1884-dated Hawaiian Fantasy Coinage
CaptHenway
Posts: 32,166 ✭✭✭✭✭
Just to get this on the record for the sake of the people involved in the other 1884 Hawaiian coinage thread, and for the benefit of future collectors and historians, here is a transcript of a document found by Roger W. Burdette in the National Archives. The original is a transcription of a talk given by a learned numismatist to a numismatic society.
In it you will find such fascinating information as the fact that a so-called 1884 Hawaiian half dollar in gold is actually struck over a 1901-dated U.S. $10, while an 1884-dated Hawaiian quarter is struck over a U.S. $5 gold piece (date not given.)
Thanks to RWB for the information.
--
NOTE: This 2nd or 3rd carbon copy was fund in NARA RG104 Entry 328F NN3-104-91-002 Box 2 “Hawaii.” The transcription was automatically prepared by the editor’s Natural Language Recognition (NLR) software and presents the original text as written including original typos.
On September 7, 1883 the Philadelphia Mint was authorized to make two (2) complete proof sets for the Mint Cabinet, two (2) more sets for display at Mint HQ in Washington, plus an indefinite number of other proof sets for official review and approval by the Treasury Department and the Hawaiian agent Mr. Claus Spreckels. These sets included the 1/8th dollar coin. Dimes were not substituted until December 1883 and it was agreed to date them “1883” although they (and most of the other coins) would be struck in 1884.
Roger W. Burdette
LECTURE ON HAWAIIAN COINS
To Be Given at
The Metropolitan Numismatic Convention
on May 4, 1963
James C. Risk
My friend Vernon Brown has just told you I am going to talk about Hawaiian coins. While Vernon is generally correct in his assumption I feel I should point out that a title such as "Hawaiian Coins" suffers from certain limitations. It doesn't really tell you what the subject of my talk will be apart from associating it with one particular series. Within this limitation I could almost talk about anything. It seems reasonable, therefore, to tell you, in a little more detail, exactly what aspect of the Hawaiian coinage I intend to discuss. Since the talk is supposed to be numismatically informative I see no reason why the audience shouldn't be let in on the nature of my subject in advance.
Most of you are probably familiar with current activity in Broadway Theaters. The past year or so has seen a crop of plays with long jawbreaking titles. The titles are eye catchers, although they don't spoil the performance by giving away the secret of the plot. An example which comes to mind is "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum." I was almost tempted to call this lecture, "A Funny Thing Happened When I Was Called Upon to Appraise a Collection of Hawaiian Coins so extensive I Almost Lost Count." On second thought, however, I realized that adapting the customs of Broadway to the field of Numismatics has its limitations. Trying to maintain the spirit of both the theatrical and numismatic professions I have decided to call my discussion, "A Preliminary Opinion Concerning the Validity of Certain Alleged Hawaiian Half and Quarter Dollars, dated 1884, and 8th. Dollars, Dated 1883 Struck in Precious and Non Precious Metals."
Until early this year I knew no more about the frequently mentioned gold and platinum specimens of the coinage of King Kalakaua than the average man interested in coins. I was aware that specimens had been sold in the Palace Sale of the Farouk Collection in 1954, and that they had appeared in recent publications listed as patterns. I also knew they were much sought after by the advanced collector of the series, and brought very high prices. But I had never seen one. When I heard I would be called upon to look over a collection, in the estate of a gentleman from Pennsylvania, which contained some of these rarities I was naturally excited. My excitement was considerably dampened as soon as I had the chance to take a good look at the Hawaiian gold and platinum Half Dollars. Anyone interested in Foreign and Ancient coins very quickly develops a nose for forgeries. I think I am correct in saying that the Collector of U.S. and Canadian coins seldom encounters an actual forgery, although he may find old 19th Century counterfeits from time to time. The American collector's eye and thinking are not attuned to the numismatic counterfeit, or out right fake. The physical appearance of the gold and platinum Hawaiian pieces in question left me highly suspicious. I therefore requested, and was granted, permission by the Executor of the estate to have all the Hawaiian Patterns in the collection for closer study, as well as some of the Proofs of the 1883 issue for comparison.
When the coins finally arrived on my desk I found, in addition to the Half Dollars mentioned above, five Quarter Dollars in [gold, platinum, oroide and brass, all dated 1884 and 4 1/8th dollars] platinum, bronze, brass and silver, or nickel silver dated 1883 and struck on rather thick planchets. A preliminary check of the sources used in listing the coinage of Hawaii failed to disclose any record of the existence of the pieces dated 1884, apart from those catalogued for the Farouk Sale. Now, all of us know that describing a coin to a man who has never seen it is very much like describing a pretty girl you met on the way to the Bourse the day this convention opened. No matter how enthusiastic you are, or how detailed your description, you will only raise a very mild interest in your hearer unless you can produce the girl for his own inspection. I have, therefore, had a series of slides prepared to illustrate some of the coins in question, not only to give life to my subsequent commentary, but to acquaint the collector with these particular pieces in case any one of them, or coins with similar characteristics, come to his attention in the future. I will ask you to pay close attention to the details I will point out.
Slide 1. Gold Half Dollar. This particular coin provided the key to the problem of the validity of all the pieces associated with it.
a. Note rough uneven surface in the field.
b. Note pimples on the King's face, as well as in other areas.
c. Note how the dentilations lack precision.
d. Note the evidence that the piece was struck over a 1901 U.S. $10 gold piece.
Slide 2. Gold Half Dollar, Reverse.
a. Similar details evident, including traces of the U.S. $10 gold piece.
Slide 3. Platinum Half Dollar.
a. Note similar surface characteristics proving that both gold and platinum pieces were struck from the same die. Pimples appear in exactly the same place.
b. Note double striking.
Slide 4. Proof Half Dollar, dated 1883.
a. Note sharpness of details compared to the crudity of the previous coin.
b. Before returning to the platinum specimen, note ear and eye lash.
Slide 3 again.
a. Note differences in ear and eye lash.
b. More of this type of comparison later with the Quarters.
Slide 5. Gold and Brass Quarters.
a. Note traces of design of U.S. $5 gold piece in coin on left.
b. Note parallel lines from dot on left of date.
c. Observe that all the Quarters show these lines, thus proving all were struck from same die.
Slide 6. Proof and Platinum Quarters. A comparison.
a. Note dentilations.
b. Note head differences. The nose, the ear, the lip whisker, the hairdo in back.
c. With these latter differences before you, and the comparison between the two Half Dollars, you have indication that the heads on these pieces did not originate from the same hub, or die.
Slide 7. 8th. Dollars.
a. Note close similarity in excellence of workmanship between Proof and Copper thick strike on right.
b. Compare these two with platinum specimen, below left. Note differences in dates, particularly the crudity of the date on the platinum coin.
c. Note crudity and overstriking of nickel silver piece on right.
Slide 8. 8th. Dollar Reverses.
a. Note difference between A's in center of 2 top pieces, but similarity of the Crowns. Copper piece lacks dot after Dol.
b. Compare crudity of lettering on Platinum piece, presence of dot, but differences in Crown.
c. Note poor striking of denomination on brass piece, right.
Now that you have had a close look at some of the so-called Hawaiian patterns, you are in a position to understand why I very quickly regarded all these particular coins as spurious. To recapitulate, not only do the dies of the various denominations differ in detail from the genuine issues, but the very fabric of the pieces is inexcusably rough, and uncouth. But even if these characteristics were not present, you have the inescapable fact that the gold Half and Quarter Dollars were struck over two U.S. Gold coins, one of them dated 1901. The platinum Half Dollar was plainly struck from the same die as the gold piece. All the Quarters have the distinct lines from the dot on the left of the date showing they too were produced from the same die. In my opinion, then, these Hawaiian coins dated 1884, and the 8th. Dollars, other than the proofs, can be classified in the words I used a few moments ago. They are numismatic counterfeits. I use these two words deliberately to indicate pieces fabricated, not to fool the public by masquerading as money, but to fool the collector by masquerading as coins.
I am confident that my listeners having heard and seen the evidence, will find it impossible not to agree with me. But, if any one of you thinks the problem created by the coins in question has been solved, he is sadly mistaken. Once we leave the specific pieces and consider the broader question of any Hawaiian coins dated 1884, and any 8th. Dollars not struck in Proof, we enter a dark and murky country bedeviled by crooked thinking, temporary enthusiasms and the inadequate use of what few bits of historical evidence and logical probabilities we have at our command. Where did coins of this type come from in the first place, and why? Who struck them? When were they struck? Are there similar coins, and if so, were they all produced by the same hand, under the same auspices, and at the same time? It will take the co-operative work of more than one numismatist, or numismatic historian, before these questions are answered. I do not pretend to have the answers. I would like, however, to throw out the few thoughts I do have for your own consideration.
In dealing with problems of the kind under discussion it is always wise to move from the general to the particular. Is it at all likely then, that a genuine issue of coins of King Kalakaua, still an independent sovereign of Hawaii, could have been struck or projected for the year 1884? On the face of things, it would seem not unlikely that the series would be continued once it began in 1883. Here we must refer briefly to the story of the 1883 coinage and the fate of the coins upon delivery in the Islands. I am indebted for my facts to portions of the doctoral dissertation of Professor Jacob Adler, of the University of Hawaii, entitled "Claus Spreckels, Sugar King of Hawaii." Excerpts were published in the February and March, 1960 issues of The Numismatist. In doing research for his thesis Dr. Adler used the facilities of the U. S. National Archives in Washington to get at the basic information about Spreckel's connection with the Hawaiian coinage of 1883.
By the latter quarter of the 19th Century, Hawaii, although still a nominally independent kingdom, was developing into a battle ground between representatives of American financial interests seeking to dominate the economy of the Islands. King Kalakaua represented an element of independant Hawaiian nationalism, a force felt by Sanford Dole and his associates to be inimical to their interests and plans. On the other hand, the King was supported by, and worked hand in glove with, the wealthy sugar planter and Banker, Claus Spreckels. During this period the national Treasury was chronically short of cash. In 1880 the legislature passed a coinage Act which empowered the Minister of Finance to buy gold and silver bullion for the purposes of coinage. The silver coins were to be of the same weight and fineness as those of the United States, but an 8th. Dollar, or 12½ cent piece, was called for in place of the Dime. In 1882 a National loan Act was passed providing for 6 per cent Bonds in amount of $2,000,000 to be issued to raise money for certain specific purposes. It was quickly discovered the Bonds could not be sold because no one had any faith in the future of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Spreckels then came to the aid of the government by offering to arrange for the coinage and to accept the striking of the Bonds in payment. In 1883, in his new capacity as official agent of the Hawaiian Government, he got in touch with the Director of the Bureau of the Mint in Washington. A contract was signed for the issue of $1,000,000 of silver coins ranging from the Dollar to the 8th Dollar. The dies and designs were prepared in Philadelphia, where Charles E. Barber was chief engraver at the Mint. When the designs had been accepted, and proofs submitted, 20 pairs of dies were sent to San Francisco where the actual coinage for circulation was undertaken. The dies were not to be delivered to anyone outside the Mint without authority from the Hawaiian Government, communicated through the Hawaiian Minister to the United States.
The coinage actually began on November 17, 1883 with a run of Half Dollars. Meanwhile the difference between Spreckel's authorization to arrange for the striking of 8th. Dollars, and a clause in the contract providing for Dimes, was noticed. This was quickly ironed out. Barber finished the hubs for the Dime in January 1884. The San Francisco Mint returned the dies for the 8th Dollars to Philadelphia without any specimens having been struck for circulation. All the dies were defaced in 1888 on the orders of the Hawaiian Government, and returned to the Islands where they still rest in the State Archives. Five sets, or 20 pairs of dies, were actually made, in addition to five sets for the Dime. While $130,000 in Half Dollars was delivered in Hawaii on December 9, 1883, the majority of the coins did not arrive until 1884.
The new silver coinage was not greeted enthusiastically by the opponents of the King and Spreckels. Public meetings of protest about undervalued silver were held, and Dole took steps to challenge the validity of paying Spreckels for what amounted to advancing the money for the cost of the coinage, with Hawaiian Government Bonds. A first class political row developed. On July 17, 1884 a Gold Law was passed by the Legislature, making U. S. Gold coins the only legal tender in the Islands. This law was at first opposed by Spreckels and the Government. Certain Banks began to discount the new silver coins in an effort to undermine public confidence in them, although Spreckels Bank did not. Confidence in the coinage was only slowly established. The coins continued in circulation until withdrawn by an Act of Congress in 1903.
I have given this quick summary of the political background of the Hawaiian coinage to explain how improbable it is that dies for an 1884 issue of coins would have been prepared in Philadelphia. The appearance of the coins caused such an uproar in the Islands it was plainly impossible to consider striking any more in 1884. The Government had enough trouble with Dole, his associates and supporters, as it was, and these men were manifestly interested in unseating the King with the eventual aim of making Hawaii a U.S. Territory. Under the circumstances, not only was no official discussion undertaken with the Philadelphia Mint about making more coins, but it seems unlikely that Barber, or any other engraver, would have taken the trouble to prepare dies in anticipation of a demand for them. The daily papers showed that such dies would hardly ever be needed. Under the circumstances, the possible preparation of 1884 dies by Barber can only be explained by assuming that he was not a reliable Government employee, an explanation which, I for one, am not prepared to accept. But the argument is possibly a wasted one, inasmuch as the coins you have seen projected on the screen here this morning, show differences indicating they could not have been prepared in the Mint from the same hubs used to make those for 1883.
I have recently heard the argument that, notwithstanding what we have seen and what has been said, the pieces in question must have had at least an official origin because of the similarities in the dies of 1883 and 1884. We have disposed of the similarity, at least for the time being. But this thought was followed by another. Why couldn't such coins have been struck for presentation pieces, or gifts, to be used by King Kalakaua or his successor? To this proposition I call your attention once again to the somewhat primitive fabric of the pieces themselves. If specimens had been struck for this purpose, it would have been quite easy for the King to have proper proofs made in Philadelphia. Certainly the existing specimens are hardly of a quality to make even a small Island King proud of the coinage of his country.
During the last few months several sets of the gold and platinum 1884 coins have been described to me. By some curious chance they all seem to have Farouk sale pedigrees. The coins we have seen were also sold with a Farouk pedigree. As it happens, there is only one set of the gold pieces, a Half, Quarter and 8th. Dollar sold as lot 110 in the Palace Sale of 1954. The same denominations in platinum were sold as lots 1502, 03 and 04. While the plates in the Farouk catalogue are not as clear as might be desired, it seems to this observer that the gold pieces were far superior to those discussed, while the platinum pieces, although of the same quality, were not the same coins. We are faced then with the existence of several sets of the gold and platinum pieces, all of which have had a Farouk pedigree assigned to them, when there was only one set of each in the sale. As has been said in another place, this is a numismatic miracle which can only be compared to the multiplication of the loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes as recorded in the New Testament.
If this proposition is accepted, the next question arising is when were the coins made. Certainly some of them were made after 1901, as we have seen. But the gold Half Dollar is not the only one of the series struck over another coin. Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Ostheimer of Philadelphia have another, containing some platinum either in its fabric or on the surface, struck over a cut down Columbian Half Dollar. One thing seems clear. The coins probably have a fairly recent origin, although it is not yet possible to pin down the actual date when they were made. Here I would like to call your attention to some information furnished by Mr. Gordon Medcalf of Honolulu, a name well known to all those interested in Hawaiian coins. Mr. Medcalf has access to the meticulous numismatic records of Bruce Cartwright Senior, and Bruce Cartwright Junior. The Senior Cartwright was one of the first recorded collectors of Hawaiian material. He started in the last decade of the 19th Century, when he was handling the estate of one of the Hawaiian Royal Family. His collection was sold at Sotheby's in 1907. His son continued his interest in Hawaiian coins, tokens and medals until his death in 1939. Neither of the Cartwrights ever saw or heard of an Hawaiian coin struck in gold or platinum. It does appear, however, that some specimens were in the Colonel Green Collection sold in the 1940's and that these were the pieces that passed into the hands of the former King of Egypt.
Of course, if the older Mr. Cartwright was unfamiliar with specimens of King Kalakaua's coinage made in the precious metals one very good reason may have been that they were not struck during his lifetime, and rather nearer the 1930's than the 1900's. Here, we must consider platinum itself for a moment. You will all recollect that it was never a startling success as a coinage metal. When the Russians began producing it in quantity during the early part of the 19th Century they tried to use it for issues of 3, 6, and 12 Ruble pieces but soon abandoned the experiment. The coins were unpopular and hard to strike owing to the toughness of the metal. Since there was no known use for it for some years, except for the purpose of counterfeiting gold coins, the value was not particularly high. After the 1870's it found increasing uses in industry, but didn't appear in the jewelry trade until 1900. It really wasn't until after the first World War that platinum acquired prestige as a status symbol. In my view, gold and platinum was probably used in fabricating the Hawaiian pieces because the metals have status symbol value in the eyes of the public, and in those of the probable creators of the 1884 rarity. The public has been conditioned to pay a high price for objects made out of these metals. It follows that when used for coins, it might be expected that the pieces would fetch a high price.
You can see that the deeper we probe into the mystery of the Hawaiian coins of 1884 the less clear the whole story begins to look. Let me muddy the waters still further. Until additional evidence appears to the contrary, I believe I have given ample grounds to explain my personal conclusion that none of the 1884 coins, if and when they are all rounded up for comparison, will be anything but spurious fabrications. I don't say this with any relish or glee, because I like rare coins as well as the next man. I happen to feel, they should be genuine products of the alleged mint of origin, in this case a United States Mint. But in considering the examples which have come to my attention I have just a glimmering of an even further twist in our story. There is something about the various 8th. Dollars which causes a certain disquiet. If you can remember the details of the reverses of the pieces projected a few minutes ago you will recall that the bronze or copper plain edged thick strike seemed to be of a rather better workmanship than that of the others -- much closer in quality, in fact, to the Proof. Thanks to the courtesy of Mr. Lester Merkin I have been privileged to examine a similar plain edged piece on a thinner planchet, of equal workmanship. Mr. Merkin purchased the coin in Philadelphia for 30¢ just a few years back when he was a school boy. I also have on loan from Tom McAfee of Honolulu what looks remarkably like a genuine lead strike of the 1883 Dollar. I mention these things because it is just possible that when the story of the mysterious Hawaiian coins is finally disclosed we may will find that there are several varieties produced at different times by different people.
In closing let me refer again to my earlier remarks. No one historian is going to discover the whole story of the Hawaiian numismatic counterfeits by himself. As in all worthwhile human activity co-operation of other like minded and well intentioned people will be required. In this connection let me say I owe a great deal to the stimulating conversations I have had with Mr. John Ford on the subject of these coins. I also have to thank Mr. and Mrs. Ostheimer of Philadelphia, who are keenly interested in the whole Hawaiian series, for their comments on the problem. They are giving it particularly close attention, and will certainly have an interesting contribution to make this year. There are several investigations, still in an uncomplete stage, which may well point rather strongly to a possible origination of these coins. Closer and really scientific examination of pieces themselves may also make them yield more the their secret. My discussion has been only a preliminary one. There is sure to be a great deal of numismatic meat left in the story before we reach the end of it.
Comments
I am not sure Risk's dismissal of Barber & seeming likewise of the US Mint [as sources of the 1884 dies, et al] are totally convincing..The OMS gold and platinum seem a bit of a challenge & his proposals better.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I agree with @7Jaguars
Maybe it’s in the slides we can’t see, but I didn’t notice anything in his notes to support his statement that they “show differences indicating they could not have been prepared in the Mint from the same hubs used to make those for 1883.”
Most of his physical arguments focused on the skin of the coins (compared with 1883 proofs) and the date area. Everything else was guesswork from the political situation at the time, which I don’t give much credit. Strange things happen all the time, and Hawaii was far from Philly, especially in the 1880s.
Does anyone have any overlays or anything to show proof that the 1883 hub could not have produced the 1884 dies?
I always default to laziness in these things. Why make brand new fake dies (which are very, very close to the real thing. Super high quality work if true) and then do crazy stuff like strike in non - coin metals and over existing later dated coins?
It seems much more likely that unused dies were rediscovered in the 30s or 40s (Hawaii wasn’t the US, this was a contracted striking and die security would not have been the same) and someone had fun making numismatic candy from them, which was then sold to the biggest, most credulous collectors of the time.
RWB points out that the hubs for the Hawaiian coinage were made by Barber as a private contract between him and the Kingdom of Hawaii via their agent, and that Barber may have simply kept them.
Edited to add: Apparently I misunderstood Roger. He said that though Barber did the Hawaiian hubs as a private commission he did deliver them to the Mint, which kept them until the early 1960's before donating them to the new State of Hawaii for museum display. He said that Barber simply might have kept copies of the artwork up to and including duplicate hubs, but there is no indication that he did so.
Thank you.
On a tangent, I also like the [1893/1895] Reginald Huth Hawaiian fantasy dollars. My bid missed the one at Heritage last month. They are attractive and quite rare.