@IkesT said:
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.
Yup. And restrikes were still regularly appearing in 1874 and on.
@tradedollarnut said:
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
When the mint fully switched to the new Thonnelier-type "steam" presses in 1839, records show the mint's two most powerful screw presses, the Howell and Rush-Muhlenberg presses, were moved to the medal dept. and the die room. These two presses had been used for decades to strike medals and proofs and hub dies. The continued to be used for those purposes into the 20th century when they were eventually replaced by hydraulic presses. In fact, the pic of the Die Room in the 1902 mint report shows one of the presses, probably the RM press given the design.
The new stem presses were not used to strike proofs and patterns since they could not make a single-strike. Thus, all of the proofs, patterns, and the restrikes were produced on the screw presses.
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.
Thank you. Forgive the stream of consciousness like flow of the following:
How are you able to rule out Hill's machine given its capabilities? That device was noted to be capable of turning specimen indistinguishable even to the original engraver. It was capable of making a perfect copy of the obv---and any reverse, Think a date antedating the machine's arrival at the Mint would be needed for striking of all the Class II & IIIs to definitely rule its use out. And some compelling direct evidence for that date and number struck. Whether it did, or did not, the machine gave the Mint the capability to continue to strike indistinguishable copies, even if prior year dies were destroyed. Of pretty much anything. At pretty much any date following the machine's arrival in 1867. Not sure how you can prove no (additional) re-strikes were made after its arrival, but you do sound confident you will, so will wait !
Random aside---seems a bit serendipitous a number of Class IIIs were noted in Europe, from which Hill's machine originated (and for which the Mint opted not to buy the patent for)....
Legend says Class IIs were first struck in 1858. If as you theorize, Class IIIs were as well, what explains the 20 year gap between striking, and their sudden appearance en mass around 1878? The examples confiscated in 1868, were they in the Mint Cabinet up until that time--or in other hands--or pockets? Exactly how many ClassII/IIIs were struck in the single run? Why include a Thaler--test strike of sorts, or last one for the heck of it....
Is the the outstanding strike of the newly surfaced example touched upon in your upcoming piece? Looks far superior to others to my unqualified grading eyes.
You stated you will be publishing some definitive information, the support for which is to be disclosed on publishing. Understandable, but that makes it a bit difficult for the community in the meanwhile to test/ evaluate the weight of the evidence upon which you will rely for so definitive a statement. I truly hope you solve this mystery, and look forward to reading your work.
BTW, respectfully disagree about the cutoff date for a bona fide Mint issue --which is probably controlled by the Circular(s), and other existing regulations/laws.. Low's scheduled 1887 estate sale of Lindderman's coin holdings was enjoined by a federal court And that his wife was only able to get his Class III freed up with a story that Linderman actually purchased his from "a dealer on time," rather than getting it from the Mint itself? (catalogue attached as a pdf). That is, um, certainly an unusual story ...
Deeper I look, more murkie the waters get.... Secret Service was involved---but its records are a slow go.... one agent was killed during an investigation of what turned out to be a fake 1804.....
Above are just some outstanding--very rambling questions-- I myself have about the Class IIIs. Please do not take them as some sort of list of questions your are in any way obliged to answer.
@JCH22 said:
How are you able to rule out Hill's machine given its capabilities?
Legend says Class IIs were first struck in 1858. If as you theorize, Class IIIs were as well, what explains the 20 year gap between striking, and their sudden appearance en mass around 1878? The examples confiscated in 1868, were they in the Mint Cabinet up until that time--or in other hands--or pockets? Exactly how many ClassII/IIIs were struck in the single run? Why include a Thaler--test strike of sorts, or last one for the heck of it....
BTW, respectfully disagree about the cutoff date for a bona fide Mint issue --which is probably controlled by the Circular(s), and other existing regulations/laws..
As far as excluding Hill's engraving Machine, Reverse Y was used for both the Class II and Class III dollars. The Class II dollars appeared circa 1859 to 1860 and were confiscated by the mint by 1861. The Class III dollars first appeared in `1864. Thus, both appeared prior to the arrival of the Hill machine.
Further, the Hill machine was not used to reproduce full dies. Rather, it was used to produce the central device with peripheral devices such as letters, numerals, stars, etc. being added by hand to the master dies. Further, none of the reducing machines, including the improved Janvier, produced a "read-to-use die." It still had to be hand-touched by the engraver where necessary and then lapped to remove metal pushed up by machining and set the final basin. Those are two of the key ways die specialists are able to identify new master dies and new working dies.
One should be careful reading period statements by mint officials which often tend to be quite hyperbolic. Politics was the same back then as now and officials routinely made utterly lofty statements about the great improvements they introduced.
In this vein, the 1867 circular you cited is by none other than Henry Linderman, the most prolific restriker the mint has ever seen. The number of "cabinet coins" he had struck and that he sold via various agents is legendary. For example, Judd-80 and 81 using an 1838 obv and a reverse that did not exist until the 1860s. The first one appeared at auction in 1875. Pattern and Seated researchers, including Andrew Pollack, attribute these strikes to dies made from pattern hubs discovered by A. Loudon Snowden and noted in his letter published in the January 1872 issue of Mason’s Monthly Coin Collectors Magazine.
Then we have pattern 1863 one-cent pieces, Judd-301 through 304, struck in bronze, copper-nickel, oroide, and aluminum using a reverse that did not exist until 1871. We also have have several 1864 pattern half dollars, Judd-396 (silver) and Judd-397 (copper) which use a “With Motto” reverse that was first used on 1871 proofs and patterns. Additionally, there is at least one 1864 “No Motto” pattern restrike, Judd-395, with the obverse fields bulging as on the latest 396 and 397 strikes, so that too was struck sometime circa 1871 or 1872.
Finally, we have the 1887 mint report by then Director James Kimball. Beginning on page 180, Kimball cites numerous examples of post-1867 and 1873 restrikes including an illegally produced encased set of 1868 of regular issue coins in aluminum had “passed into other hands.” Those “hands” obviously belonged to Henry Linderman since the set was listed in Lyman Lowe’s 1887 sale catalog of his collection. It was subsequently seized with other aluminum and off-metal pieces.
Kimball's report also specifically cited three lists, one compiled by the curator of the Mint Cabinet, another by Robert Coulton Davis, Curator of Numismatics for the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, with the third being an unnamed “printed list of another collection.” Kimball went onto state that the lists showed numerous examples of off-metal strikes from both pattern and regular issue dies, mules, and other “whim pieces” that did not exist in the Mint Cabinet. He specifically stated that one of the lists showed 57 different pieces dated 1873 through 1885 and that the third list contained 78 different off-metal strikes dated 1873 through 1885.
Simply put, criminals do not pay attention to laws or rules or regulations, even ones they write themselves as a smoke screen for their own illicit activates. That's why they are criminals. They break the law.
As an aside, Henry Linderman was under investigation for several improprieties while he was in office including a pump-and-dump stock swindle which included placing false statements in an official mint report, kickbacks, paying relatives to perform mint work that could have been done by employees, and manipulating and misreporting official accounts to cover up excess expenditures and excess bullion wastage at some mints. He died before formal charges could be brought.
His partner in crime, A. Loudon Snowden was also under investigation for misuse of funds, etc., but he left office and took off for Europe before he could be indicted.
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
VERY Interesting!
I get the gist of the letters. Would anyone care to attempt a complete transcription?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
VERY Interesting!
I get the gist of the letters. Would anyone care to attempt a complete transcription?
Absolutely not, but I’ll certainly let Grok give it a go 😅-
Transcription of "1858 Letters.pdf"
Based on the scanned pages provided in the document, this appears to be a collection of three short handwritten letters from 1858, likely related to a legal or numismatic matter involving the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, electrotyping processes for coins, and expert testimony. The handwriting is 19th-century cursive, which is challenging to read perfectly due to flourishes, smudges, and fading. I've transcribed them as faithfully as possible, using standard modern English spelling and punctuation for clarity while noting uncertain words in [brackets]. The document seems to have 3 pages (with some repetition in the scan, possibly due to duplex printing or scan artifacts).
Page 1: Letter dated July 19, 1858 (from Philadelphia, likely to a colleague or official regarding mint processes and witnesses)
Phila. July 19, 1858
Dear Sir,
Mr. Booth in behalf [of the matter? or of it]
one [man? or none?] in the mint capable
of explaining to full satisfaction
the electrotype process, and he
[is] himself [acquainted] with as [much]
of the [other? throat?] process
producing [his? him?] [most? with?] [taking?],
The [writer? appears?] Mr. [Elkfeldt? or Elkfeldt]
[after?] [James?] [or?] [Glunt?],
as [in?] [former?] [purpose? or ?],
Mr. Mickley, I have no doubt,
[will] with pleasure [answer] any [inquiry],
with [his?] [parts? cheerful?] [assistance?]. He
understands that he will be
well [paid? or compensated].
Yours [truly? etc.],
[ Jno. ? ]
[ ? ]
Col. [Vandegrift? or Vandyke?]
[ U.S. ? ]
[ Brit. ? or Dist. Atty.? ]
[ ? ]
(Note: The signature and closing lines are particularly illegible. "Jno." likely stands for "John." The reference to "Col. Vande[grift?]" may be a misreading or a name like "Vandyke," tying to the district attorney mentioned later. The content seems to recommend Mr. Booth as an expert on electrotyping at the mint and suggests Mr. Mickley as a reliable witness.)
Page 2: Short note dated September 7, 1858 (from J.B. McCleary, U.S. District Attorney, possibly a memo or endorsement)
J. B. McCleary Esq. U.S. Dist. Atty
Sir,
Mr. Mickley as
a [friend? or proper?] person
[for?] [testimony? or in]
[ ? ]
[ ? ]
Sept. 7, 1858.
(Note: This page is very brief and faded. It appears to be a quick endorsement or note recommending Mr. Mickley, possibly in the context of the same case. The lines after "person" are nearly illegible, possibly "for the purpose" or similar. The "+" may be a mark or flourish.)
Page 3: Letter dated September 17, 1858 (from the Navy Office, recommending Mr. Mickley as an expert witness to U.S. District Attorney James B. Vandyke)
For James B. Vandyke Esq., U.S. Dist. Atty.,
Dear Sir
Mr. Joseph J. Mickley,
Market St. below Tenth,
North side, is perfectly
familiar with the coating
of coins by electrotype
process, [and] would no doubt
take pleasure in giving
any testimony required.
Navy office,
Sept. 17, 1858
[ P. ? or Signature illegible ]
(Note: This is the clearest page. Joseph J. Mickley was a well-known Philadelphia numismatist and coin collector in the 19th century. James B. Vandyke was the U.S. District Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at the time. This letter explicitly offers Mickley as an expert on electrotyping coins, likely for a court case involving counterfeiting or mint processes. The signature may be from a Navy official, perhaps "P. F. Smith" or similar, but it's unclear.)
Additional Context
These letters appear to be part of correspondence related to a potential legal proceeding in 1858 Philadelphia, possibly a counterfeiting trial where electrotyping (an early electrochemical process for copying metal objects like coins) was at issue. The U.S. Mint in Philadelphia was central to such matters, and references to "Mr. Booth" (possibly a mint employee) and Mickley (a prominent coin expert) suggest they were being lined up as witnesses. No exact match for these specific letters was found in public archives, but they align with historical numismatic activities around electrotype copies of rare coins like the 1804 dollar, which were produced around this era.
If this transcription needs refinement or if you have higher-resolution scans/clarifications for illegible parts, let me know!
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
@JCH22 said:
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a
R.R.R. does not refer to the Class of 1804s. A review of the inventory should give you a clue.
@JCH22 said:
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
A better person would have been Franklin Peale, even tho' he was "retired" by 58. Peale created the first galvano (electrotype) in 1840, It survives to this day in a private collection..
A better person would have been Franklin Peale, even tho' he was "retired" by 58. Peale created the first galvano (electrotype) in 1840, It survives to this day in a private collection..
As to the technical details, no argument.
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley would be a shrewd move if the Mint did not want to expose itself to having an employee/official offer testimony that might bind it (and who knew the innermost details/workings). Never know what an inquisitive US attorney, or defense counsel, might start asking about....
Mickley could credibly " I don't know" his way through some questions about things a Mint employee/officer could not, stick to techinical issues only....
Might be a red herring, remarkable only to show how close MIckley became. Have found no reported legal decisions contemporaneous, Paper search would be a challenge, no case name for starters.....
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley...
That would certainly been a waste of time since the Peale galvano had been publicized many years before.
You've got the surface docs. Keep digging and you'll eventually come up with the real stories. Shouldn't be hard, I and others have published the docs for the last 30 years.
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley...
That would certainly been a waste of time since the Peale galvano had been publicized many years before.
You've got the surface docs. Keep digging and you'll eventually come up with the real stories. Shouldn't be hard, I and others have published the docs for the last 30 years.
It is a curious thing to presume to know what I have, and have not, looked at (or the scope of relevant data which may be available to me).
Primary reason I am looking into the entire 1804 saga is I like a good historical mystery. Nice side break from an in progress extended non numismatic work. Wherever the evidence leads......
I am looking at the issue de novo. I found much of the existing literature over relies upon improperly stacked inferences (upon inferences), arguments from silence without demonstrating the 3 prerequisite for same, and the like.... I do tend to follow Hitchen's razor when I read, and also am aware of it when I make an assertion.
Look forward to reading your article and the evidence which will be revealed to prove your "grand unified theory of Class II/IIIs." Have appreciated engaging in the "coming attractions" discussions!
What is the ball park estimated date for publication?
@JCH22 said:
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
Thank you so much for the better copies.
In the last one, I am curious about the word "coating." The second letter is definitely an "o" comparing it to other words with an "o." However, it seems to be an odd use of the word, as the "coating of coins" sounds to me like the "electroplating of existing coins" rather than the "making of electrotype copies of coins.".
I am wondering if perhaps this word might be a secretary's transcription error for the word "creating." That would seem to be more likely in context, but of course this is just a guess. As I (barely) understand the process, there is a step where the negative impression is coated with powdered copper (?) to provide a base that subsequent metal is electrically deposited onto. This might be a perfectly innocent explanation for the use of the word "coating."
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
My pleasure. Noted that. Last attachment was from the Assay office to the U.S. Attorney, not from the Mint. Maybe a misunderstanding further down the line at the Assay Office?
Not sure what significance the docs themselves have other than to show Mickley was “in.”
Passed along because I thought it might be of some potential use to the teased theory that all re-striking was done in a single batch (which it seems was of no use to its proponent).
Given the rebuff of clarification of the meaning of the R.R.R designation of the single 1804 specimen noted in the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, appears the theory likely will be that all ClassII/IIIs were struck in a single run, at some date before that inventory. But that is just a guess of logic. Later inventories dropped that abbreviation.
Not much can be said about the single re-strike theory at this time. Not impossible, but then again, no evidence has been actually put forward yet.
What I have reviewed to date sure raises substantive questions about that, and other existing lore. Are means, motive and an opportunity for later re-strike(s). But I do not presently have sufficient evidence to definitely state an opinion. Was hoping to have a substantive discussion, but will defer further to examine the teased theory until some evidence for it is disclosed.
Strike of newly surfaced example sure stands out to me. Any thoughts you might have about the significance, if any, concerning that would certainly be appreciated-- and very much respected. First strike-- of a single striking ---of re-strikes?
@seatedlib3991 said: @Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and >actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
>
No, sorry, I haven't done any studies on the NO mint. You might try some of the folks in LSCC or perhaps Kevin Flynn has some info.
@Rittenhouse . Thank you for answering back. Don't feel too bad about not knowing. I am a member of the LSCC and have probably asked this question more than a dozen times. (Mr. Flynn might be one I don't remember).
The standard answers are, "I have no idea." and "Try the Newman Portal."
I wish I was more gifted at using that source but the only anaology that applies is:
"You say you need some tuna?" Well all you need is the correct bait & tackle. Pick a coast and head fore the high seas. Easy Peasy." Thank you again. James
@seatedlib3991 said: @Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
Rather than hijack this thread, how about starting another one we can discuss this in?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway . No hijacking and I have brought this very question up at least 6 times in the last 3 years. Crickets. So would be very short discussion. James
Interesting to note that Stack apparently had a 1933 D.E. confiscated by the Secret Service in the 1940s. If in fact all 1804 III’s were struck during a “period of legality” (or at least a period where it would not be deemed unauthorized) would be a non-relevant fact to this precise discussion. Just an interesting factoid.
But if the re-strikes continued, or were done after the Circulars—potentially making some later re-strikes unauthorized/prohibited Mints issues--- would be a relevant fact to the question why the existence of this example was held close for so long. And depending on its pre-Stack provenience, could be a material fact.
Linderman’s widow did have to do some creative explaining to the Federal Court to get her husband’s example freed from the 1887 injunction which initially barred its sale.
Sure, it was not pleasant to have to deal with the Secret Service. One time, would be one time too many for a lifetime-- for me at least.
Below exchange was prompted by a 1879 controversy whether the Mint was re-striking Stellas and Morgan Pattern Dollars after their years of issue.
Hazfeld's extended version re 1804s . Unless he is referring to re-strikes of Class Is, seems to be directly contrary to a single Class III re-strike theory---and it also does present a bit of a math problem,
Be great to see any written documentation re Treasury authority to restike. Failing same, circular issue would remain
This is certainly the origin of the story that Adam Eckfeldt's grandson, commonly assumed to be Theodore, secretly struck 1804 dollars and sold them for his own profit. (This is the "Midnight Minter" story, NOT made up by Breen, though he may have come up with the "Midnight Minter name). Likewise, it is the origin of the story that they were recovered and destroyed, although I suspect that the destruction part was a lie.
The story that a third striking took place circa 1868 could be a cover story for the common belief that the Class II coins were edge lettered and re-sold as what are now called Class III coins in the late 1860s, though at least one of them may have been so sold circa 1864, perhaps to test the waters to see if the circa 1858 scandal had been forgotten. All of this more or less aligns with what Newman and Bressett wrote in "The Fantastic 1804 Dollar."
All of that said, reading the larger document (and do you have the beginning of it?) my B.S. Detector is ringing at the five alarm level. I have long been a believer in the Midnight Minter theory, but its very presence in this document now makes me doubt it.
THAT said, I am still at a loss as to who struck the multiple PLAIN EDGE Class II 1804 Dollars (one of them an overstrike) circa 1858. The lack of the edge lettering was a monstrous faux pas, Rittenhouse has some very definite ideas about this, and I look forward to reading what he and JD have to say about the subject.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Cpt.: below is a bit rambling. Any questions contained are not directed at/to you. They are general.
Attaching some pdf docs on the blow up regarding the Stellas & Morgan Pattern Dollars. you might find of interest. Are more, but did not want to dump a ton. Second attachment should probably be read first for chronology. Be happy to pass along more if there is any desire.
Myself, I think the term “Pirates of the the Mint” more fitting than “Moonlight Minters.” Moonlight to me connotes authorized strikes. That was not what was going on. Was plain & simple unauthorized conduct for personal profit. Think today we would refer to that as simply theft of government property (and probably more).
There was plunder under/ likely by, several directors. Snowden, and his defenders were scapegoating others, but were in on it, as apparently was Linderman. Each had their own circle of supporters and accusers.
The s(tuff) hit the fan following an uproar over the re-striking of 1879 Stellas as well as Morgan Dollar Patterns. People were being sold "rare" patterns at inflated prices only for them to later become common. This controversy arose at the same time Class III were starting to emerge en mass. Some returning from Europe. Their trip across the pond was interesting. Should have more on that in just a short while.
At the time, Philly papers were running stories along the lines that the best counterfeiter in the country was the Mint itself.
Think the “King” may not be wearing any clothes. Zero joy in pointing that out. All Classes.
Class 1s were not struck as diplomatic presentation pieces. There is zero evidence for that theory--just liberal and illogical inferences. That whole cover story was created and publicly circulated by the Inner Mint Cabinet Circle after public notice was first taken in the 1850s regarding the 1804s-- struck in the 1840s, e.g. Stickney's statement. The origin time line of that story was easy to trace. It was well after 1834-5, and after the start of the Mint Cabinet.
Class III lore is heavily dependent of Hazeltine (also of 1885 Trade Dollar and other patterns fame-- he he later fell out of favor and legal action by a subsequent Mint Administration was pursued against him over patterns).
Newman told an imaginative story-but it is just that, a tale. Credit is due Bressert who did a lot of heavy lifting manual research wise. But evidence was not there as far I am concerned for Newman's folktale.
Appearance of “the King of Siam set at Detroit ANA ,” along with the Proof Plain 4 Eagle, well, that wrinkle was just folded into to the original cover story of a diplomatic striking --- for the first time---in 1962. Despite the fact the set appeared with zero documentation, but only an unverified story from descendants of the notoriously fabulist nanny portrayed in the King & I—which just happened to be a extremely popular movie released only a few years earlier. Talk about a great and timely story! Yul Brenner and all! Fact that a couple of holes were empty was apparently of no matter when you have the King & I!
No one, to my knowledge, has directly addressed Jackson’s correspondence to VP Van Buren noting his push for eagle dies in 1834. Excerpt of Jackson's Letter to Van Buren of 8/16/1834:
The Treasury/Mint ignored Jackson in favor of running off some illegally weighted re-strikes of 1804 Eagles for minor potentates? Just after Jackson won the hard-fought passage of the Coinage Act, he directed the Mint to break that very law? I don’t see how that makes any sense whatsoever, but maybe that’s just me. Old Hickory did have a temper….
Looking into the activities of the mid 19th century Mint, and its Circle, has opened my eyes. They seem to have been responsible for numerous patterns and many early “specimens” & “proofs.” More accurately, for what are really re-strikes. Numismatics was not immune from the rampant corruption of the day. And it does appear that once a tall tale is told often enough, it becomes accepted as “fact.”
Will be interesting to read Rittenhouse’s article, which I understand will focus on die state. Given the number re-re struck, can’t see at the moment how that could be dispositive of anything, but maybe I am missing something.
Am running down when the Thaler was struck, but my French & German are not great. Older legal records are manually achieved, so will be a while to gain access. Same with Secret Service. Have gone through some of the later, but those records are voluminous and not index very well.
…Class 1s were not struck as diplomatic presentation pieces. There is zero evidence for that theory--just liberal and illogical inferences. That whole cover story was created and publicly circulated by the Inner Mint Cabinet Circle after public notice was first taken in the 1850s regarding the 1804s-- struck in the 1840s, e.g. Stickney's statement. The origin time line of that story was easy to trace. It was well after 1834-5, and after the start of the Mint Cabinet…
So, you’re saying that contrary to what’s been published, there wasn’t a November 11, 1834 Department of State request for special sets of coinage to be made for presentation purposes?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
…Class 1s were not struck as diplomatic presentation pieces. There is zero evidence for that theory--just liberal and illogical inferences. That whole cover story was created and publicly circulated by the Inner Mint Cabinet Circle after public notice was first taken in the 1850s regarding the 1804s-- struck in the 1840s, e.g. Stickney's statement. The origin time line of that story was easy to trace. It was well after 1834-5, and after the start of the Mint Cabinet…
So, are you saying that contrary to what’s been published, there wasn’t a November 11, 1834 Department of State request for special sets of coinage to be made for presentation purposes?
Not at all. I posted the letter myself on this thread. There were sets struck, and there is documentation that a set was given to the Sultan of Muscat. He did not think much of them accordingly to the Whalers with insight into his court. There is no inventory of the coins struck for the presentation sets. No account of the presentation specifies what the sets contained--nor any other known document. None are described in the log of the Peacock. The coins were not mentioned when the Sultan's emissary paid a reciprocal visit to the U.S not long after.
The sets were requested by Woodbury from Moore. There is no written documentation by Jackson. The specific language in the November 11, 1834 letter was for "duplicate specimens of each kind now in use." It is this language, and this language alone, upon which the legend was spun. More precisely, the theory goes that this language caused the MInt to re-strike coins last produced 30 years previously (in violation of current law for the Eagle) That is one big leap for which there is zero evidence. Only speculation. which is Illogical given the Bank War that Jackson was deeply immersed in at that time. Also, it makes little sense given eagles and silver dollars had long since vanished from any kind of then "current use." There is also no evidence they were actually struck in 1834-35. There is evidence, if Stickney is to be believed, they were first known to exist in the 1840s--only after Dubois & Eckfeldt started the Mint Cabinet/ Eckfeldt published his book.
There is, however, very clear evidence the tale of inclusion in the presentation sets first arose only after Class I's first came to the nascent numismatic community's attention---in the late 1840s/early 1850 Much evidence. Only Woodbury's general request was offered in support when the tale was first spun. I myself would say contorted. Some vocal advocates seemed to be financially interested. That is origin of the folktale which has come down to us today.
The 1804 Plain 4 Eagle legend was first spun in 1962. There also is zero inference free evidence they were included in the sets presented, and it would would have been in violation of then current law to strike them late '34, early '35. As far as I know, the King of Siam case was never authenticated, was "missing pieces." and contained dups ( motto , no motto---not sure the Sultan or Kings would understand the difference but there was a hole so.... ). As a side note, there were other requests from the State Dept to the Mint in the mid to late 19th for boxed presentation coins. But I haven't matched the holes to denominations struck in any particular year in which those many sets were requested.
The Plain 4 Eagles were said to have been all struck ( in violation of the Coinage Act) for 4 presentation sets. Two were delivered (Muscat/Siam), 2 could not be presented (Cochin & Japan). Lore says the later two were returned to the State Department. No State Department record for same has been produced. The Plain 4 did appear long before the King & I movie, but without the legend of it being part of the presentation sets. When the 'Siam Set' made its debut in 1962, the Eagle was folded into the inferences made about 1804 Class I. The inference about the Eagle is even more dubious given Jackson's express desire to strike eagles, and the then existing Coinage Act law which would make their striking illegal.
Nanny from the King & I was a fabulist. She was not in Siam in 1835-6, and she was not a nanny to the King the set was presented to (Rama III), She was in subsequent King Rama IV's, household from 1862-1867. While she was still on leave in the UK, Rama died in 1868, mentioning her in his will, but leaving her nothing. But I guess the legend must include an inference the subsequent King gifted a British, Indian born nanny a set of American coins given to his predecessor before she departed for leave to the UK in 1867- then died leaving her nothing more. That, to put it mildly, is a major grand canyon like leap which makes zero logical sense. I guess it was a nice story to contemporary audiences of the popular King & I film released in 1956.
Much more than you asked for. The story is so convoluted by time that longer answers are necessary for completeness.
The letter you asked about was the springboard for a lot of story telling, perhaps cover for other less savory conduct. The letter itself doe not prove in any way Class Is or Plain 4 Eagles were struck for inclusion in the sets.
…Class 1s were not struck as diplomatic presentation pieces. There is zero evidence for that theory--just liberal and illogical inferences. That whole cover story was created and publicly circulated by the Inner Mint Cabinet Circle after public notice was first taken in the 1850s regarding the 1804s-- struck in the 1840s, e.g. Stickney's statement. The origin time line of that story was easy to trace. It was well after 1834-5, and after the start of the Mint Cabinet…
So, are you saying that contrary to what’s been published, there wasn’t a November 11, 1834 Department of State request for special sets of coinage to be made for presentation purposes?
Not at all. I posted the letter myself on this thread. There were sets struck, and there is documentation that a set was given to the Sultan of Muscat. He did not think much of them accordingly to the Whalers with insight into his court. There is no inventory of the coins struck for the presentation sets. No account of the presentation specifies what the sets contained--nor any other known document. None are described in the log of the Peacock. The coins were not mentioned when the Sultan's emissary paid a reciprocal visit to the U.S not long after.
The sets were requested by Woodbury from Moore. There is no written documentation by Jackson. The specific language in the November 11, 1834 letter was for "duplicate specimens of each kind now in use." It is this language, and this language alone, upon which the legend was spun. More precisely, the theory goes that this language caused the MInt to re-strike coins last produced 30 years previously (in violation of current law for the Eagle) That is one big leap for which there is zero evidence. Only speculation. which is Illogical given the Bank War that Jackson was deeply immersed in at that time. Also, it makes little sense given eagles and silver dollars had long since vanished from any kind of then "current use." There is also no evidence they were actually struck in 1834-35. There is evidence, if Stickney is to be believed, they were first known to exist in the 1840s--only after Dubois & Eckfeldt started the Mint Cabinet/ Eckfeldt published his book.
There is, however, very clear evidence the tale of inclusion in the presentation sets first arose only after Class I's first came to the nascent numismatic community's attention---in the late 1840s/early 1850 Much evidence. Only Woodbury's general request was offered in support when the tale was first spun. I myself would say contorted. Some vocal advocates seemed to be financially interested. That is origin of the folktale which has come down to us today.
The 1804 Plain 4 Eagle legend was first spun in 1962. There also is zero inference free evidence they were included in the sets presented, and it would would have been in violation of then current law to strike them late '34, early '35. As far as I know, the King of Siam case was never authenticated, was "missing pieces." and contained dups ( motto , no motto---not sure the Sultan or Kings would understand the difference but there was a hole so.... ). As a side note, there were other requests from the State Dept to the Mint in the mid to late 19th for boxed presentation coins. But I haven't matched the holes to denominations struck in any particular year in which those many sets were requested.
The Plain 4 Eagles were said to have been all struck ( in violation of the Coinage Act) for 4 presentation sets. Two were delivered (Muscat/Siam), 2 could not be presented (Cochin & Japan). Lore says the later two were returned to the State Department. No State Department record for same has been produced. The Plain 4 did appear long before the King & I movie, but without the legend of it being part of the presentation sets. When the 'Siam Set' made its debut in 1962, the Eagle was folded into the inferences made about 1804 Class I. The inference about the Eagle is even more dubious given Jackson's express desire to strike eagles, and the then existing Coinage Act law which would make their striking illegal.
Nanny from the King & I was a fabulist. She was not in Siam in 1835-6, and she was not a nanny to the King the set was presented to (Rama III), She was in subsequent King Rama IV's, household from 1862-1867. While she was still on leave in the UK, Rama died in 1868, mentioning her in his will, but leaving her nothing. But I guess the legend must include an inference the subsequent King gifted a British, Indian born nanny a set of American coins given to his predecessor before she departed for leave to the UK in 1867- then died leaving her nothing more. That, to put it mildly, is a major grand canyon like leap which makes zero logical sense. I guess it was a nice story to contemporary audiences of the popular King & I film released in 1956.
Much more than you asked for. The story is so convoluted by time that longer answers are necessary for completeness.
The letter you asked about was the springboard for a lot of story telling, perhaps cover for other less savory conduct. The letter itself doe not prove in any way Class Is or Plain 4 Eagles were struck for inclusion in the sets.
If, as you agree, the letter I asked about was written, sets were struck and one was given to the Sultan of Muscat, what coins were in that set, if not the ones claimed to be?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If, as you agree, the letter I asked about was written, sets were struck and one was given to the Sultan of Muscat, what coins were in that set, if not the ones claimed to be?
Neither 1804 Eagles nor Dollars based on what I have already posted—with likely much more documentation to follow here, or perhaps elsewhere.
With respect, your question is a collateral one as it assumes I am making a particular claim. Burdens both of production and persuasion are on the proponents that denominations last struck more than 30 years earlier, one since becoming illegal just months before, were backdated and included. The letter is insufficient for either. Have gone far beyond what is due such unproven extraordinary claims under the gratis asseritur, gratis negatur razor.
Do you think those who proposed and perpetuated such tale, have met both of their burdens of production and persuasion for---- their---- extraordinary claims? If so, any direct evidence you can point to?
If, as you agree, the letter I asked about was written, sets were struck and one was given to the Sultan of Muscat, what coins were in that set, if not the ones claimed to be?
Neither 1804 Eagles nor Dollars based on what I have already posted—with likely much more documentation to follow here, or perhaps elsewhere.
With respect, your question is a collateral one as it assumes I am making a particular claim. Burdens both of production and persuasion are on the proponents that denominations last struck more than 30 years earlier, one since becoming illegal just months before, were backdated and included. The letter is insufficient for either. Have gone far beyond what is due such unproven extraordinary claims under the gratis asseritur, gratis negatur razor.
Do you think those who proposed and perpetuated such tale, have met both of their burdens of production and persuasion for---- their---- extraordinary claims? If so, any direct evidence you can point to?
"Particular" or otherwise, you did make cliams, as follows: "class 1s were not struck as diplomatic presentation pieces. There is zero evidence for that theory--just liberal and illogical inferences. That whole cover story was created and publicly circulated by the Inner Mint Cabinet Circle after public notice was first taken in the 1850s regarding the 1804s-- struck in the 1840s, e.g. Stickney's statement. The origin time line of that story was easy to trace. It was well after 1834-5, and after the start of the Mint Cabinet…"
I questioned you, merely because you're the one who posted claims here. I only wish that those who proposed "such tale" were alive and posting here with us.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If, as you agree, the letter I asked about was written, sets were struck and one was given to the Sultan of Muscat, what coins were in that set, if not the ones claimed to be?
Neither 1804 Eagles nor Dollars based on what I have already posted—with likely much more documentation to follow here, or perhaps elsewhere.
With respect, your question is a collateral one as it assumes I am making a particular claim. Burdens both of production and persuasion are on the proponents that denominations last struck more than 30 years earlier, one since becoming illegal just months before, were backdated and included. The letter is insufficient for either. Have gone far beyond what is due such unproven extraordinary claims under the gratis asseritur, gratis negatur razor.
Do you think those who proposed and perpetuated such tale, have met both of their burdens of production and persuasion for---- their---- extraordinary claims? If so, any direct evidence you can point to?
You are the one presenting a theory here. I believe that the burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
You are the one presenting a theory here. I believe that the burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.
If that is so, guess I could turn the same argument back, and say it up to you to prove my statements incorrect. But I truly have zero interest in parsing the "rules of inference for formal logic" with someone of substance and extensive numismatic knowledge such as yourself.
Realize my posts may be an anathema to some. I was also a kid with a Redbook, way back when.
Seems a journal which is not dedicated to numismatics might be a better place to submit/publish what I have /am finding given the sensitive nature of the topic here.
Is a classic Gilded Age kind of story with legal, diplomatic & historical story lines, intercontinental connections, lawsuits, scandals, insiders, disgruntled outsiders, corrupt officials, & rogues, as well as Old Hickory, a Sultan, a King, and a British/Indian born Nanny—along with musical numbers! The story's appeal is , I think, not confined to numismatics.
Robert W. Julian is, IMHO, the greatest living numismatic researcher. I thought to ask him what information he had on the 1834-35 Diplomatic Proof Sets, and he referred me to his article in The Numismatist in January, 1970. I highly recommend that every ANA member here read it in the ANA Archives. If you are not a member of the ANA, join. Access to the archives online is a fabulous member benefit.
Here are a few screencaps from the article:
Beyond any doubt, the first Class I 1804 dollars, and the Diplomatic Proof sets they were made for, were made in 1834-1835.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Here is Mint paperwork accounting for the coins in the Diplomatic Proof Sets, including Dollars and Eagles.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Guess the Jackson Gold Medals were free.... and we are to assume dates of denominations ( 321 dollars were reported struck in 1805 per 1806 Mint Report so if you were going to re-strike based on records, why 1804?) .....
Was/am aware of the information posted above-and of those records. Will be addressing these theories fully in a separate piece elsewhere. Difficult here to separate issues of personalities from their claims, i.e., appeals to authority, relationships involved.
Couple pdfs attached for general informational purposes.
First is Julian's initial theory with Newman's corrections.
Second pdf: First page is a letter from Newman to Ford speaking about how he was blindsided by Spinks' set while writing his book. Following pages detail Spinks’ 1962 presentation--including his solution to the problem of the 11 hole case, with no markings. .
I believe that Eric used the word "suggestions," not "corrections."
Eric was one of our Consultants while I was at ANACS. He was always willing to help.
I was able to return the favor by helping him in his ultimately successful campaign to get the U.S.A.O.G. $20 counterfeits commonly associated with Paul Franklin and/or John J. Ford condemned in the hobby as counterfeits.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@DMWJR said:
$8mm today would have been approximately $650k in 1951. That's zero profit, just riding inflation. We will see if it was a good family plan or not.
According to your dates and prices, it would have taken approx. 20,000 ounces of gold to purchase this coin in 1951 and today it would take only 2,100 ounces of gold.
Put another way, if sold in 1951 for gold and then converted to cash today, the piggy bank would have 75 million $$.
Proving that gold is a better investment than even the rarest US coin of all time.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
@DMWJR said:
$8mm today would have been approximately $650k in 1951. That's zero profit, just riding inflation. We will see if it was a good family plan or not.
According to your dates and prices, it would have taken approx. 20,000 ounces of gold to purchase this coin in 1951 and today it would take only 2,100 ounces of gold.
Put another way, if sold in 1951 for gold and then converted to cash today, the piggy bank would have 75 million $$.
Proving that gold is a better investment than even the rarest US coin of all time.
What do you think is “the rarest US coin of all time”? It’s certainly isn’t the 1804 dollar.
And your comparison doesn’t prove that gold is a better investment, as you’re talking about the past, not the present.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
I believe that Eric used the word "suggestions," not "corrections."
Eric was one of our Consultants while I was at ANACS. He was always willing to help.
I was able to return the favor by helping him in his ultimately successful campaign to get the U.S.A.O.G. $20 counterfeits commonly associated with Paul Franklin and/or John J. Ford condemned in the hobby as counterfeits.
TD
Cap: I myself stand corrected! Thanks.
Hip deep trying to finish a work on Melancton Smith, a forgotten father of the Bill of Rights. This issue is weighty and deserving of undivided attention in order to present coherently, and comprehensively.
Think Julian an excellent researcher, but things are accessible today which weren’t back in the day. Much credit is certainly due him for being a Mint Archive pioneer.
Not a Ford fan given, well…. you know ... Just attached to show how Spink's appearance was a bit of surprise to everyone.
Be a pleasure to read a thread about the U.S.A.O.G $20s!
@DMWJR said:
$8mm today would have been approximately $650k in 1951. That's zero profit, just riding inflation. We will see if it was a good family plan or not.
According to your dates and prices, it would have taken approx. 20,000 ounces of gold to purchase this coin in 1951 and today it would take only 2,100 ounces of gold.
Put another way, if sold in 1951 for gold and then converted to cash today, the piggy bank would have 75 million $$.
Proving that gold is a better investment than even the rarest US coin of all time.
What do you think is “the rarest US coin of all time”? It’s certainly isn’t the 1804 dollar.
And your comparison doesn’t prove that gold is a better investment, as you’re talking about the past, not the present.
Maybe I should have said the 1804 dollar is the most well known 'rare' US coin.
Regardless of its stature on the US 'rare' coin scale, if it doesn't hold up well as an investment when compared to gold, I think that says a great deal of either the lack of coins as being a strong investment or the strength of gold as being a strong investment over time.
Lastly, your comment about past or present investments makes no sense to me as of course we don't know the future of any investment, but I can only go on the well known saying, "know your history to know your future" ie., gold is an extremely wise choice to invest your money.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
@DMWJR said:
$8mm today would have been approximately $650k in 1951. That's zero profit, just riding inflation. We will see if it was a good family plan or not.
According to your dates and prices, it would have taken approx. 20,000 ounces of gold to purchase this coin in 1951 and today it would take only 2,100 ounces of gold.
Put another way, if sold in 1951 for gold and then converted to cash today, the piggy bank would have 75 million $$.
Proving that gold is a better investment than even the rarest US coin of all time.
What do you think is “the rarest US coin of all time”? It’s certainly isn’t the 1804 dollar.
And your comparison doesn’t prove that gold is a better investment, as you’re talking about the past, not the present.
Maybe I should have said the 1804 dollar is the most well known 'rare' US coin.
Regardless of its stature on the US 'rare' coin scale, if it doesn't hold up well as an investment when compared to gold, I think that says a great deal of either the lack of coins as being a strong investment or the strength of gold as being a strong investment over time.
Lastly, your comment about past or present investments makes no sense to me as of course we don't know the future of any investment, but I can only go on the well known saying, "know your history to know your future" ie., gold is an extremely wise choice to invest your money.
You’re comparing a single 1804 dollar’s price performance to that of gold when it’s very close to historic highs, after a huge run-up. That doesn’t begin to prove that gold’s a better investment than rare coins.
And to me, there’s a big difference between saying that something is a better investment vs. has been one. The former is making a prediction, while the latter is past history.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
Robert W. Julian is, IMHO, the greatest living numismatic researcher. I thought to ask him what information he had on the 1834-35 Diplomatic Proof Sets, and he referred me to his article in The Numismatist in January, 1970. I highly recommend that every ANA member here read it in the ANA Archives. If you are not a member of the ANA, join. Access to the archives online is a fabulous member benefit.
Here are a few screencaps from the article:
Beyond any doubt, the first Class I 1804 dollars, and the Diplomatic Proof sets they were made for, were made in 1834-1835.
TD
$31.00 for the cases??
Thats what I want to see...
@CaptHenway said:
Robert W. Julian is, IMHO, the greatest living numismatic researcher. I thought to ask him what information he had on the 1834-35 Diplomatic Proof Sets, and he referred me to his article in The Numismatist in January, 1970. I highly recommend that every ANA member here read it in the ANA Archives. If you are not a member of the ANA, join. Access to the archives online is a fabulous member benefit.
Here are a few screencaps from the article:
Beyond any doubt, the first Class I 1804 dollars, and the Diplomatic Proof sets they were made for, were made in 1834-1835.
TD
$31.00 for the cases??
Thats what I want to see...
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Robert W. Julian is, IMHO, the greatest living numismatic researcher. I thought to ask him what information he had on the 1834-35 Diplomatic Proof Sets, and he referred me to his article in The Numismatist in January, 1970. I highly recommend that every ANA member here read it in the ANA Archives. If you are not a member of the ANA, join. Access to the archives online is a fabulous member benefit.
Here are a few screencaps from the article:
Beyond any doubt, the first Class I 1804 dollars, and the Diplomatic Proof sets they were made for, were made in 1834-1835.
TD
$31.00 for the cases??
Thats what I want to see...
Are there any illustrations of the "Caskets"? I bet they were magnificent.
Are there any illustrations of the "Caskets"? I bet they were magnificent.
Here are some photos of the "King of Siam" set in the box from two auction catalog appearances. There are probably better photos somewhere else but I did not find better ones of the lid.
The black and white photo is from a Bowers and Merena October 1987 auction where it did not meet the $2.2 Million
reserve.
Note that two holes are empty as when it surfaced in 1962 and were later filled with a Proof half dime and a Proof 1833 Andrew Jackson gold medal. Was a medal really there originally? I notice the letter posted above on September 26, 2025 12:29PM by CaptHenway appears to order 4 quarter eagles rather than two for the 2 sets.
There is a 2004 article by PCGS that mentions the medal.
Also included the photos of the coins with their PCGS grades from the 1990 sale. They were raw in 1987 and slabbed in rattler holders for 1990, as pictured in that sale. They later went to NGC and then back to PCGS again. Grades went up a point or two on some since 1990.
Yes, from the Julian article it would appear that the extra hole in the top row was for an 1834 With Motto $2-1/2 Proof, not a Jackson gold medal.
Edited to add: Upon reflection. I wonder if there is any possibility that there was simply two No Motto Quarter Eagles in the set, one to show the Eagle?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Yes, from the Julian article it would appear that the extra hole in the top row was for an 1834 With Motto $2-1/2 Proof, not a Jackson gold medal.
Edited to add: Upon reflection. I wonder if there is any possibility that there was simply two No Motto Quarter Eagles in the set, one to show the Eagle?
Had wondered about that possibility also. If so, they could have used a silver coin. But may have chosen the smallest gold coin over silver considering the purpose of the set.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Are there any illustrations of the "Caskets"? I bet they were magnificent.
Here are some photos of the "King of Siam" set in the box from two auction catalog appearances. There are probably better photos somewhere else but I did not find better ones of the lid.
The black and white photo is from a Bowers and Merena October 1987 auction where it did not meet the $2.2 Million
reserve.
Note that two holes are empty as when it surfaced in 1962 and were later filled with a Proof half dime and a Proof 1833 Andrew Jackson gold medal. Was a medal really there originally? I notice the letter posted above on September 26, 2025 12:29PM by CaptHenway appears to order 4 quarter eagles rather than two for the 2 sets.
There is a 2004 article by PCGS that mentions the medal.
Also included the photos of the coins with their PCGS grades from the 1990 sale. They were raw in 1987 and slabbed in rattler holders for 1990, as pictured in that sale. They later went to NGC and then back to PCGS again. Grades went up a point or two on some since 1990.
@CaptHenway said:
Yes, from the Julian article it would appear that the extra hole in the top row was for an 1834 With Motto $2-1/2 Proof, not a Jackson gold medal.
Edited to add: Upon reflection. I wonder if there is any possibility that there was simply two No Motto Quarter Eagles in the set, one to show the Eagle?
Had wondered about that possibility also. If so, they could have used a silver coin. But may have chosen the smallest gold coin over silver considering the purpose of the set.
Different Eagle? Who knows. It's just a guess. But it could explain why all of the $2-1/2 coins were invoiced at the new style gold contents.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
King of Siam Set Hit of 1962 ANA, Numismatic News, R.W. Julian, Oct. 24,2011:
"When found it was missing the half dime and quarter eagle. Since that time the opinion has arisen, for uncertain reasons, that the quarter eagle with motto was not missing because it had never been there. Instead it was argued that a dime-sized gold medal of President Andrew Jackson was originally in the set. The set as now displayed contains the Jackson medal in question.
The original invoice for this set – as well as the one for the Imam of Muscat, also struck in December 1834 – has been found and states that four quarter eagles were made for the two sets. This does not prove that the other quarter eagle was the type with motto but no other logical conclusion can be drawn from the Mint records.
The original opinion, as stated in 1962 by David Spink, that the 1834 quarter eagle with motto was one of the two missing coins, should therefore be considered as correct."
Guess Tyrant is wrong to display with Jackson medal. Or perhaps he is aware of the fitment issue - too tight, too loose when an additional quarter eagle is tried as a hole filler. See, Spink pdf , pg. 6 attached to my prior post.
Note---Only No Motto were struck for circulation beginning 8/1/1834. Dies to re-strike proof Motto in Dec., 1834 ? That has never been addressed, and I would style it a substantial, rather than an "uncertain" question.
As an aside--invoice reads for "Coins of the United States" and does not state it was for coins "made for the two sets [Siam /Muscat]" as contended.
Comments
Yup. And restrikes were still regularly appearing in 1874 and on.
When the mint fully switched to the new Thonnelier-type "steam" presses in 1839, records show the mint's two most powerful screw presses, the Howell and Rush-Muhlenberg presses, were moved to the medal dept. and the die room. These two presses had been used for decades to strike medals and proofs and hub dies. The continued to be used for those purposes into the 20th century when they were eventually replaced by hydraulic presses. In fact, the pic of the Die Room in the 1902 mint report shows one of the presses, probably the RM press given the design.
The new stem presses were not used to strike proofs and patterns since they could not make a single-strike. Thus, all of the proofs, patterns, and the restrikes were produced on the screw presses.
Thank you. Forgive the stream of consciousness like flow of the following:
How are you able to rule out Hill's machine given its capabilities? That device was noted to be capable of turning specimen indistinguishable even to the original engraver. It was capable of making a perfect copy of the obv---and any reverse, Think a date antedating the machine's arrival at the Mint would be needed for striking of all the Class II & IIIs to definitely rule its use out. And some compelling direct evidence for that date and number struck. Whether it did, or did not, the machine gave the Mint the capability to continue to strike indistinguishable copies, even if prior year dies were destroyed. Of pretty much anything. At pretty much any date following the machine's arrival in 1867. Not sure how you can prove no (additional) re-strikes were made after its arrival, but you do sound confident you will, so will wait !
Random aside---seems a bit serendipitous a number of Class IIIs were noted in Europe, from which Hill's machine originated (and for which the Mint opted not to buy the patent for)....
Legend says Class IIs were first struck in 1858. If as you theorize, Class IIIs were as well, what explains the 20 year gap between striking, and their sudden appearance en mass around 1878? The examples confiscated in 1868, were they in the Mint Cabinet up until that time--or in other hands--or pockets? Exactly how many ClassII/IIIs were struck in the single run? Why include a Thaler--test strike of sorts, or last one for the heck of it....
Is the the outstanding strike of the newly surfaced example touched upon in your upcoming piece? Looks far superior to others to my unqualified grading eyes.
You stated you will be publishing some definitive information, the support for which is to be disclosed on publishing. Understandable, but that makes it a bit difficult for the community in the meanwhile to test/ evaluate the weight of the evidence upon which you will rely for so definitive a statement. I truly hope you solve this mystery, and look forward to reading your work.
BTW, respectfully disagree about the cutoff date for a bona fide Mint issue --which is probably controlled by the Circular(s), and other existing regulations/laws.. Low's scheduled 1887 estate sale of Lindderman's coin holdings was enjoined by a federal court And that his wife was only able to get his Class III freed up with a story that Linderman actually purchased his from "a dealer on time," rather than getting it from the Mint itself? (catalogue attached as a pdf). That is, um, certainly an unusual story ...
Deeper I look, more murkie the waters get.... Secret Service was involved---but its records are a slow go.... one agent was killed during an investigation of what turned out to be a fake 1804.....
Above are just some outstanding--very rambling questions-- I myself have about the Class IIIs. Please do not take them as some sort of list of questions your are in any way obliged to answer.
As far as excluding Hill's engraving Machine, Reverse Y was used for both the Class II and Class III dollars. The Class II dollars appeared circa 1859 to 1860 and were confiscated by the mint by 1861. The Class III dollars first appeared in `1864. Thus, both appeared prior to the arrival of the Hill machine.
Further, the Hill machine was not used to reproduce full dies. Rather, it was used to produce the central device with peripheral devices such as letters, numerals, stars, etc. being added by hand to the master dies. Further, none of the reducing machines, including the improved Janvier, produced a "read-to-use die." It still had to be hand-touched by the engraver where necessary and then lapped to remove metal pushed up by machining and set the final basin. Those are two of the key ways die specialists are able to identify new master dies and new working dies.
One should be careful reading period statements by mint officials which often tend to be quite hyperbolic. Politics was the same back then as now and officials routinely made utterly lofty statements about the great improvements they introduced.
In this vein, the 1867 circular you cited is by none other than Henry Linderman, the most prolific restriker the mint has ever seen. The number of "cabinet coins" he had struck and that he sold via various agents is legendary. For example, Judd-80 and 81 using an 1838 obv and a reverse that did not exist until the 1860s. The first one appeared at auction in 1875. Pattern and Seated researchers, including Andrew Pollack, attribute these strikes to dies made from pattern hubs discovered by A. Loudon Snowden and noted in his letter published in the January 1872 issue of Mason’s Monthly Coin Collectors Magazine.
Then we have pattern 1863 one-cent pieces, Judd-301 through 304, struck in bronze, copper-nickel, oroide, and aluminum using a reverse that did not exist until 1871. We also have have several 1864 pattern half dollars, Judd-396 (silver) and Judd-397 (copper) which use a “With Motto” reverse that was first used on 1871 proofs and patterns. Additionally, there is at least one 1864 “No Motto” pattern restrike, Judd-395, with the obverse fields bulging as on the latest 396 and 397 strikes, so that too was struck sometime circa 1871 or 1872.
Finally, we have the 1887 mint report by then Director James Kimball. Beginning on page 180, Kimball cites numerous examples of post-1867 and 1873 restrikes including an illegally produced encased set of 1868 of regular issue coins in aluminum had “passed into other hands.” Those “hands” obviously belonged to Henry Linderman since the set was listed in Lyman Lowe’s 1887 sale catalog of his collection. It was subsequently seized with other aluminum and off-metal pieces.
Kimball's report also specifically cited three lists, one compiled by the curator of the Mint Cabinet, another by Robert Coulton Davis, Curator of Numismatics for the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, with the third being an unnamed “printed list of another collection.” Kimball went onto state that the lists showed numerous examples of off-metal strikes from both pattern and regular issue dies, mules, and other “whim pieces” that did not exist in the Mint Cabinet. He specifically stated that one of the lists showed 57 different pieces dated 1873 through 1885 and that the third list contained 78 different off-metal strikes dated 1873 through 1885.
Simply put, criminals do not pay attention to laws or rules or regulations, even ones they write themselves as a smoke screen for their own illicit activates. That's why they are criminals. They break the law.
As an aside, Henry Linderman was under investigation for several improprieties while he was in office including a pump-and-dump stock swindle which included placing false statements in an official mint report, kickbacks, paying relatives to perform mint work that could have been done by employees, and manipulating and misreporting official accounts to cover up excess expenditures and excess bullion wastage at some mints. He died before formal charges could be brought.
His partner in crime, A. Loudon Snowden was also under investigation for misuse of funds, etc., but he left office and took off for Europe before he could be indicted.
Those guys were gems.
.....
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking"
of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
VERY Interesting!
I get the gist of the letters. Would anyone care to attempt a complete transcription?
Absolutely not, but I’ll certainly let Grok give it a go 😅-
Transcription of "1858 Letters.pdf"
Based on the scanned pages provided in the document, this appears to be a collection of three short handwritten letters from 1858, likely related to a legal or numismatic matter involving the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, electrotyping processes for coins, and expert testimony. The handwriting is 19th-century cursive, which is challenging to read perfectly due to flourishes, smudges, and fading. I've transcribed them as faithfully as possible, using standard modern English spelling and punctuation for clarity while noting uncertain words in [brackets]. The document seems to have 3 pages (with some repetition in the scan, possibly due to duplex printing or scan artifacts).
Page 1: Letter dated July 19, 1858 (from Philadelphia, likely to a colleague or official regarding mint processes and witnesses)
Phila. July 19, 1858
Dear Sir,
Mr. Booth in behalf [of the matter? or of it]
one [man? or none?] in the mint capable
of explaining to full satisfaction
the electrotype process, and he
[is] himself [acquainted] with as [much]
of the [other? throat?] process
producing [his? him?] [most? with?] [taking?],
The [writer? appears?] Mr. [Elkfeldt? or Elkfeldt]
[after?] [James?] [or?] [Glunt?],
as [in?] [former?] [purpose? or ?],
Mr. Mickley, I have no doubt,
[will] with pleasure [answer] any [inquiry],
with [his?] [parts? cheerful?] [assistance?]. He
understands that he will be
well [paid? or compensated].
Yours [truly? etc.],
[ Jno. ? ]
[ ? ]
Col. [Vandegrift? or Vandyke?]
[ U.S. ? ]
[ Brit. ? or Dist. Atty.? ]
[ ? ]
(Note: The signature and closing lines are particularly illegible. "Jno." likely stands for "John." The reference to "Col. Vande[grift?]" may be a misreading or a name like "Vandyke," tying to the district attorney mentioned later. The content seems to recommend Mr. Booth as an expert on electrotyping at the mint and suggests Mr. Mickley as a reliable witness.)
Page 2: Short note dated September 7, 1858 (from J.B. McCleary, U.S. District Attorney, possibly a memo or endorsement)
J. B. McCleary Esq.
U.S. Dist. Atty
Sir,
Mr. Mickley as
a [friend? or proper?] person
[for?] [testimony? or in]
[ ? ]
[ ? ]
Sept. 7, 1858.
(Note: This page is very brief and faded. It appears to be a quick endorsement or note recommending Mr. Mickley, possibly in the context of the same case. The lines after "person" are nearly illegible, possibly "for the purpose" or similar. The "+" may be a mark or flourish.)
Page 3: Letter dated September 17, 1858 (from the Navy Office, recommending Mr. Mickley as an expert witness to U.S. District Attorney James B. Vandyke)
For James B. Vandyke Esq.,
U.S. Dist. Atty.,
Dear Sir
Mr. Joseph J. Mickley,
Market St. below Tenth,
North side, is perfectly
familiar with the coating
of coins by electrotype
process, [and] would no doubt
take pleasure in giving
any testimony required.
Navy office,
Sept. 17, 1858
[ P. ? or Signature illegible ]
(Note: This is the clearest page. Joseph J. Mickley was a well-known Philadelphia numismatist and coin collector in the 19th century. James B. Vandyke was the U.S. District Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at the time. This letter explicitly offers Mickley as an expert on electrotyping coins, likely for a court case involving counterfeiting or mint processes. The signature may be from a Navy official, perhaps "P. F. Smith" or similar, but it's unclear.)
Additional Context
These letters appear to be part of correspondence related to a potential legal proceeding in 1858 Philadelphia, possibly a counterfeiting trial where electrotyping (an early electrochemical process for copying metal objects like coins) was at issue. The U.S. Mint in Philadelphia was central to such matters, and references to "Mr. Booth" (possibly a mint employee) and Mickley (a prominent coin expert) suggest they were being lined up as witnesses. No exact match for these specific letters was found in public archives, but they align with historical numismatic activities around electrotype copies of rare coins like the 1804 dollar, which were produced around this era.
If this transcription needs refinement or if you have higher-resolution scans/clarifications for illegible parts, let me know!
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
R.R.R. does not refer to the Class of 1804s. A review of the inventory should give you a clue.
Mickley was "inner circle" long before 58.
A better person would have been Franklin Peale, even tho' he was "retired" by 58. Peale created the first galvano (electrotype) in 1840, It survives to this day in a private collection..
As to the technical details, no argument.
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley would be a shrewd move if the Mint did not want to expose itself to having an employee/official offer testimony that might bind it (and who knew the innermost details/workings). Never know what an inquisitive US attorney, or defense counsel, might start asking about....
Mickley could credibly " I don't know" his way through some questions about things a Mint employee/officer could not, stick to techinical issues only....
Might be a red herring, remarkable only to show how close MIckley became. Have found no reported legal decisions contemporaneous, Paper search would be a challenge, no case name for starters.....
When did Mickley first become inner circle?
That would certainly been a waste of time since the Peale galvano had been publicized many years before.
You've got the surface docs. Keep digging and you'll eventually come up with the real stories. Shouldn't be hard, I and others have published the docs for the last 30 years.
It is a curious thing to presume to know what I have, and have not, looked at (or the scope of relevant data which may be available to me).
Primary reason I am looking into the entire 1804 saga is I like a good historical mystery. Nice side break from an in progress extended non numismatic work. Wherever the evidence leads......
I am looking at the issue de novo. I found much of the existing literature over relies upon improperly stacked inferences (upon inferences), arguments from silence without demonstrating the 3 prerequisite for same, and the like.... I do tend to follow Hitchen's razor when I read, and also am aware of it when I make an assertion.
Look forward to reading your article and the evidence which will be revealed to prove your "grand unified theory of Class II/IIIs." Have appreciated engaging in the "coming attractions" discussions!
What is the ball park estimated date for publication?
Thank you so much for the better copies.
In the last one, I am curious about the word "coating." The second letter is definitely an "o" comparing it to other words with an "o." However, it seems to be an odd use of the word, as the "coating of coins" sounds to me like the "electroplating of existing coins" rather than the "making of electrotype copies of coins.".
I am wondering if perhaps this word might be a secretary's transcription error for the word "creating." That would seem to be more likely in context, but of course this is just a guess. As I (barely) understand the process, there is a step where the negative impression is coated with powdered copper (?) to provide a base that subsequent metal is electrically deposited onto. This might be a perfectly innocent explanation for the use of the word "coating."
TD
@Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
Cap:
My pleasure. Noted that. Last attachment was from the Assay office to the U.S. Attorney, not from the Mint. Maybe a misunderstanding further down the line at the Assay Office?
Not sure what significance the docs themselves have other than to show Mickley was “in.”
Passed along because I thought it might be of some potential use to the teased theory that all re-striking was done in a single batch (which it seems was of no use to its proponent).
Given the rebuff of clarification of the meaning of the R.R.R designation of the single 1804 specimen noted in the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, appears the theory likely will be that all ClassII/IIIs were struck in a single run, at some date before that inventory. But that is just a guess of logic. Later inventories dropped that abbreviation.
Not much can be said about the single re-strike theory at this time. Not impossible, but then again, no evidence has been actually put forward yet.
What I have reviewed to date sure raises substantive questions about that, and other existing lore. Are means, motive and an opportunity for later re-strike(s). But I do not presently have sufficient evidence to definitely state an opinion. Was hoping to have a substantive discussion, but will defer further to examine the teased theory until some evidence for it is disclosed.
Strike of newly surfaced example sure stands out to me. Any thoughts you might have about the significance, if any, concerning that would certainly be appreciated-- and very much respected. First strike-- of a single striking ---of re-strikes?
>
No, sorry, I haven't done any studies on the NO mint. You might try some of the folks in LSCC or perhaps Kevin Flynn has some info.
@Rittenhouse . Thank you for answering back. Don't feel too bad about not knowing. I am a member of the LSCC and have probably asked this question more than a dozen times. (Mr. Flynn might be one I don't remember).
The standard answers are, "I have no idea." and "Try the Newman Portal."
I wish I was more gifted at using that source but the only anaology that applies is:
"You say you need some tuna?" Well all you need is the correct bait & tackle. Pick a coast and head fore the high seas. Easy Peasy." Thank you again. James
Rather than hijack this thread, how about starting another one we can discuss this in?
@CaptHenway . No hijacking and I have brought this very question up at least 6 times in the last 3 years. Crickets. So would be very short discussion. James
Interesting to note that Stack apparently had a 1933 D.E. confiscated by the Secret Service in the 1940s. If in fact all 1804 III’s were struck during a “period of legality” (or at least a period where it would not be deemed unauthorized) would be a non-relevant fact to this precise discussion. Just an interesting factoid.
But if the re-strikes continued, or were done after the Circulars—potentially making some later re-strikes unauthorized/prohibited Mints issues--- would be a relevant fact to the question why the existence of this example was held close for so long. And depending on its pre-Stack provenience, could be a material fact.
Linderman’s widow did have to do some creative explaining to the Federal Court to get her husband’s example freed from the 1887 injunction which initially barred its sale.
Sure, it was not pleasant to have to deal with the Secret Service. One time, would be one time too many for a lifetime-- for me at least.
Below exchange was prompted by a 1879 controversy whether the Mint was re-striking Stellas and Morgan Pattern Dollars after their years of issue.
Hazfeld's extended version re 1804s . Unless he is referring to re-strikes of Class Is, seems to be directly contrary to a single Class III re-strike theory---and it also does present a bit of a math problem,
Be great to see any written documentation re Treasury authority to restike. Failing same, circular issue would remain
Thank you for those two document.
This is certainly the origin of the story that Adam Eckfeldt's grandson, commonly assumed to be Theodore, secretly struck 1804 dollars and sold them for his own profit. (This is the "Midnight Minter" story, NOT made up by Breen, though he may have come up with the "Midnight Minter name). Likewise, it is the origin of the story that they were recovered and destroyed, although I suspect that the destruction part was a lie.
The story that a third striking took place circa 1868 could be a cover story for the common belief that the Class II coins were edge lettered and re-sold as what are now called Class III coins in the late 1860s, though at least one of them may have been so sold circa 1864, perhaps to test the waters to see if the circa 1858 scandal had been forgotten. All of this more or less aligns with what Newman and Bressett wrote in "The Fantastic 1804 Dollar."
All of that said, reading the larger document (and do you have the beginning of it?) my B.S. Detector is ringing at the five alarm level. I have long been a believer in the Midnight Minter theory, but its very presence in this document now makes me doubt it.
THAT said, I am still at a loss as to who struck the multiple PLAIN EDGE Class II 1804 Dollars (one of them an overstrike) circa 1858. The lack of the edge lettering was a monstrous faux pas, Rittenhouse has some very definite ideas about this, and I look forward to reading what he and JD have to say about the subject.
Cpt.: below is a bit rambling. Any questions contained are not directed at/to you. They are general.
Attaching some pdf docs on the blow up regarding the Stellas & Morgan Pattern Dollars. you might find of interest. Are more, but did not want to dump a ton. Second attachment should probably be read first for chronology. Be happy to pass along more if there is any desire.
Myself, I think the term “Pirates of the the Mint” more fitting than “Moonlight Minters.” Moonlight to me connotes authorized strikes. That was not what was going on. Was plain & simple unauthorized conduct for personal profit. Think today we would refer to that as simply theft of government property (and probably more).
There was plunder under/ likely by, several directors. Snowden, and his defenders were scapegoating others, but were in on it, as apparently was Linderman. Each had their own circle of supporters and accusers.
The s(tuff) hit the fan following an uproar over the re-striking of 1879 Stellas as well as Morgan Dollar Patterns. People were being sold "rare" patterns at inflated prices only for them to later become common. This controversy arose at the same time Class III were starting to emerge en mass. Some returning from Europe. Their trip across the pond was interesting. Should have more on that in just a short while.
At the time, Philly papers were running stories along the lines that the best counterfeiter in the country was the Mint itself.
Think the “King” may not be wearing any clothes. Zero joy in pointing that out. All Classes.
Class 1s were not struck as diplomatic presentation pieces. There is zero evidence for that theory--just liberal and illogical inferences. That whole cover story was created and publicly circulated by the Inner Mint Cabinet Circle after public notice was first taken in the 1850s regarding the 1804s-- struck in the 1840s, e.g. Stickney's statement. The origin time line of that story was easy to trace. It was well after 1834-5, and after the start of the Mint Cabinet.
Class III lore is heavily dependent of Hazeltine (also of 1885 Trade Dollar and other patterns fame-- he he later fell out of favor and legal action by a subsequent Mint Administration was pursued against him over patterns).
Newman told an imaginative story-but it is just that, a tale. Credit is due Bressert who did a lot of heavy lifting manual research wise. But evidence was not there as far I am concerned for Newman's folktale.
Appearance of “the King of Siam set at Detroit ANA ,” along with the Proof Plain 4 Eagle, well, that wrinkle was just folded into to the original cover story of a diplomatic striking --- for the first time---in 1962. Despite the fact the set appeared with zero documentation, but only an unverified story from descendants of the notoriously fabulist nanny portrayed in the King & I—which just happened to be a extremely popular movie released only a few years earlier. Talk about a great and timely story! Yul Brenner and all! Fact that a couple of holes were empty was apparently of no matter when you have the King & I!
No one, to my knowledge, has directly addressed Jackson’s correspondence to VP Van Buren noting his push for eagle dies in 1834. Excerpt of Jackson's Letter to Van Buren of 8/16/1834:
The Treasury/Mint ignored Jackson in favor of running off some illegally weighted re-strikes of 1804 Eagles for minor potentates? Just after Jackson won the hard-fought passage of the Coinage Act, he directed the Mint to break that very law? I don’t see how that makes any sense whatsoever, but maybe that’s just me. Old Hickory did have a temper….
Looking into the activities of the mid 19th century Mint, and its Circle, has opened my eyes. They seem to have been responsible for numerous patterns and many early “specimens” & “proofs.” More accurately, for what are really re-strikes. Numismatics was not immune from the rampant corruption of the day. And it does appear that once a tall tale is told often enough, it becomes accepted as “fact.”
Will be interesting to read Rittenhouse’s article, which I understand will focus on die state. Given the number re-re struck, can’t see at the moment how that could be dispositive of anything, but maybe I am missing something.
Am running down when the Thaler was struck, but my French & German are not great. Older legal records are manually achieved, so will be a while to gain access. Same with Secret Service. Have gone through some of the later, but those records are voluminous and not index very well.
So, you’re saying that contrary to what’s been published, there wasn’t a November 11, 1834 Department of State request for special sets of coinage to be made for presentation purposes?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not at all. I posted the letter myself on this thread. There were sets struck, and there is documentation that a set was given to the Sultan of Muscat. He did not think much of them accordingly to the Whalers with insight into his court. There is no inventory of the coins struck for the presentation sets. No account of the presentation specifies what the sets contained--nor any other known document. None are described in the log of the Peacock. The coins were not mentioned when the Sultan's emissary paid a reciprocal visit to the U.S not long after.
The sets were requested by Woodbury from Moore. There is no written documentation by Jackson. The specific language in the November 11, 1834 letter was for "duplicate specimens of each kind now in use." It is this language, and this language alone, upon which the legend was spun. More precisely, the theory goes that this language caused the MInt to re-strike coins last produced 30 years previously (in violation of current law for the Eagle) That is one big leap for which there is zero evidence. Only speculation. which is Illogical given the Bank War that Jackson was deeply immersed in at that time. Also, it makes little sense given eagles and silver dollars had long since vanished from any kind of then "current use." There is also no evidence they were actually struck in 1834-35. There is evidence, if Stickney is to be believed, they were first known to exist in the 1840s--only after Dubois & Eckfeldt started the Mint Cabinet/ Eckfeldt published his book.
There is, however, very clear evidence the tale of inclusion in the presentation sets first arose only after Class I's first came to the nascent numismatic community's attention---in the late 1840s/early 1850 Much evidence. Only Woodbury's general request was offered in support when the tale was first spun. I myself would say contorted. Some vocal advocates seemed to be financially interested. That is origin of the folktale which has come down to us today.
The 1804 Plain 4 Eagle legend was first spun in 1962. There also is zero inference free evidence they were included in the sets presented, and it would would have been in violation of then current law to strike them late '34, early '35. As far as I know, the King of Siam case was never authenticated, was "missing pieces." and contained dups ( motto , no motto---not sure the Sultan or Kings would understand the difference but there was a hole so.... ). As a side note, there were other requests from the State Dept to the Mint in the mid to late 19th for boxed presentation coins. But I haven't matched the holes to denominations struck in any particular year in which those many sets were requested.
The Plain 4 Eagles were said to have been all struck ( in violation of the Coinage Act) for 4 presentation sets. Two were delivered (Muscat/Siam), 2 could not be presented (Cochin & Japan). Lore says the later two were returned to the State Department. No State Department record for same has been produced. The Plain 4 did appear long before the King & I movie, but without the legend of it being part of the presentation sets. When the 'Siam Set' made its debut in 1962, the Eagle was folded into the inferences made about 1804 Class I. The inference about the Eagle is even more dubious given Jackson's express desire to strike eagles, and the then existing Coinage Act law which would make their striking illegal.
Nanny from the King & I was a fabulist. She was not in Siam in 1835-6, and she was not a nanny to the King the set was presented to (Rama III), She was in subsequent King Rama IV's, household from 1862-1867. While she was still on leave in the UK, Rama died in 1868, mentioning her in his will, but leaving her nothing. But I guess the legend must include an inference the subsequent King gifted a British, Indian born nanny a set of American coins given to his predecessor before she departed for leave to the UK in 1867- then died leaving her nothing more. That, to put it mildly, is a major grand canyon like leap which makes zero logical sense. I guess it was a nice story to contemporary audiences of the popular King & I film released in 1956.
Much more than you asked for. The story is so convoluted by time that longer answers are necessary for completeness.
The letter you asked about was the springboard for a lot of story telling, perhaps cover for other less savory conduct. The letter itself doe not prove in any way Class Is or Plain 4 Eagles were struck for inclusion in the sets.
By Gahd man, Did JCH just expose the origins 1804 dollar for everyone?
I'm sure we've all been that guy once or twice, a few too many and ruin Thanksgiving for the family....right guys?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
If, as you agree, the letter I asked about was written, sets were struck and one was given to the Sultan of Muscat, what coins were in that set, if not the ones claimed to be?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Neither 1804 Eagles nor Dollars based on what I have already posted—with likely much more documentation to follow here, or perhaps elsewhere.
With respect, your question is a collateral one as it assumes I am making a particular claim. Burdens both of production and persuasion are on the proponents that denominations last struck more than 30 years earlier, one since becoming illegal just months before, were backdated and included. The letter is insufficient for either. Have gone far beyond what is due such unproven extraordinary claims under the gratis asseritur, gratis negatur razor.
Do you think those who proposed and perpetuated such tale, have met both of their burdens of production and persuasion for---- their---- extraordinary claims? If so, any direct evidence you can point to?
"Particular" or otherwise, you did make cliams, as follows: "class 1s were not struck as diplomatic presentation pieces. There is zero evidence for that theory--just liberal and illogical inferences. That whole cover story was created and publicly circulated by the Inner Mint Cabinet Circle after public notice was first taken in the 1850s regarding the 1804s-- struck in the 1840s, e.g. Stickney's statement. The origin time line of that story was easy to trace. It was well after 1834-5, and after the start of the Mint Cabinet…"
I questioned you, merely because you're the one who posted claims here. I only wish that those who proposed "such tale" were alive and posting here with us.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You are the one presenting a theory here. I believe that the burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.
....
If that is so, guess I could turn the same argument back, and say it up to you to prove my statements incorrect. But I truly have zero interest in parsing the "rules of inference for formal logic" with someone of substance and extensive numismatic knowledge such as yourself.
Realize my posts may be an anathema to some. I was also a kid with a Redbook, way back when.
Seems a journal which is not dedicated to numismatics might be a better place to submit/publish what I have /am finding given the sensitive nature of the topic here.
Is a classic Gilded Age kind of story with legal, diplomatic & historical story lines, intercontinental connections, lawsuits, scandals, insiders, disgruntled outsiders, corrupt officials, & rogues, as well as Old Hickory, a Sultan, a King, and a British/Indian born Nanny—along with musical numbers! The story's appeal is , I think, not confined to numismatics.
Robert W. Julian is, IMHO, the greatest living numismatic researcher. I thought to ask him what information he had on the 1834-35 Diplomatic Proof Sets, and he referred me to his article in The Numismatist in January, 1970. I highly recommend that every ANA member here read it in the ANA Archives. If you are not a member of the ANA, join. Access to the archives online is a fabulous member benefit.
Here are a few screencaps from the article:
Beyond any doubt, the first Class I 1804 dollars, and the Diplomatic Proof sets they were made for, were made in 1834-1835.
TD
Here is Mint paperwork accounting for the coins in the Diplomatic Proof Sets, including Dollars and Eagles.
Guess the Jackson Gold Medals were free.... and we are to assume dates of denominations ( 321 dollars were reported struck in 1805 per 1806 Mint Report so if you were going to re-strike based on records, why 1804?) .....
Was/am aware of the information posted above-and of those records. Will be addressing these theories fully in a separate piece elsewhere. Difficult here to separate issues of personalities from their claims, i.e., appeals to authority, relationships involved.
Couple pdfs attached for general informational purposes.
First is Julian's initial theory with Newman's corrections.
Second pdf: First page is a letter from Newman to Ford speaking about how he was blindsided by Spinks' set while writing his book. Following pages detail Spinks’ 1962 presentation--including his solution to the problem of the 11 hole case, with no markings. .
I believe that Eric used the word "suggestions," not "corrections."
Eric was one of our Consultants while I was at ANACS. He was always willing to help.
I was able to return the favor by helping him in his ultimately successful campaign to get the U.S.A.O.G. $20 counterfeits commonly associated with Paul Franklin and/or John J. Ford condemned in the hobby as counterfeits.
TD
According to your dates and prices, it would have taken approx. 20,000 ounces of gold to purchase this coin in 1951 and today it would take only 2,100 ounces of gold.
Put another way, if sold in 1951 for gold and then converted to cash today, the piggy bank would have 75 million $$.
Proving that gold is a better investment than even the rarest US coin of all time.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
What do you think is “the rarest US coin of all time”? It’s certainly isn’t the 1804 dollar.
And your comparison doesn’t prove that gold is a better investment, as you’re talking about the past, not the present.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Cap: I myself stand corrected! Thanks.
Hip deep trying to finish a work on Melancton Smith, a forgotten father of the Bill of Rights. This issue is weighty and deserving of undivided attention in order to present coherently, and comprehensively.
Think Julian an excellent researcher, but things are accessible today which weren’t back in the day. Much credit is certainly due him for being a Mint Archive pioneer.
Not a Ford fan given, well…. you know ... Just attached to show how Spink's appearance was a bit of surprise to everyone.
Be a pleasure to read a thread about the U.S.A.O.G $20s!
Maybe I should have said the 1804 dollar is the most well known 'rare' US coin.
Regardless of its stature on the US 'rare' coin scale, if it doesn't hold up well as an investment when compared to gold, I think that says a great deal of either the lack of coins as being a strong investment or the strength of gold as being a strong investment over time.
Lastly, your comment about past or present investments makes no sense to me as of course we don't know the future of any investment, but I can only go on the well known saying, "know your history to know your future" ie., gold is an extremely wise choice to invest your money.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
You’re comparing a single 1804 dollar’s price performance to that of gold when it’s very close to historic highs, after a huge run-up. That doesn’t begin to prove that gold’s a better investment than rare coins.
And to me, there’s a big difference between saying that something is a better investment vs. has been one. The former is making a prediction, while the latter is past history.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
$31.00 for the cases??
Thats what I want to see...
Are there any illustrations of the "Caskets"? I bet they were magnificent.
Here are some photos of the "King of Siam" set in the box from two auction catalog appearances. There are probably better photos somewhere else but I did not find better ones of the lid.
The black and white photo is from a Bowers and Merena October 1987 auction where it did not meet the $2.2 Million
reserve.
https://archive.org/details/kingofsiamsale0000bowe/page/66/mode/2up
The color photos are from the May 1990 Superior auction where the set sold for $3,190,000.
https://archive.org/details/fatherflanagansb1990supe/mode/2up
Note that two holes are empty as when it surfaced in 1962 and were later filled with a Proof half dime and a Proof 1833 Andrew Jackson gold medal. Was a medal really there originally? I notice the letter posted above on September 26, 2025 12:29PM by CaptHenway appears to order 4 quarter eagles rather than two for the 2 sets.
There is a 2004 article by PCGS that mentions the medal.
https://pcgs.com/news/legendary-king-of-siam-proof-set-in-pcgs-holders-for
Also included the photos of the coins with their PCGS grades from the 1990 sale. They were raw in 1987 and slabbed in rattler holders for 1990, as pictured in that sale. They later went to NGC and then back to PCGS again. Grades went up a point or two on some since 1990.
https://archive.org/details/fatherflanagansb1990supe/page/192/mode/2up
https://ngccoin.com/news/article/6364/king-of-siam-proof-set/
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Yes, from the Julian article it would appear that the extra hole in the top row was for an 1834 With Motto $2-1/2 Proof, not a Jackson gold medal.
Edited to add: Upon reflection. I wonder if there is any possibility that there was simply two No Motto Quarter Eagles in the set, one to show the Eagle?
Had wondered about that possibility also. If so, they could have used a silver coin. But may have chosen the smallest gold coin over silver considering the purpose of the set.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Thank you..
That Eagle is something else.
Different Eagle? Who knows. It's just a guess. But it could explain why all of the $2-1/2 coins were invoiced at the new style gold contents.
King of Siam Set Hit of 1962 ANA, Numismatic News, R.W. Julian, Oct. 24,2011:
"When found it was missing the half dime and quarter eagle. Since that time the opinion has arisen, for uncertain reasons, that the quarter eagle with motto was not missing because it had never been there. Instead it was argued that a dime-sized gold medal of President Andrew Jackson was originally in the set. The set as now displayed contains the Jackson medal in question.
The original invoice for this set – as well as the one for the Imam of Muscat, also struck in December 1834 – has been found and states that four quarter eagles were made for the two sets. This does not prove that the other quarter eagle was the type with motto but no other logical conclusion can be drawn from the Mint records.
The original opinion, as stated in 1962 by David Spink, that the 1834 quarter eagle with motto was one of the two missing coins, should therefore be considered as correct."
https://www.numismaticnews.net/archive/king-of-siam-set-hit-of-1962-ana
Guess Tyrant is wrong to display with Jackson medal. Or perhaps he is aware of the fitment issue - too tight, too loose when an additional quarter eagle is tried as a hole filler. See, Spink pdf , pg. 6 attached to my prior post.
Note---Only No Motto were struck for circulation beginning 8/1/1834. Dies to re-strike proof Motto in Dec., 1834 ? That has never been addressed, and I would style it a substantial, rather than an "uncertain" question.
As an aside--invoice reads for "Coins of the United States" and does not state it was for coins "made for the two sets [Siam /Muscat]" as contended.