Concerning the lack of provenance for this ‘surprise’ 1804 dollar:
First of all, it is a ‘backdoor’ Mint product, probably produced circa 1860 or so.
And Stack may have been bought it around 1930. That leaves a 70 (+ or -) year gap.
So It’s even possible that Stack bought it, directly or indirectly, from the estate of the collector who originally acquired it from some unknown Mint employee, or director.
Whether it happened that way or not, it must have traded only privately in the roughly 70 years before Stack acquired it.
So, it has a provenance, but incomplete. .
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
@CaptHenway said:
A hypothetical scenario: Stack had an heir that had asked him to leave the coin to him or her. The heir kept the coin quietly, grew old and either died or decided to liquidate. Since the (hypothetical) mystery heir was not a bankable pedigree, it is being offered under the very bankable, and very literally accurate, Stack Pedigree.
Even under your hypothetical scenario, wouldn’t you expect a bankable provenance history at or prior to the time the coin was obtained by Mr. Stack?
Who knows? Perhaps the provenance info went with the coin to the hypothetical heir, and the hypothetical heir, not being a collector, threw it away or lost it.
Remember the guy who bought an 1894-S Dime just because he wanted to own one rare coin? Hardly a collector.
Next questions…😉 Suppose the provenance information was thrown away, what do you think the chances are that the coin was previously in one or more public auctions but couldn’t be traced/matched? And what do you think the chances are that the coin never appeared in one or more public auctions?
Excuse me. The world has not always been as it is today. 1804 Dollars have not always been multi-million dollar coins. My first Redbook (probably a 1964) listed Original 1804 Dollars at $10,000 or so. Stack died in 1951. Grabbing a 13th Edition off of my bookcase I see that the Idler Restrike sold for $3,125 in 1947. If I were a dealer in that era and I bought a nice Restrike in over the counter I might simply offer it directly to a good customer, as Mr. Stack apparently was to the dealers of his time. The dealer gets a quick profit, with no auction house commissions and no waiting months for the sale.
I used to have a guy who collected gold bars of different types. Everything we bought in that looked interesting I offered to him first before it went in the showcase. Period. When he finally cashed out to fund some medical research for something that his daughter had, the collection was roughly 3,800 ounces.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@CaptHenway said:
A hypothetical scenario: Stack had an heir that had asked him to leave the coin to him or her. The heir kept the coin quietly, grew old and either died or decided to liquidate. Since the (hypothetical) mystery heir was not a bankable pedigree, it is being offered under the very bankable, and very literally accurate, Stack Pedigree.
Even under your hypothetical scenario, wouldn’t you expect a bankable provenance history at or prior to the time the coin was obtained by Mr. Stack?
Who knows? Perhaps the provenance info went with the coin to the hypothetical heir, and the hypothetical heir, not being a collector, threw it away or lost it.
Remember the guy who bought an 1894-S Dime just because he wanted to own one rare coin? Hardly a collector.
Next questions…😉 Suppose the provenance information was thrown away, what do you think the chances are that the coin was previously in one or more public auctions but couldn’t be traced/matched? And what do you think the chances are that the coin never appeared in one or more public auctions?
Excuse me. The world has not always been as it is today. 1804 Dollars have not always been multi-million dollar coins. My first Redbook (probably a 1964) listed Original 1804 Dollars at $10,000 or so. Stack died in 1951. Grabbing a 13th Edition off of my bookcase I see that the Idler Restrike sold for $3,125 in 1947. If I were a dealer in that era and I bought a nice Restrike in over the counter I might simply offer it directly to a good customer, as Mr. Stack apparently was to the dealers of his time. The dealer gets a quick profit, with no auction house commissions and no waiting months for the sale.
I used to have a guy who collected gold bars of different types. Everything we bought in that looked interesting I offered to him first before it went in the showcase. Period. When he finally cashed out to fund some medical research for something that his daughter had, the collection was roughly 3,800 ounces.
Excuse me, too. Much of what you wrote would apply to the other 1804 dollars, as well. So why do all of them have provenances, but not this one?
Based on posts to this thread from other forum members, I’m not the only one who finds this situation unusual/puzzling.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
US Mint, Director James Ross Snowden, 1859, purchaser unknown.
(This space intentionally left blank)
James A Stack, Sr. purchased it sometime between “the late 1930s to 1951” according to Stack’s Bowers.
It took a trip to PCGS, another to CAC, 21st century.
Auction to be held December 2025.
You can’t always get
the complete impeccable provenance you want,
but if you try sometime, you get what you need.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
US Mint, Director James Ross Snowden, 1859, purchaser unknown.
(This space intentionally left blank)
James A Stack, Sr. purchased it sometime between “the late 1930s to 1951” according to Stack’s Bowers.
It took a trip to PCGS, another to CAC, 21st century.
Auction to be held December 2025.
You can’t always get
the complete impeccable provenance you want,
but if you try sometime, you get what you need.
Thanks, Mick.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
A hypothetical scenario: Stack had an heir that had asked him to leave the coin to him or her. The heir kept the coin quietly, grew old and either died or decided to liquidate. Since the (hypothetical) mystery heir was not a bankable pedigree, it is being offered under the very bankable, and very literally accurate, Stack Pedigree.
Even under your hypothetical scenario, wouldn’t you expect a bankable provenance history at or prior to the time the coin was obtained by Mr. Stack?
The press release states "Research on the coin continues..." so time will tell what if anything they can determine. I think it is to soon to draw conclusions about the pedigree.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
any unaccounted Mickley examples that this could be one of? not that any of that has an impact on title of this coin - but just thinking out loud where a gem might have come from
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
I reject the silly concept that every possible rarity is already known to the world, and it bothers me when people bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it. Maybe THEY think that this somehow makes THEM look smaller.
Remember the fabulous discovery of the Saddle Ridge gold hoard? A number of people sniffed and said that because there was no record of the coins, they must have been stolen! This wrongly maligned a truly great discovery.
I have mentioned on here before going to look at a collection in upstate New York in the early 1980s that was eventually auctioned by Bowers and his then partner as the Emery-Nichols Collection. This was a three generation collection that began in the 1880s and ended when the third generation died suddenly about 1940 and his widow put everything in a steamer trunk, locked it, and asked her bank to keep it for her. She then lived for over 40 more years.
I got called in because her heirs, a niece and nephew, opened this time capsule and discovered paperwork which indicated that the late collector had been an ANA member, and oh by the way there was an 1804 dollar in the trunk. This was not long after I had recovered the Linderman 1804, so Rochette worked out a deal with them where I would fly to New York at their expense and examine the coin. Alas, it was a clever alteration, But the point is that this coin might have been sitting in this collection for up to 100 years, and it had by chance been a genuine 1804 it could well have been a new discovery.
Otherwise it was a great collection. Everything was in those brown Wayte Raymond pages. I remember picking up one page designed to hold a complete set of Twenty Cent Pieces. It was full. I looked at the obverse of the one in the 1876-CC hole and saw the doubled die obverse and just knew that the CC would be there when I turned it over.
Off the soapbox.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
any unaccounted Mickley examples that this could be one of? not that any of that has an impact on title of this coin - but just thinking out loud where a gem might have come from
Did Mickley have a Class III 1804? If I remember correctly, he sold or auctioned his collection around 1867 after having part of it stolen.
I know he had a Class I. Is there a list of what was in the auction and of what was stolen?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
More like 25, IMHO.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
More like 25, IMHO.
Maybe. I find it curious that the Class III coins all of a sudden started appearing mid 1870’s if they were struck 15 years earlier
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
I reject the silly concept that every possible rarity is already known to the world, and it bothers me when people bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it. Maybe THEY think that this somehow makes THEM look smaller.
Remember the fabulous discovery of the Saddle Ridge gold hoard? A number of people sniffed and said that because there was no record of the coins, they must have been stolen! This wrongly maligned a truly great discovery.
I have mentioned on here before going to look at a collection in upstate New York in the early 1980s that was eventually auctioned by Bowers and his then partner as the Emery-Nichols Collection. This was a three generation collection that began in the 1880s and ended when the third generation died suddenly about 1940 and his widow put everything in a steamer trunk, locked it, and asked her bank to keep it for her. She then lived for over 40 more years.
I got called in because her heirs, a niece and nephew, opened this time capsule and discovered paperwork which indicated that the late collector had been an ANA member, and oh by the way there was an 1804 dollar in the trunk. This was not long after I had recovered the Linderman 1804, so Rochette worked out a deal with them where I would fly to New York at their expense and examine the coin. Alas, it was a clever alteration, But the point is that this coin might have been sitting in this collection for up to 100 years, and it had by chance been a genuine 1804 it could well have been a new discovery.
Otherwise it was a great collection. Everything was in those brown Wayte Raymond pages. I remember picking up one page designed to hold a complete set of Twenty Cent Pieces. It was full. I looked at the obverse of the one in the 1876-CC hole and saw the doubled die obverse and just knew that the CC would be there when I turned it over.
Off the soapbox.
TD
I don’t see where much of what you wrote pertains to the current discussion.
Unless I missed it, no one put forth the “silly” concept that “every possible rarity is already known to the world”.
And I think you jumped to an incorrect conclusion in accusing posters of “bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it”.
Your appeared on your soapbox in the midst of the wrong thread.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
All of the Stack lots just posted to the website. Some really cool stuff including a 1794 and some beautiful 1795 dollars and Double Eagles. Looks like he bought a lot of stuff in HL Lee sale (Eliasberg 1947)
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Of course - but that doesn’t mean Linderman couldn’t have sold the coin in the U.S. and that it (much) later made its way to Mr. Stack.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Of course - but that doesn’t mean Linderman couldn’t have sold the coin in the U.S. and that it (much) later made its way to Mr. Stack.
Consider your previous suggestion withdrawn.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Now that I can see the lot (without full description) listed on the SB web site. Although there is no textual description, this and serveral other lots include pictures of the accompanying ephemera. It appears that the 1804 Dollar was kept (loose ?} in a white Marine Midland Bank envelope along with a Templeton Reid QE and an Oregon Gold Coin. The white envelope has a notation “HF Stack 39 y[o]” and at the bottom it says “(Col Greene specimen ?)”. In in addition to the possible Greene provenance of the coin, the first notation may mean that this coin and the rest of this portion of the collection was allocated to his son Howard Francis Stack 1914-2007 as indicated on the helpful family tree referenced above by Yosclimber. Howard Francis would have been about 39 two years after his father’s death.
Keep an eye out for Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September The Numismatist.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Just read Ken Bressett's new article on 1804 Dollars in the September issue of The Numismatist, online edition.
I was fascinated to see that he says, in effect, that the Mint-made electrotypes of the Plain Edge, Class Two overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler were made as part of deliberate deception by Mint officials, to hide the fact that the other Plain Edge, Class Two normal strikes made by the "Midnight Minter" (my words, not his) were NOT destroyed as the Mint officials apparently said they were.
Bottom line: The Mint recovered an unknown number of Class Two Plain Edge dollars made by the "Midnight Minter." It then used one of them, the overstrike, to make a quantity of Electrotypes. It then destroyed some of the Electrotypes, claiming that they were the pieces made by the "Midnight Minter." (Not all of the Electrotypes were destroyed; Ken is aware of four of them existing. I saw his decades ago when he still owned it.)
At a later date, the supposedly destroyed Plain Edge, Class Two coins were mechanically edge lettered. changing them into Class Three coins. These were then sold to collectors, though Linderman kept one for himself.
I understand that other people have other opinions on these matters. That said, as Ken began his research on 1804 Dollars by interviewing B. Mas Mehl on the subject in 1950, I do think that his opinion carries some weight in the hobby.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
Yes. We never debate anything around here.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
So many questions! Perhaps you should read the article itself.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Has everybody had a chance to read Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September, "The Numismatist?"
I find it fascinating to read that after the Philadelphia Mint recalled several Class II (New Reverse Die, Plain Edge) 1804 Dollars, one an overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler (probably sold and recovered but not proven as such) and the rest struck on unused planchets of unknown origin, all of them (allegedly) struck by the so-called "Midnight Minter," it FAKED the destruction of the non-overstrike pieces by making multiple Electrotypes from the overstrike piece and destroying most of them in front of an unreliable witness. The remaining non-overstrike, Plain Edge Class II Dollars were ultimately lettered on their edges, making them Class III Dollars, and sold to collectors by Mint officials on, in the case of the Linderman Specimen, simply kept.
The article states that one of the Electrotypes made from the overstruck Class II coin was sold to a collector in 1860, which puts the production of the Class II coins between 1857 (the date on the understrike) and 1860 (the year it was sold to the collector.) The year when the Mint lettered the edges of the now-clandestine non-overstrike Class II dollars is unknown.
I would love to discuss the matter further.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@CaptHenway said:
Has everybody had a chance to read Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September, "The Numismatist?"
I find it fascinating to read that after the Philadelphia Mint recalled several Class II (New Reverse Die, Plain Edge) 1804 Dollars, one an overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler (probably sold and recovered but not proven as such) and the rest struck on unused planchets of unknown origin, all of them (allegedly) struck by the so-called "Midnight Minter," it FAKED the destruction of the non-overstrike pieces by making multiple Electrotypes from the overstrike piece and destroying most of them in front of an unreliable witness. The remaining non-overstrike, Plain Edge Class II Dollars were ultimately lettered on their edges, making them Class III Dollars, and sold to collectors by Mint officials on, in the case of the Linderman Specimen, simply kept.
The article states that one of the Electrotypes made from the overstruck Class II coin was sold to a collector in 1860, which puts the production of the Class II coins between 1857 (the date on the understrike) and 1860 (the year it was sold to the collector.) The year when the Mint lettered the edges of the now-clandestine non-overstrike Class II dollars is unknown.
I would love to discuss the matter further.
TD
The public backlash caused by the production and sale of the Class II 1804 dollars prompted Mint Director James Ross Snowden to not only recover the Class II dollars that had been sold, but to confiscate the dies, seal them in a box and lock them in his vault in order to prevent any further restrikes from being made on his watch. In 1859 and 1860, two such boxes full of dies (that had been in use at the time for making restrikes of various coins) were locked away by Director Snowden.
In 1867, after becoming Director, Henry Linderman took the boxes out of the vault and opened them to "inventory" the dies they contained. It is believed that, with Linderman's support, Chief Coiner A.L. Snowden (nephew of the former Director Snowden) used the dies to produce another round of restrikes between 1867 and 1869, when the dies were reportedly destroyed. Some also suspect that the dies were not really destroyed at that time, and that the restrikes continued even after 1869. Several of the Class III dollars are linked to John Haseltine, who was also the recipient of other restrikes made under Linderman's tenure. This topic is discussed in more detail in Kevin Flynn's ( @kevinj ) new book Restrikes, Storied Treasure of the U.S. Mint.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Bressett's theory is incorrect, but it is very likely that at least some of the Class III 1804 dollars were struck in the late 1860's (or thereabouts) during Linderman's tenure. An article on the uspatterns site ( https://uspatterns.store.turbify.net/18resdol.html ) notes that the Class III dollars were struck on planchets of two different weights, perhaps indicating two different origins.
When Linderman took over in 1867 , he was quick to move to bring "regularity" to Dubois & Eckfeldt's Mint Cabinet and its select friends. A public coin market was taking shape.
First pdf is Dubios letter to numismatic societies seeking input on changes. Note the term pattern is not used in exactly the same sense as today. Specimens of prior years are referenced.
Second pdf is the full text of the Mint circular. Note the reference to "Ball's reducing machine."
Ball's is really an advancement. New toy in 1867...... Have one or 2 things to look at about that machine, but think it might a real factor.
Most interesting documents; thank you!
As far as Linderman goes, those types of documents were just a cover. Linderman talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. He used his position to make money in any way that he could; this is apparent from reading Crime of 1873: The Comstock Connection. With access to the 1804 dollar dies, Linderman unquestionably would have used them for his own profit.
US Mint, Director James Ross Snowden, 1859, purchaser unknown.
James A Stack, Sr. purchased it sometime between “the late 1930s to 1951” according to Stack’s Bowers.
It took a trip to PCGS, another to CAC, 21st century.
Auction to be held December 2025.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
JRS had nothing to do with the restriking of 1804 dollars. Neither did George and Theodore Eckfeldt. The Eckfeldt story is a red herring promulgated by one of those involved in restriking/selling the dollars and other numismatic goodies for sale.
The dies were locked-up, but that does little good if someone has the keys or combinations. And mint records show that someone certainly did.
Also, there is no evidence that the restriking took place "after hours." That, again, is merely a story. Breen just loved creating stories like that of the "midnight minters" and he most certainly NEVER let the facts get in the way of a good tale. In fact, the best documentary evidence is that the restriking took place during normal working hours with the pressmen being paid extra by those ordering the striking.
As to the Class III dollars, new documentary info has recently come to light showing these pieces were being offered by 1864.
Dannreuther and I will be publishing in the near future.
@JCH22 said:
Haseltine--and/or his source? He did allege Eckfeldt was the "restriker" at a meeting of the Philly Society, but that was in the 1870s....
I've never seen a direct statement by Haseltine. Do you have a reference?
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@JCH22 said:
If struck after the Mint’s circular—Class IIIs would be patently unauthorized strikes. Putting aside the allure of the 1804 date, should Class IIIs even be considered a “U.S. Coin”—or rather unauthorized counterfeits (albeit made by Mint personnel) -- if struck after July 1, 1867?
when have rules gotten in the way of wrong doing? the 1913s weren't struck with authorization. they are out there as us coins
Illegality can sometimes be imaginary. The Fifth and maybe the Sixth Editions of Judd bore a notice after the 1916 Silver patterns that said that “Patterns after 1916 are illegal” or words to that effect. While I was at Coin World I sent a letter to the Treasury Department asking them why patterns after 1916 were illegal. They sent me back a photocopy of that page of Judd and said “because this book says that they are.”
I forwarded the letter to Abe, he changed the wording in the next Edition and “viola!”, patterns after 1916 became legal.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author of "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Breaking Mint rules didn't necessarily mean breaking the law. Although the rule requiring old obverse dies to be destroyed had been in place since 1866 (under Director James Pollock), it wasn't written into law until it was included in the Coinage Act of 1873.
My apologies—I transposed the name Haselitine with Hazfeld! A not insignificant error—and very much sorry to cause any pause on your end, especially close to publishing.
Starting to wonder just how many “Classes of Class IIIs” there might be:, Class III(a)--1864 appearance----Class III(b) 1868 Strikes---then later Class III(c) re-re- etc., strikes which appear en mass in 1878?
Hill's engraver could certainly work to make fine specimens from existing examples---whether dies were extant or not.....
If you have an opinion, do you think the request for a complete set of all coins struck by the Mint since inception made by the Committee for the Paris Expedition of 1868 might have any relevance at all? Haven't looked into issue, other than to note the Committee made a recommendation for such a display.
Yes, we have the S.K. Harzfeld statement which is actually a statement given him by A. Loudon Snowden.
There is only one "Class of Classes," as you put it. Die stating and the obv to rev die alignment shows that the known Class II and III pieces were all struck at the same time.
It is unlikely the Hill machine was used. The .obv is the orig 1804. The revs may have been sunk from existing punches at the time the pieces were made.
NO, I do not think the Paris Exposition had any relevance. The motive was solely profit.
Comments
Concerning the lack of provenance for this ‘surprise’ 1804 dollar:
First of all, it is a ‘backdoor’ Mint product, probably produced circa 1860 or so.
And Stack may have been bought it around 1930. That leaves a 70 (+ or -) year gap.
So It’s even possible that Stack bought it, directly or indirectly, from the estate of the collector who originally acquired it from some unknown Mint employee, or director.
Whether it happened that way or not, it must have traded only privately in the roughly 70 years before Stack acquired it.
So, it has a provenance, but incomplete. .
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Excuse me. The world has not always been as it is today. 1804 Dollars have not always been multi-million dollar coins. My first Redbook (probably a 1964) listed Original 1804 Dollars at $10,000 or so. Stack died in 1951. Grabbing a 13th Edition off of my bookcase I see that the Idler Restrike sold for $3,125 in 1947. If I were a dealer in that era and I bought a nice Restrike in over the counter I might simply offer it directly to a good customer, as Mr. Stack apparently was to the dealers of his time. The dealer gets a quick profit, with no auction house commissions and no waiting months for the sale.
I used to have a guy who collected gold bars of different types. Everything we bought in that looked interesting I offered to him first before it went in the showcase. Period. When he finally cashed out to fund some medical research for something that his daughter had, the collection was roughly 3,800 ounces.
Excuse me, too. Much of what you wrote would apply to the other 1804 dollars, as well. So why do all of them have provenances, but not this one?
Based on posts to this thread from other forum members, I’m not the only one who finds this situation unusual/puzzling.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
OK, how about this:
US Mint, Director James Ross Snowden, 1859, purchaser unknown.
(This space intentionally left blank)
James A Stack, Sr. purchased it sometime between “the late 1930s to 1951” according to Stack’s Bowers.
It took a trip to PCGS, another to CAC, 21st century.
Auction to be held December 2025.
You can’t always get
the complete impeccable provenance you want,
but if you try sometime, you get what you need.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Thanks, Mick.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The press release states "Research on the coin continues..." so time will tell what if anything they can determine. I think it is to soon to draw conclusions about the pedigree.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
any unaccounted Mickley examples that this could be one of? not that any of that has an impact on title of this coin - but just thinking out loud where a gem might have come from
I reject the silly concept that every possible rarity is already known to the world, and it bothers me when people bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it. Maybe THEY think that this somehow makes THEM look smaller.
Remember the fabulous discovery of the Saddle Ridge gold hoard? A number of people sniffed and said that because there was no record of the coins, they must have been stolen! This wrongly maligned a truly great discovery.
I have mentioned on here before going to look at a collection in upstate New York in the early 1980s that was eventually auctioned by Bowers and his then partner as the Emery-Nichols Collection. This was a three generation collection that began in the 1880s and ended when the third generation died suddenly about 1940 and his widow put everything in a steamer trunk, locked it, and asked her bank to keep it for her. She then lived for over 40 more years.
I got called in because her heirs, a niece and nephew, opened this time capsule and discovered paperwork which indicated that the late collector had been an ANA member, and oh by the way there was an 1804 dollar in the trunk. This was not long after I had recovered the Linderman 1804, so Rochette worked out a deal with them where I would fly to New York at their expense and examine the coin. Alas, it was a clever alteration, But the point is that this coin might have been sitting in this collection for up to 100 years, and it had by chance been a genuine 1804 it could well have been a new discovery.
Otherwise it was a great collection. Everything was in those brown Wayte Raymond pages. I remember picking up one page designed to hold a complete set of Twenty Cent Pieces. It was full. I looked at the obverse of the one in the 1876-CC hole and saw the doubled die obverse and just knew that the CC would be there when I turned it over.
Off the soapbox.
TD
Did Mickley have a Class III 1804? If I remember correctly, he sold or auctioned his collection around 1867 after having part of it stolen.
I know he had a Class I. Is there a list of what was in the auction and of what was stolen?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
More like 25, IMHO.
Maybe. I find it curious that the Class III coins all of a sudden started appearing mid 1870’s if they were struck 15 years earlier
I don’t see where much of what you wrote pertains to the current discussion.
Unless I missed it, no one put forth the “silly” concept that “every possible rarity is already known to the world”.
And I think you jumped to an incorrect conclusion in accusing posters of “bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it”.
Your appeared on your soapbox in the midst of the wrong thread.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
the
That’s an apt supposition, coinciding with James Stack’s numismatic era.
My guess is that we’ll never know.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
All of the Stack lots just posted to the website. Some really cool stuff including a 1794 and some beautiful 1795 dollars and Double Eagles. Looks like he bought a lot of stuff in HL Lee sale (Eliasberg 1947)
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Of course - but that doesn’t mean Linderman couldn’t have sold the coin in the U.S. and that it (much) later made its way to Mr. Stack.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
funk & wagnalls weren't alive
Consider your previous suggestion withdrawn.
Now that I can see the lot (without full description) listed on the SB web site. Although there is no textual description, this and serveral other lots include pictures of the accompanying ephemera. It appears that the 1804 Dollar was kept (loose ?} in a white Marine Midland Bank envelope along with a Templeton Reid QE and an Oregon Gold Coin. The white envelope has a notation “HF Stack 39 y[o]” and at the bottom it says “(Col Greene specimen ?)”. In in addition to the possible Greene provenance of the coin, the first notation may mean that this coin and the rest of this portion of the collection was allocated to his son Howard Francis Stack 1914-2007 as indicated on the helpful family tree referenced above by Yosclimber. Howard Francis would have been about 39 two years after his father’s death.
Keep an eye out for Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September The Numismatist.
the
Just read Ken Bressett's new article on 1804 Dollars in the September issue of The Numismatist, online edition.
I was fascinated to see that he says, in effect, that the Mint-made electrotypes of the Plain Edge, Class Two overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler were made as part of deliberate deception by Mint officials, to hide the fact that the other Plain Edge, Class Two normal strikes made by the "Midnight Minter" (my words, not his) were NOT destroyed as the Mint officials apparently said they were.
Bottom line: The Mint recovered an unknown number of Class Two Plain Edge dollars made by the "Midnight Minter." It then used one of them, the overstrike, to make a quantity of Electrotypes. It then destroyed some of the Electrotypes, claiming that they were the pieces made by the "Midnight Minter." (Not all of the Electrotypes were destroyed; Ken is aware of four of them existing. I saw his decades ago when he still owned it.)
At a later date, the supposedly destroyed Plain Edge, Class Two coins were mechanically edge lettered. changing them into Class Three coins. These were then sold to collectors, though Linderman kept one for himself.
I understand that other people have other opinions on these matters. That said, as Ken began his research on 1804 Dollars by interviewing B. Mas Mehl on the subject in 1950, I do think that his opinion carries some weight in the hobby.
TD
Yes. We never debate anything around here.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
.
So many questions! Perhaps you should read the article itself.
How much provenance in the SP66 '94 before 1945?
Has everybody had a chance to read Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September, "The Numismatist?"
I find it fascinating to read that after the Philadelphia Mint recalled several Class II (New Reverse Die, Plain Edge) 1804 Dollars, one an overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler (probably sold and recovered but not proven as such) and the rest struck on unused planchets of unknown origin, all of them (allegedly) struck by the so-called "Midnight Minter," it FAKED the destruction of the non-overstrike pieces by making multiple Electrotypes from the overstrike piece and destroying most of them in front of an unreliable witness. The remaining non-overstrike, Plain Edge Class II Dollars were ultimately lettered on their edges, making them Class III Dollars, and sold to collectors by Mint officials on, in the case of the Linderman Specimen, simply kept.
The article states that one of the Electrotypes made from the overstruck Class II coin was sold to a collector in 1860, which puts the production of the Class II coins between 1857 (the date on the understrike) and 1860 (the year it was sold to the collector.) The year when the Mint lettered the edges of the now-clandestine non-overstrike Class II dollars is unknown.
I would love to discuss the matter further.
TD
The public backlash caused by the production and sale of the Class II 1804 dollars prompted Mint Director James Ross Snowden to not only recover the Class II dollars that had been sold, but to confiscate the dies, seal them in a box and lock them in his vault in order to prevent any further restrikes from being made on his watch. In 1859 and 1860, two such boxes full of dies (that had been in use at the time for making restrikes of various coins) were locked away by Director Snowden.
In 1867, after becoming Director, Henry Linderman took the boxes out of the vault and opened them to "inventory" the dies they contained. It is believed that, with Linderman's support, Chief Coiner A.L. Snowden (nephew of the former Director Snowden) used the dies to produce another round of restrikes between 1867 and 1869, when the dies were reportedly destroyed. Some also suspect that the dies were not really destroyed at that time, and that the restrikes continued even after 1869. Several of the Class III dollars are linked to John Haseltine, who was also the recipient of other restrikes made under Linderman's tenure. This topic is discussed in more detail in Kevin Flynn's ( @kevinj ) new book Restrikes, Storied Treasure of the U.S. Mint.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Bressett's theory is incorrect, but it is very likely that at least some of the Class III 1804 dollars were struck in the late 1860's (or thereabouts) during Linderman's tenure. An article on the uspatterns site ( https://uspatterns.store.turbify.net/18resdol.html ) notes that the Class III dollars were struck on planchets of two different weights, perhaps indicating two different origins.
the
Most interesting documents; thank you!
As far as Linderman goes, those types of documents were just a cover. Linderman talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. He used his position to make money in any way that he could; this is apparent from reading Crime of 1873: The Comstock Connection. With access to the 1804 dollar dies, Linderman unquestionably would have used them for his own profit.
.
JRS had nothing to do with the restriking of 1804 dollars. Neither did George and Theodore Eckfeldt. The Eckfeldt story is a red herring promulgated by one of those involved in restriking/selling the dollars and other numismatic goodies for sale.
The dies were locked-up, but that does little good if someone has the keys or combinations. And mint records show that someone certainly did.
Also, there is no evidence that the restriking took place "after hours." That, again, is merely a story. Breen just loved creating stories like that of the "midnight minters" and he most certainly NEVER let the facts get in the way of a good tale. In fact, the best documentary evidence is that the restriking took place during normal working hours with the pressmen being paid extra by those ordering the striking.
As to the Class III dollars, new documentary info has recently come to light showing these pieces were being offered by 1864.
Dannreuther and I will be publishing in the near future.
.
I've never seen a direct statement by Haseltine. Do you have a reference?
the
Fascinating!
when have rules gotten in the way of wrong doing? the 1913s weren't struck with authorization. they are out there as us coins
.
Illegality can sometimes be imaginary. The Fifth and maybe the Sixth Editions of Judd bore a notice after the 1916 Silver patterns that said that “Patterns after 1916 are illegal” or words to that effect. While I was at Coin World I sent a letter to the Treasury Department asking them why patterns after 1916 were illegal. They sent me back a photocopy of that page of Judd and said “because this book says that they are.”
I forwarded the letter to Abe, he changed the wording in the next Edition and “viola!”, patterns after 1916 became legal.
Breaking Mint rules didn't necessarily mean breaking the law. Although the rule requiring old obverse dies to be destroyed had been in place since 1866 (under Director James Pollock), it wasn't written into law until it was included in the Coinage Act of 1873.
Yes, we have the S.K. Harzfeld statement which is actually a statement given him by A. Loudon Snowden.
There is only one "Class of Classes," as you put it. Die stating and the obv to rev die alignment shows that the known Class II and III pieces were all struck at the same time.
It is unlikely the Hill machine was used. The .obv is the orig 1804. The revs may have been sunk from existing punches at the time the pieces were made.
NO, I do not think the Paris Exposition had any relevance. The motive was solely profit.