Possible Dickeson discovery piece
wood5g
Posts: 30 ✭✭
Thoughts on this Dickeson continental dollar according to a letter that accompanied it
It is slightly tapered from . 122" or 3.1mm thick to . 106" or 2.7mm
Weight is 22g
Diameter is 1.5" or 38mm
4
Comments
Are these your photographs?
Yes, just got this piece yesterday
I personallydislike relying on a letter that a dealer claims that went with a coin or medal vs a letter that can be proven to be attached 100% to a numismatic item. I just know about people collecting letters just for this situation, its a shame but it happens, they like to have a story add to a coin's interest
FWIW, that letter looks like a photocopy.
The letter is interesting. The piece has Dickeson characteristics along with the correct weight, thickness, and diameter. The thing new would be I don't think any brass pieces have ever been recorded
I totally misread the name and came in with a whole different set of expectations….
Having fun while switching things up and focusing on a next level PCGS slabbed 1950+ type set, while still looking for great examples for the 7070.
Its amazing how jaded I have become after being a member here, when a poster with only 7+ posts states the above I unfortunately side to healthy skepticism believing that such a new member would know how many brass exist let alone knowing if this token is made of brass, sorry but I had to say it, no disrespect meant
Looks awfully crude to be a Dickeson piece. Just my initial observation.
My photo editing skills could part of the crude looking manner in which it appears. It got a little dirty in travels over the years
I like the letter. Old fashioned version of "My coin is rare and valuable! How much is it worth?"
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Funny thing is the coin dealer thinks it's pretty much worthless
Apparently Mr. Bolender was quite the numismatist
https://www.coinbooks.org/v24/esylum_v24n04a25.html
Bolender was a major figure on the numismatic scene during that period.
The surfaces look odd. Maybe plated?
Clearer pictures might help. The jpeg artifacts are severe, and I don't trust the colors either.
7:30pm est light from window
The denticles look right for a dickeson example but the surfaces look odd. Possible environmental damage, cleaned, retoned look.
Based on the new pics I think it might be an electrotype.
Thank you for the new pictures.
Was that original obverse picture through a flip or something? It shows parallel lines that look like a scrape that run from the rim right of the 6 across the high parts of the CY of CURRENCY, but they are gone on the reshoot.
In your opinion, which color is more like the piece, the first set or the second set?
I'm bummed now. Those scraps are there. The 1st photo was taken under a lamp with my phone. Tried to lesson the brightness. Now that you mention the scraps I looked around the edge and it is scraped or filed all the way. Rookie 😭 I had a bundle invested in this thing too $11. Good thing I made sure it could be returned. Did make one good decision. Thanks for the input
I would not return it. It’s worth more than $11, even if it is an electrotype with scratches and filing.
I have a feeling that the OP lost a digit and actually paid $110 or similar. An electrotype (if that's what this is) definitely has some value. An original 1876-era strike would be worth a few hundred dollars. I could see an electrotype being worth $50-100.
I'm still not positive this is an electrotype, of course. That's just my best guess from the pics
Tell you what. If the seller doesn't honor his return. I'll sell it to you or anyone else for the $11. I really don't care for electrotypes. Even though it was a good teaching tool
Don’t return it yet.
Could we please see a picture or two of the filing on the edge. Might be a cast replica, but electrotype still in play.
It can be hard enough to sort out which medals were struck by Dickeson and which medals were struck by Elder, that became more difficult when Bashlow and Bowers issued copies. Both Prof. M. Dickeson and Thomas Elder issued medals with themes tied to this struck in brass so I would think it's not unrealistic to believe some of this issue may have been struck on brass planchets. There are reliable diagnostics to separate the medals and be able to determine the issuer, but the pictures provided make that difficult. For instance, as @jonathanb mentioned, the rim/denticles look like medals issued by Dickeson, There are obverse die cracks/die scratches that are absent and would indicate someone other than Dickeson struck the medal. The overall detail looks a little weak for an 1876 issue.
I believe that emphasis on the letter is a bit much. To me the medal itself looks not to be a Dickeson issue but the expert on these is @CaptHenway, so I will defer to him. Better images are needed of the two sides overall and certain areas close-up would be helpful.
And this is why dealers drink...
What Bolender was trying to tactfully say is that it is a replica with little value. For $11 it's worth keeping for fun but it is not the home run you obviously thought it was.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Here is a closeup of the Sun's rays on an original Dickeson strike in Copper or Bronze, courtesy of the wonderful Heritage Auction archives. The OP's piece is missing the two at the left that come above the circle and some of the ones at the right that come above the circle. That means that this piece was (probably) copied from one of the later strikes, but which one?
Here is a blowup from the OP's second shot of the obverse.
Full obverse and reverse of a Dickeson strike in Copper or Bronze, courtesy of the Heritage Auction archives.
Edge views
Seems I'm constantly learning lessons in the coin world > @CaptHenway said:
Was trying to post an eBay page in reply to Johnathan B's comment about spending $100, but for some reason it wouldn't post. Anyway here's a piece I did spend $100 on a few months ago that the group can critique while we are at it
That latest one was an excellent buy for $100
Now that’s a good one!
Thank you everyone. Definitely here to soak it in
I just had a thought. May we assume that you purchased these two pieces, plus the letter, from the same source?
If so, did the letter physically come with the "Brass" piece, or the "copper/ bronze" piece?
My thought was that perhaps while all of this was with the original collector, the letter to and from Bolender originally accompanied the genuine Dickeson copper/bronze piece, which Bolender correctly identified as having come from the 1860's or 1870's. I can't imagine that they would have sold for much in 1949, which would explain why Bolender was rather dismissive of it.
I found an ad in The Numismatist from 1974 offering one for $75, as part of a large collection of struck copies of colonial coins as catalogued by Kenney in the 1950's. Kenney's catalogue greatly increased the interest in and the prices of said struck copies, just as my 1980 catalogue of the Thomas Elder pieces greatly increased the interest in, and prices of, the Elder pieces. I could not find any ads selling the original DIckeson COntinental Dollar strikes in the 1940's or earlier issues of the Numismatist, and it is quite possible that before 1950 they only sold for a few dollars.
If the above is true, then the "Brass" piece, with its later styles rays under the Sun, may well have been made, however it was made, after the Empire and Bashlow pieces came on the market in the early 1960's, and not pre-1949.
TD
As I read the letter, Bolender never saw the medal. He was commenting based on the text in the letter.
Also, the letter is a photocopy so it could have been paired up with countless other medals to provide some sort of bogus provenance.
OK, I see what you mean. It was an offer to send the piece which Bolender declined.
However, I do not think that that document is a photocopy. Looks original to me. What makes you think it is a photocopy?
FWIW, some people used to reply to correspondence by writing or typing on the original and returning it to the original sender. Eric P. Newman did that with cover letters that I sent him from ANACS when we were consulting with him on various things.
All of the dark horizontal lines on the letter look to me to be folds in the original that were picked up by the (vintage) photocopier. Also, on my screen I see lots of "noise" (random patterns) that might have been picked up or created by the copier.
It is possible that the Bolender note was typed on a copy of the original, but the date stamp and typed text look like the same color and texture to me.
A photo of the back of the letter would resolve any questions pretty quickly. The typewriter would have embossed the paper.
The letter absolutely appears to be a photocopy and the signature is not an original, in ink signature, it is a photocopy signature.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
alogued by Kenney in the 1950's. Kenney's catalogue greatly increased the interest in and the prices of said struck copies, just as my 1980 catalogue of the Thomas Elder pieces greatly increased the interest in, and prices of, the Elder pieces. I could not find any ads selling the original DIckeson COntinental Dollar strikes in the 1940's or earlier issues of the Numismatist, and it is quite possible that before 1950 they only sold for a few dollars.
It would have been nice if the letter came with the copper piece. I purchased it in January. The letter came with the brass piece from a few days ago sad to say.
Someone has spent a lot of time folding and refolding that letter over the years. It has many multiple folds
Okay, thanks for the come back.
The "brass" one looks like it was a transfer cast (from a Dickeson piece) in lead and then plated or painted.
The copper one looks like a die-struck Dickeson, although the wire rim is somewhat unusual.
Try putting the brass one in lacquer/paint thinner and see if the color comes off.
If it is actually plated, the solvent will not affect the plating. But if it is painted, the paint will dissolve.
I'm unable to soak in thinner at this time, but will give it a try down the road.
I thank you for your patience with us. It has been fun looking at the piece, even if it is not real. I believe that is IS a vintage fake, and to an old Authenticator such as myself that makes it interesting.
Thx for the picture of the back of the letter.
Definitely a photocopy.
I'm enjoying everyone chiming in with their opinions. Here's another piece in white metal. The so -called dollar book states that they are 3mm thick. This piece is 2 1/2 mm thick. So if I were to send it in for encapsulation would they put the thickness on the capsule
Thickness varies a lot and is irrelevant to attributing this piece. That one is clearly an original 1800s strike.