Definition of "Restrike"

MWallace

What is the "official" definition of a Restrike?
Struck from original dies.
Struck from transfer dies made from the originals?
Struck from all new dies with the same design?

I've seen "Restrike" used for all three scenarios.

NewEnglandRarities

I agree with you, the word restrike is almost thrown around like “rare” or “choice”. My mind, a restrike is a coin, struck later, from an already used die. For example, the New Haven Fugio Restrike is struck from fantasy dies created later (almost 100 years later actually). But it’s called a restrike because when made, it was thought that the dies were original but either none existed at that time, or were “unused” dies from 1787. Both are not correct, but the name stuck with the piece and as such, changing it now would be “confusing” at best.

This is a good topic of discussion though, one that has been debated for quite awhile with no clear cut answer after discussion. My opinion, based on what I’ve seen, is that the words have different definitions based on the SERIES being discussed. Restrike in large cents for example is reuse of dies already known. In colonials, it can refer to fantasy pieces in the style of original pieces (such as Bolen dies of famous colonials, elephant token, standing Indian NY patterns, etc.).

Because people are so used to the historical terms describing certain coins, it would be difficult to change as, in the colonial field, New Haven Restrike everyone knows, but New Haven Fantasy, nobody knows what that would mean. Hence the problem with the terms from a specific definition.

BStrauss3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_numismatics#R

But I would then follow-up to the original sources... which point to

Yeoman, Richard (2020). A Guide Book of United States Coins 2021 (74th ed.). Pelham, AL: Whitman Publishing. pp. 451–53. ISBN 978-0794847968.

BillJones

To me, a restrike is a piece that is made from old dies that were used previously. The Gobrecht Dollars made after the 1836 issues, in the 1850s, are restrikes. The current thinking is the rotational orientation of the obverse and reverse dies determines if the coin is an original or restrike.

This piece is believed to be one of the 1,000 pieces that were issued in 1836. The dies are set for a "coin turn" (flip on the horizonal axis) with the eagle flying “onward and upward.”

This one is believed to be a restrike from the 1850s. The dies are set for a "medal turn" (flip on the vertical axis) with the eagle flying level. This picture shows him flying level. I sold this one when I bought the previous piece.

Now, to complicate matters, this Feuchtwanger is a novodel. It is dated 1837, but the dies were probably made during the Civil War in the early 1860s. I can guess why the dies were back dated, but the piece was not made in 1837. That is certain.

The most famous novodels are the 1804 dollars. They were dated "1804" but were made starting in 1834.

Zoins

Here's a specimen of one of my favorites. Just one of 50 silver specimens made by Horatio Rust.

It says "New Haven Restrike", but now "Horatio Rust" could be another moniker to use.

TimNH

Here's my only restrike (that I know of), as I understand it the originals were tin coins c. 1688, but then original dies were used in 1828 to mint another "few hundred" coins in pewter, and here's one of 'em -

epc

Probably in late 1870, the D of UNITED was damaged in the obverse half dime hub, such that the top of the D is "missing" in coins made from dies produced with the damaged hub. There are "pattern", off-metal coins dated 1863 (J-323 and J-324) that have the faulty D, and were produced no earlier than late 1870. There are at least two silver half dimes struck with the same 1870s-era, 1863-dated obverse die. Andy Lustig told me they should be considered restrikes rather than patterns, even though they were struck with the "pattern" dies.

Here's my J-323 (copper):

and one of the silver "restrike" coins:

Namvet69

Maybe "re-issue" should be a considered designation?