse (Haseltine 4/6/1882 Lot 49)
  • 1806 B-5 bust quarter obverse muled with Sheldon-207 large cent reverse
  • 1818 B-2 bust quarter obverse muled with 1818 Newcomb-8 large cent reverse

After years of storing the coin from eBay raw, I finally decided it was time to try and encapsulate it for safety.  It appeared the coin may be a unique restrike, so I wasn't sure how things would go, but sent it in to our host in hopes of good news in the end and Trueviews.  Once the order was logged in, and I waited for more than the requisite time, I started opening dialogue with customer service since I figured there would be issues with PCGS never having seen one of these before.  To make a long story short, with a little help from our helpful friend @MrEureka and also JD, I was finally able to get everything worked out and the coin was encapsulated (below):


The PCGS label came back as "(1860's) 25c Eagle On Shield Fantasy Dickeson Private Restrike."

As an aside, the original eBay seller is another Forum friend of ours: @dcarr and I followed up with him at one point trying to find out more more information about where the coin had come from.  If I have it right, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, the coin was part of an old time collection that Dan was selling on eBay for someone he was working with and it was in a box full of odds an ends.

Some questions and comments I'd like to pose to any readers:

  • Is there a book on Dickeson's productions, and do any Forum members have it?  I'm curious if there are any listings with this reverse incomplete working die hub.

  • What determines whether a pattern coin can be cataloged with a Judd and/or Pollock number?

  • Does a coin have to be struck by the U.S. Mint to be cataloged as a pattern?

  • The other private restrikes by Dickeson and others noted above are all listed in Judd and Pollock, including the uni-face lead restrike, so why wouldn't this copper example muled with the "Eagle On Shield" not deserve a Judd number and be included in future editions?

Since this is a thread about the 1823 bust quarters, please feel free to post one if you have one.  Also, if you have a counterfeit/altered 1823 bust quarter, please post a picture.

Just to throw in a little extra fun, please feel free to guess the grade PCGS gave to this copper muling if you would like.

Thank you for reading, and any comments or questions are appreciated.

1TwoBits

Searching for bust quarters.....counterstamps, errors, and AU-MS varieties, please let me know if you can help.

Comments

  • RobertScotLoverRobertScotLover Posts: 545 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 29, 2023 12:08AM

    I think it is fabulous. Obviously incredibly rare, and most likely I assume an R8 (under Sheldon scale) at this time, although I have nothing to back that statement up other than gut feeling with a touch of general knowledge in the hobby.

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for the pictures and the history. I learn a lot reading this forum... Though much is about areas I do not presently collect, it is still informative and interesting. Would love to come across something like the OP coin in a junk box. WOW!! Cheers, RickO

  • scubafuelscubafuel Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Sorry for missing this the first time. That is a great piece. I remember seeing and wondering about it when the quarter reference books came out. I always wonder if these dies are still in existence…

  • NysotoNysoto Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Obverse" is definitely from a hub engraved by John Reich and later used to sink a die for the Dickeson restrike, Terminology is "Eagle bearing a shield" from the National Archives. I have some stuff buried in rubble that I need to dig up.

    Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
  • NysotoNysoto Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I did not find everything that I wanted, but found enough to explain the Dickeson issue to @1TwoBits .

    The US Mint contracted work for the Treasury Department to fabricate revenue stamp dies during 1797-1800 for the Quasi-War and First Barbary War, and in 1813 for the War of 1812. Robert Scot was paid for engraving the 1797-1800 issues, and Adam Eckfeldt was paid for fabricating 18 stamp screw presses (which he sub-contracted most of the work). For the 1813 stamp issue, Adam Eckfeldt was paid "to have executed" 18 sets of dies, Robert Scot was not involved with this issue. They were engraved at the US Mint, including the original dies and hubs. Reich engraved them (I can explain why, if needed).

    The OP pictured Dickeson restrike obverse is from a die sunk with a dollar hub engraved by Reich. The azures, or blue horizontal lines, are not hubbed but engraved on the working stamp dies, which is why they are not on the restrike. The hub was heavily rusted. S. H. Chapman quoted Dickeson as reporting the dies turned up in Mint scrap.

    The revenue stamp possibility was first reported by Breen with supporting evidence of a 1817 letter by Adam Eckfeldt regarding the stamp dies. It was Pete Smith who discovered in 2014 the connection to the dollar revenue stamp die, as published in 1792: Birth of a Nation's Coinage. I published a chapter on the revenue stamps in my biography of Robert Scot, along with a 2019 article in Penny-Wise "Defending Liberty: Robert Scot and Adam Eckfeldt Create Wartime Revenue Stamps at the Mint."

    I have two of the dollar stamps on embossed revenue stamped paper. The first was intended for the 2019 article, but was not included as the focus was on the 1797-1800 issues. I can't find the stamp, but have the 2019 picture. There were three stamp dies made from this hub, this first picture is of Die 1, or RM 280:

    This second picure is of RM 280a, which is Die 2. I measured today wing tip to wing tip as 23.9 mm, and the diameter of the stamp impression as 28.7 mm:

    This is the full document of the promissory note from James Sargent to Moses Bell in 1816:

    Lastly, the "Eagle on the Half Shield" Dickeson restrike can also be explained by a revenue stamp hub, as reported in Treasury Records.

    Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
  • RobertScotLoverRobertScotLover Posts: 545 ✭✭✭✭

    That is some wonderful pictorials of our former historic revenue stamps you got there.

  • GoBustGoBust Posts: 582 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 15, 2023 4:58PM

    Cool piece. I'm very fond of these concoctions. They had a very interesting set up making various things with various dies. Imaging getting large boxes filled with 40, 50, 60 year old dies when you were already an ardent numismatists like Montroville Dickeson and Joseph Mickley were. What fun!

  • 1TwoBits1TwoBits Posts: 452 ✭✭✭✭

    That is most interesting information @Nysoto and I really appreciate your follow up after digging it up. I was hoping for some more comments, so you really hit a home run.

    One thing I'm still trying to understand is the cataloging of these "concoctions," as @GoBust noted. The three examples I noted in the OP above along with the uniface lead trial strike all have Judd and Pollock numbers. You can quickly see these starting on page 327 in the book Early United Sates Quarters 1796-1838 by Steve Tompkins. I believe that the coin in the OP is Lot 50 in John Haseltine's 4/6/1882 sale. Lot 49 was an 1805 B-2 quarter obverse paired with Eagle On Rock reverse, and that example has a Judd and Pollock number.

    How are patterns determined and cataloged with Judd and Pollock numbers? I would have thought a pattern would have to be struck at a US mint, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If these privately struck pieces that were partially created from discarded US mint dies are cataloged under Judd, is that correct, or should they be cataloged as Fantasy Restrikes? Should the example pictured in the OP, which appears to be the resurfaced coin from Haseltine, really be called a Fantasy Restrike or should it be cataloged with a new Judd number like these other unusual privately struck creations.

    It would be interesting to hear what @MrEureka or other collectors knowledgeable about patterns thought about this particular scenario.

    1TwoBits

    Searching for bust quarters.....counterstamps, errors, and AU-MS varieties, please let me know if you can help.
  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 23,892 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 21, 2023 10:59PM

    @1TwoBits said:
    That is most interesting information @Nysoto and I really appreciate your follow up after digging it up. I was hoping for some more comments, so you really hit a home run.

    One thing I'm still trying to understand is the cataloging of these "concoctions," as @GoBust noted. The three examples I noted in the OP above along with the uniface lead trial strike all have Judd and Pollock numbers. You can quickly see these starting on page 327 in the book Early United Sates Quarters 1796-1838 by Steve Tompkins. I believe that the coin in the OP is Lot 50 in John Haseltine's 4/6/1882 sale. Lot 49 was an 1805 B-2 quarter obverse paired with Eagle On Rock reverse, and that example has a Judd and Pollock number.

    How are patterns determined and cataloged with Judd and Pollock numbers? I would have thought a pattern would have to be struck at a US mint, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If these privately struck pieces that were partially created from discarded US mint dies are cataloged under Judd, is that correct, or should they be cataloged as Fantasy Restrikes? Should the example pictured in the OP, which appears to be the resurfaced coin from Haseltine, really be called a Fantasy Restrike or should it be cataloged with a new Judd number like these other unusual privately struck creations.

    It would be interesting to hear what @MrEureka or other collectors knowledgeable about patterns thought about this particular scenario.

    1TwoBits

    Generally, pieces that look and smell sort of like patterns but are known to have been struck outside of the Mint may be included in the main catalog of Judd or (if uniface) in Appendix A (Hub Trials and Splashers) and described as "private restrikes" if produced exclusively by US Mint coin dies, or in Appendix C ("Pieces Not of Mint Origin") if one or more of the dies were also produced outside of the Mint.

    There are some exceptions to these rules, which have more to do with convenience than anything else. For example, the 1942 pattern cents (J-2051 to J-2079) and Martha Washington trial pieces were struck both at the US Mint and (officially) at a number of private firms, yet Judd lists them all together in the main catalog.

    One more thing. It's a stretch to call the Dickeson pieces "restrikes". I hesitate to say that they should simply be called "private fantasy" pieces, because that language seems a little vague, but I don't have a better suggestion at this time.

    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • 1TwoBits1TwoBits Posts: 452 ✭✭✭✭

    Thank you for adding that to the discussion @MrEureka . I think this is a very interesting gray area of numismatics, so this helps me understand a little better how this Dickeson piece would fit in.

    1TwoBits

    Searching for bust quarters.....counterstamps, errors, and AU-MS varieties, please let me know if you can help.
  • NysotoNysoto Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the OP example is significant, an extremely rare muling of an unfinished coinage die and a die sunk from a rusted stamp hub, both made at the Mint. The Mint was require to keep the stamp issues in case they were needed again "The
    original dies and hubs to be delivered in good order to the Commissioner of Revenue whenever required, and to be safely kept at the Mint in the mean time." The Mint kept the dies and hubs, if they were delivered they would have to be sent back to the Mint to sink working stamps as the Treasury Department did not have that ability. I intend to write an article on these and related issues that I have found evidence for, but it will be some time as I am working on other numismatic projects.

    It is interesting that Dickeson believed these were 1792 patterns, as he apparently was not aware these were stamp dies when he received them.

    One other item I want to mention, the "Eagle Bearing a Shield" design was originated by Robert Scot in 1798, which he did on several embossed stamp designs. With the 1813 issue, Director Patterson decided against using arrows, and all designs showed wartime defiance with the Eagle Bearing a Shield. This Scot example is a ten cent from 1800 for the First Barbary War, it is easy to see the differences in wing, feather, and head style from Scot to Reich. Also has a Commissioner of Revenue counterstamp with Scot's hexagram star pattern:

    Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver

Leave a Comment

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