1792 Eagle on Globe
Eye_Boogie
Posts: 6 ✭
Hello, experts and enthusiasts.
I have in my collection an original Electrotype of the 1792 Eagle on Globe Wright pattern quarter.
The one I have is an original Electrotype of the coin currently held at the Smithsonian and was likely produced by Franklin Peale himself in the early 1840's.
I personally believe this Electrotype to be one of the most interesting and historically significant pieces ever produced at the US Mint.
There is at least one example of another just like mine which sold for over $10,000. Clearly, this is a very desirable type and ought to be appreciated and preserved in a holder. https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-quarters/1792-eagle-on-globe-quarter-dollar-electrotype-judd-12-pollock-14-ms60/a/1291-4322.s
I would like to get this graded, but have not had any luck. PCGS would not even consider looking at the coin if I sent it in. NGC said they would look at it, but sent it back ungraded saying they didn't grade that type of thing (even though I told them beforehand what it was and they said they would consider it).
I would greatly appreciate any help. It's been somewhat difficult seeking guidance on this piece, as there appear to be few-to-zero experts on this topic.
I've attached a few pictures.
Comments
I don't have anything to add other than that is interesting. Where did you find it?
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
I thought i heard one of NGC’s slabs caused damage to an original one because of the prongs? Could just be mistaken though.
that was memorably awful, it was all the prongs, I think someone eventually bent it back
It was part of a relatively large, expensive and unique collection that I purchased. This piece was actually part of a bulk portion of the collection that was bagged up with old (mostly cull) US/Foreign mix dating mostly 1750-1850
An electrotype is a replica, and it’s not a product of the US Mint. That’s why it won’t be put in a slab.
What a beautiful eagle design. One of the best looking reverses I've ever seen. Too bad that never made it onto any coin.
This one would have been made by Franklin Peale who was an officer at the US Mint and the only person to have access to the original coin (which is now at the Smithsonian) of which this coin is a copy.
The notion that it's not 'a product of the US Mint' is both inaccurate and irrelevant, as the grading services holder privately issued pieces regularly
I don't doubt your story, but I don't see any way to prove it. It seems to me that you would have to convince a TPG of the provenance before they would recognize the status that might get it approved for encapsulation.
I think their point was that your item is a replica of a US Mint product, and therefore wouldn't be slabbed. Yes, the TPGs slab foreign and private coins and tokens/medals, but not fake ones (except for ICG).
ICG will slab anything. Send to them
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Well...
Any documentary reference in Peales personal files, where he alludes to this undertaking?
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Even if that were true, it would not make it a product of the US Mint. It would make it a replica made by Franklin Peale.
I don’t think PCGS or NGC have ever knowingly certified an electrotype. This is not just a “privately issued piece”, it’s a copy produced by transferring from an original coin. That’s an entirely different thing.
They have certified hundreds, if not thousands of electrolytes.
The issue in this specific case is that the mother coin is extremely rare, and there are very few examples of electrolytes to compare against.
Electrolytes??
Please show examples of the hundreds or thousands of electrotypes they have certified.
https://coinweek.com/coin-profiles-electrotype-1804-dollar/
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Perhaps I was too hasty in saying it has never been done, given that in the 35+ years of TPG history some graders are bound to have made dumb decisions, but we have one example in the entire history of the TPGs of a certified (and supposedly mint-made) electrotype, graded by only one of the two TPGs, of the most famous US coin, and certified over a decade ago without any grade or details grade, just “Genuine” (the .80 code carries no meaning). Hardly hundreds or thousands of coins, and hardly a reason to expect more to be certified in the current day. Even the language on the holder (“said to be made at the mint”) sounds like they wanted to avoid any liability in putting it in a slab, and that doing so essentially carried no weight.
Searching the NGC and PCGS census, you get:
Nothing of relevance by NGC, just a medal, a token, and a pattern that was purportedly produced using the electrotype method, which doesn’t really count.
The abovementioned 1804 Dollar at PCGS, a couple of medals, a foreign pattern, the same J-159a pattern, and a fantasy 1793 1/2 Cent (not a copy, just a fantasy with a nonexistent design).
In sum, an extremely few number of types over the history of the TPGs, especially at NGC, and aside from the 1804 $1 no certified electrotype copies of US coins. If the 1804 $1 were not a one-off decision and was meant to set some sort of precedent, then there would be far, far more electrotypes certified.
And perhaps I was too hasty in saying there are hundreds if not thousands of graded examples.
Would have been more accurate to say dozens if not over 100.
There are more examples that can be found searching historic auction results than what are on the P/N databases.
There is a link in my original post to an auction result of a graded example of the sister coin to nine.
No there aren’t. Find us some more examples of the dozens of electrotype copies of US coins in holders. So far we have 1.
This?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-quarters/1792-eagle-on-globe-quarter-dollar-electrotype-judd-12-pollock-14-ms60/a/1291-4322.s
It’s not in a holder! “MS60” is just Heritage’s assigned grade.
Yes, one sold around $10k, and another came out in a Stack's sale shortly thereafter that sold for much less.
Regardless, it doesn't matter if the piece is slabbed or not. If it is a well-made copy it will do OK at auction.
What is exactly an original electrotype per your definition? And how would you know it to be an original.?
How would you be certain it was produced by Franklin Peale ? You didn't supply any proof of that here, so we can assume you have no proof, correct?
How would you know it is an original electrotype of the Smithsonian's example since their's is not an electrotype? Have you compared them side by side out of curiosity, not that really proves anything other than it could match?
How do you know it is an exact same as the example that sold, did you see them side by side, including the third side?
Excellent questions all.
I have handled the Electrotype of the Class II Dollar, and I was impressed by how much of the Swiss undertype was visible on the electrotype, as compared to pictures I have seen of the Class II Dollar in the Smithsonian. I have not handled the Smithsonian Class II Dollar. Nevertheless, I feel reasonably certain that the electrotype was made by somebody that had the now-Smithsonian Class II dollar in their possession.
I think perhaps the two most important questions should be, who made the electrotype shells, and when and where did this take place?
TD
Having trouble with the 'quote' feature, but to respond to Robert's comments:
An 'original' Electrotype for all intents and purposes would be an electrotype made from and during the time period that the original mold or molds were created. Not an electrotype of an electrotype, for example.
Such an example would be a very high-quality piece such as the one I have, and be an identical match to the original.
I have not handled the original coin at the Smithsonian. However, a photographic comparison shows them to be an exact match. Someone is welcome to try and prove me wrong on this! That would certainly settle the issue for me.
Unfortunately, I was not able to speak to Franklin Peale directly about this matter. I asserted that it was 'likely' made by him. He would have been at the mint and had access to the coin (he likely made the other example) when he came back from Europe with knowledge of the new technology.
Ok, so if next week I take an 1804 $1 and make molds and an electrotype of it, then it’s now an “original” electrotype? That’s a nonsense term. The vast majority of electrotypes are “original” if that’s your definition.