@JCH22 said:
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.
Perhaps you have a theory regarding a more logical and likely reason than for the two sets “as contended”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What are the precise diameters of the 1834 With and Without Motto $2-1/2 Proofs? Ditto the Jackson medal? Ditto the hole in the case?
I assume that somebody must have checked them as they were developing the Jackson Medal 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.
@JCH22 said:
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.
Perhaps you have a theory regarding a more logical and likely reason than for the two sets “as contended”.
I think it is safe to say that the Dollars and Eagles in the sets were dated either 1804 or 1834.
Which ones are known today?
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.
Perhaps you have a theory regarding a more logical and likely reason than for the two sets “as contended”.
Mark:
Not yet- without falling into the pyramiding of inference trap…. Not sure there will ever be (an attenuated) inference free proof of what actually was in the 2 sets as presented.
Thus far, my posts point out that those who have claimed to know “what was in the set(s)” have more than a few holes (no pun intended) in their theories. It is their independent theory which they must prove—not I disprove. This is especially critical for a “King’s” legitimacy.
Turning to just the case/casket itself,-obvious problems--missing holes, diameters do not match then current denominations, embossed with eagle etc., when initial request was for a PLAIN Moroccan leather case of the smallest size.
I did not find the 1962 presentation by Spink & Risk regarding the unmarked, unauthenticated, case with empty holes, was at all convincing. Candidly it read, to me, like a sales pitch from non-experts in U.S. coins trying hard to make the case/casket fit a theory, rather than any kind of scholarship. They never did present anything other than the case. Could claim owner's privacy etc., but incredibly substantial claims like that--are due something more than dealer talk.
Have you read that pdf? Your impressions? Do you believe it has been proven, more likely than not, Spink’s case/casket contained the set as presented to the King of Siam? I do not. But certainly, any contrary/concurring/no opinion from you would be due the well-earned respect deserved.
I am ready to stand corrected, but did not the Mint report of 1806 indicated 321 dollars were struck in 1805 (number is off the top of my head)? Believe that was later shown to be an error-- but well after 1834-35. Were later dispelled theories those were actually dated 1804, but also a dollar dated 1805 did appear in the late 1950s, early 1960s, (Werner-- was later found not genuine).
If you were a Mint official in 1834-35, available records would seem to show be that dollars were last struck 1805, rather than 1804.
Perhaps you have a theory regarding a more logical and likely reason than for the two sets “as contended”.
Mark:
Not yet- without falling into the pyramiding of inference trap…. Not sure there will ever be (an attenuated) inference free proof of what actually was in the 2 sets as presented.
Thus far, my posts point out that those who have claimed to know “what was in the set(s)” have more than a few holes (no pun intended) in their theories. It is their independent theory which they must prove—not I disprove. This is especially critical for a “King’s” legitimacy.
Turning to just the case/casket itself,-obvious problems--missing holes, diameters do not match then current denominations, embossed with eagle etc., when initial request was for a PLAIN Moroccan leather case of the smallest size.
I did not find the 1962 presentation by Spink & Risk regarding the unmarked, unauthenticated, case with empty holes, was at all convincing. Candidly it read, to me, like a sales pitch from non-experts in U.S. coins trying hard to make the case/casket fit a theory, rather than any kind of scholarship. They never did present anything other than the case. Could claim owner's privacy etc., but incredibly substantial claims like that--are due something more than dealer talk.
Have you read that pdf? Your impressions? Do you believe it has been proven, more likely than not, Spink’s case/casket contained the set as presented to the King of Siam? I do not. But certainly, any contrary/concurring/no opinion from you would be due the well-earned respect deserved.
I am ready to stand corrected, but did not the Mint report of 1806 indicated 321 dollars were struck in 1805 (number is off the top of my head)? Believe that was later shown to be an error-- but well after 1834-35. Were later dispelled theories those were actually dated 1804, but also a dollar dated 1805 did appear in the late 1950s, early 1960s, (Werner-- was later found not genuine).
If you were a Mint official in 1834-35, available records would seem to show be that dollars were last struck 1805, rather than 1804.
I agree that it’s unlikely we’ll ever know with certainty, precisely what coins resided in the two sets. However, I have no good reason to doubt the generally held belief that it was the coins contained in the King of set when it first surfaced in 1962, as well as a then-missing 1834 Half Dime and a mystery coin, each of which were subsequently replaced.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
What are the precise diameters of the 1834 With and Without Motto $2-1/2 Proofs? Ditto the Jackson medal? Ditto the hole in the case?
I assume that somebody must have checked them as they were developing the Jackson Medal theory.
The 2016 Red Book shows the diameter of 1829-1834 With Motto Quarter Eagles as 18.2 mm and the 1834-1839 Classic Head No Motto as 18.2 mm. PCGS CoinFacts shows them as 18.2 mm for both except that it shows the Proofs of 1834-1839 as 17.50 mm, which I am guessing to be a mistake.
PCGS does not give a size for the Jackson medal. There are some NGC certified on Heritage that have 18 mm on the label.
Sounds like any of the three could have fit in the empty opening of the set.
I don't know if it has been documented anywhere whether there is any measurable difference in the size of Quarter Eagle slot and the similar empty slot in the KOS set.
Part of the lot description in the 1990 auction speculates on the Jackson medal, which it called "about 19mm", versus the With Motto Quarter Eagle. It says on page 198 (image included further below) :
The King of Siam set has two unfilled spaces, one of which was, undoubtedly, intended for the 1834 Half Dime. The other empty space poses a problem. In point of fact, scholars may never know what it contained. It may forever linger a missing piece to the jigsaw puzzle of our story. There are two equally valid candidates which could have filled the space. One, it may have contained a With Motto variety of the 1834 Quarter Eagle; its opening is the right size. But then we have to ask: Why two Quarter Eagles but not two Half Eagles? Why no With Motto Half Eagle if there was a With Motto Quarter Eagle ? The other possibility is a specimen of the 1833 medalet struck by the U.S. Mint for President Andrew Jackson's second inauguration; this medalet, Julian PR-33, is struck in gold, measures about 19mm., and would fit the space provided perfectly. According to Stack's, who favors this second opinion: "It would also occupy a nearly central position within the top row of the pieces in the case, would present a portrait of our country s elected leader at the time the set was made, and would do so in the 'royal' metal without claiming royalty (since it was of a size comparable to the smallest circulating gold denomination of the period)".
The Redbook tends to round off a bit. It’s like the Lincoln Cent, which was originally exactly 3/4th inch, which converts to 19.05 mm. I’ve seen it given as 19, 19.05 and 19.1.
I was hoping to get precise measurements of raw coins, if they were taken when the coins were raw.
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.
Coinfacts does not report any 1834 with Motto proofs to have been struck. It does list a few of 1833 & 1831.
Unclear if "the double quarter eagles theory" goes that at least four 1834 examples were restruck in December,1834 for the Muscat, Siam, Japan & Cochin sets (would then be of illegal weight like the eagle and present an additional die issue), or that other dates (1833 or 1831) were also introduced into the set. The later would result in a mismatch of current coins of 1834, and uncurrent coins of 1804, and 1831 or 1833....
Setting aside the request was for coins, and not for coins and medals...... Putting your head on the smallest item in a set, with the reverse noting your second "term," does not strike me as likely to impress lifetime absolute monarchs/warlords. If a medal was to be included, why not the large diameter Jackson "peace & friendship" medal. Believe a "peace and friendship" expression would strike a more harmonious chord with the very purpose of the missions---Treaties of Goodwill. Advertising your second election to monarchs of Muscat, Siam, Japan, and Warlord Minh Mạng of Cochin and placing your head on the smallest piece, seems an illogical thing to do...
To me, seems like someone back then should have authenticated the case/casket separate. from the coins. If it appeared fresh today, would not be unreasonable to also preform forensic palynology-- especially given its now likely 8 figures value.
Simplest, most direct, answer is the casket/case does not fit any of various inferences/stories told thus far. Inferences become that much more attenuated when the fuller history of the 1804 Class I dollar is factored in, and all the 19th restriking which is known to have occurred.
I don't find Spink's story (with zero facts as to the whereabouts of the case for the intervening 125 years) at all persuasive-- but instead deserving of full scrutiny. To me, appears community back then seems to have accepted and tried very hard to explain numerous problems away-- make his case/casket fit with various theories. Spink made extremely significant claims, which should have been held to a commensurate very high standard. Instead they have simply been repeated enough to become lore.
The Motto/No Motto duplicate quarter eagle theory makes less sense the deeper it is looked at.
1) No record of Proof Mottos struck in 1834;
2) Jackson’s push for coinage---See, his below letter to Woodbury of July 3, 1834; and,
3) According to Moore in his August 2nd letter to Jackson (through Woodbury), the omission of the “cap on the head of Liberty on the coin’s face and also the motto “E Pluribus Unum” on the reverse, [was done] in order to better conform with the requirements of law and the rules of taste and “classic authority.”
Woodbury and Moore published these reasons after they were run by Jackson, -see, newspaper article attached.
Don’t see how a couple months later those rationals would do a complete 180.
Including an 1831 or 1833 dup Motto quarter eagle, a non-current coin, would:
1) “Less conform” with the law;
2) Be less tasteful; ( or I guess taste suddenly could changed in the intervening couple of months) ;
3) Be less in line with classical taste,
4) Introduce yet another non complimentary date into the set (1831/1833); and
5) Require Moore & Woodbury to contradict their public statements--and contradict what they themselves directly told Old HIckory. (If I was a public official, I sure would not want to stir Jackson's legendary wrath...).
Theory makes little to no sense, and can only be really understood if you start with the assumption (unverified/unauthenticated) the Spink /Casket/Case:
1) was in fact the presentation box which contained whatever coins were presented to Rama III in Siam--- and not something else;, then,
2) Work backwards to craft some kind of theory addressing the problematic smallest, empty hole.
Even then, I just don’t get how that theory is taken as some kind of fact. Yes, there is an invoice for 4 quarter eagles and other “Coins of the United States.” But that invoice does not state all coins, or even any of the coins, were only for presentation sets for Muscat & Siam.
All fair points.
I still think we need to get PRECISE measurements of the diameters of the With Motto coins, the No Motto coins, the Jackson gold medal and inside diameters of BOTH “Quarter Eagle” holes.
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.
Comments
Perhaps you have a theory regarding a more logical and likely reason than for the two sets “as contended”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What are the precise diameters of the 1834 With and Without Motto $2-1/2 Proofs? Ditto the Jackson medal? Ditto the hole in the case?
I assume that somebody must have checked them as they were developing the Jackson Medal theory.
I think it is safe to say that the Dollars and Eagles in the sets were dated either 1804 or 1834.
Which ones are known today?
....
Mark:
Not yet- without falling into the pyramiding of inference trap…. Not sure there will ever be (an attenuated) inference free proof of what actually was in the 2 sets as presented.
Thus far, my posts point out that those who have claimed to know “what was in the set(s)” have more than a few holes (no pun intended) in their theories. It is their independent theory which they must prove—not I disprove. This is especially critical for a “King’s” legitimacy.
Turning to just the case/casket itself,-obvious problems--missing holes, diameters do not match then current denominations, embossed with eagle etc., when initial request was for a PLAIN Moroccan leather case of the smallest size.
I did not find the 1962 presentation by Spink & Risk regarding the unmarked, unauthenticated, case with empty holes, was at all convincing. Candidly it read, to me, like a sales pitch from non-experts in U.S. coins trying hard to make the case/casket fit a theory, rather than any kind of scholarship. They never did present anything other than the case. Could claim owner's privacy etc., but incredibly substantial claims like that--are due something more than dealer talk.
Have you read that pdf? Your impressions? Do you believe it has been proven, more likely than not, Spink’s case/casket contained the set as presented to the King of Siam? I do not. But certainly, any contrary/concurring/no opinion from you would be due the well-earned respect deserved.
@CaptHenway
I am ready to stand corrected, but did not the Mint report of 1806 indicated 321 dollars were struck in 1805 (number is off the top of my head)? Believe that was later shown to be an error-- but well after 1834-35. Were later dispelled theories those were actually dated 1804, but also a dollar dated 1805 did appear in the late 1950s, early 1960s, (Werner-- was later found not genuine).
If you were a Mint official in 1834-35, available records would seem to show be that dollars were last struck 1805, rather than 1804.
I agree that it’s unlikely we’ll ever know with certainty, precisely what coins resided in the two sets. However, I have no good reason to doubt the generally held belief that it was the coins contained in the King of set when it first surfaced in 1962, as well as a then-missing 1834 Half Dime and a mystery coin, each of which were subsequently replaced.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The 2016 Red Book shows the diameter of 1829-1834 With Motto Quarter Eagles as 18.2 mm and the 1834-1839 Classic Head No Motto as 18.2 mm. PCGS CoinFacts shows them as 18.2 mm for both except that it shows the Proofs of 1834-1839 as 17.50 mm, which I am guessing to be a mistake.
PCGS does not give a size for the Jackson medal. There are some NGC certified on Heritage that have 18 mm on the label.
Sounds like any of the three could have fit in the empty opening of the set.
I don't know if it has been documented anywhere whether there is any measurable difference in the size of Quarter Eagle slot and the similar empty slot in the KOS set.
Part of the lot description in the 1990 auction speculates on the Jackson medal, which it called "about 19mm", versus the With Motto Quarter Eagle. It says on page 198 (image included further below) :
The King of Siam set has two unfilled spaces, one of which was, undoubtedly, intended for the 1834 Half Dime. The other empty space poses a problem. In point of fact, scholars may never know what it contained. It may forever linger a missing piece to the jigsaw puzzle of our story. There are two equally valid candidates which could have filled the space. One, it may have contained a With Motto variety of the 1834 Quarter Eagle; its opening is the right size. But then we have to ask: Why two Quarter Eagles but not two Half Eagles? Why no With Motto Half Eagle if there was a With Motto Quarter Eagle ? The other possibility is a specimen of the 1833 medalet struck by the U.S. Mint for President Andrew Jackson's second inauguration; this medalet, Julian PR-33, is struck in gold, measures about 19mm., and would fit the space provided perfectly. According to Stack's, who favors this second opinion: "It would also occupy a nearly central position within the top row of the pieces in the case, would present a portrait of our country s elected leader at the time the set was made, and would do so in the 'royal' metal without claiming royalty (since it was of a size comparable to the smallest circulating gold denomination of the period)".
https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1833-medal-j-pr-33-gold-andrew-jackson/526275
https://coins.ha.com/itm/u.s.-mint-medals/1833-dated-andrew-jackson-gold-medal-ms63-deep-prooflike-ngc-dewitt-ajack-1832-4-julian-pr-33/a/1319-3548.s?ic16=ViewItem-Auction-Archive-JumpLot-NextLot-050318
https://archive.org/details/fatherflanagansb1990supe/page/198/mode/2up
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
The Redbook tends to round off a bit. It’s like the Lincoln Cent, which was originally exactly 3/4th inch, which converts to 19.05 mm. I’ve seen it given as 19, 19.05 and 19.1.
I was hoping to get precise measurements of raw coins, if they were taken when the coins were raw.
Coinfacts does not report any 1834 with Motto proofs to have been struck. It does list a few of 1833 & 1831.
Unclear if "the double quarter eagles theory" goes that at least four 1834 examples were restruck in December,1834 for the Muscat, Siam, Japan & Cochin sets (would then be of illegal weight like the eagle and present an additional die issue), or that other dates (1833 or 1831) were also introduced into the set. The later would result in a mismatch of current coins of 1834, and uncurrent coins of 1804, and 1831 or 1833....
Setting aside the request was for coins, and not for coins and medals...... Putting your head on the smallest item in a set, with the reverse noting your second "term," does not strike me as likely to impress lifetime absolute monarchs/warlords. If a medal was to be included, why not the large diameter Jackson "peace & friendship" medal. Believe a "peace and friendship" expression would strike a more harmonious chord with the very purpose of the missions---Treaties of Goodwill. Advertising your second election to monarchs of Muscat, Siam, Japan, and Warlord Minh Mạng of Cochin and placing your head on the smallest piece, seems an illogical thing to do...
To me, seems like someone back then should have authenticated the case/casket separate. from the coins. If it appeared fresh today, would not be unreasonable to also preform forensic palynology-- especially given its now likely 8 figures value.
Simplest, most direct, answer is the casket/case does not fit any of various inferences/stories told thus far. Inferences become that much more attenuated when the fuller history of the 1804 Class I dollar is factored in, and all the 19th restriking which is known to have occurred.
I don't find Spink's story (with zero facts as to the whereabouts of the case for the intervening 125 years) at all persuasive-- but instead deserving of full scrutiny. To me, appears community back then seems to have accepted and tried very hard to explain numerous problems away-- make his case/casket fit with various theories. Spink made extremely significant claims, which should have been held to a commensurate very high standard. Instead they have simply been repeated enough to become lore.
The Motto/No Motto duplicate quarter eagle theory makes less sense the deeper it is looked at.
1) No record of Proof Mottos struck in 1834;
2) Jackson’s push for coinage---See, his below letter to Woodbury of July 3, 1834; and,
3) According to Moore in his August 2nd letter to Jackson (through Woodbury), the omission of the “cap on the head of Liberty on the coin’s face and also the motto “E Pluribus Unum” on the reverse, [was done] in order to better conform with the requirements of law and the rules of taste and “classic authority.”
Woodbury and Moore published these reasons after they were run by Jackson, -see, newspaper article attached.
Don’t see how a couple months later those rationals would do a complete 180.
Including an 1831 or 1833 dup Motto quarter eagle, a non-current coin, would:
1) “Less conform” with the law;
2) Be less tasteful; ( or I guess taste suddenly could changed in the intervening couple of months) ;
3) Be less in line with classical taste,
4) Introduce yet another non complimentary date into the set (1831/1833); and
5) Require Moore & Woodbury to contradict their public statements--and contradict what they themselves directly told Old HIckory. (If I was a public official, I sure would not want to stir Jackson's legendary wrath...).
Theory makes little to no sense, and can only be really understood if you start with the assumption (unverified/unauthenticated) the Spink /Casket/Case:
1) was in fact the presentation box which contained whatever coins were presented to Rama III in Siam--- and not something else;, then,
2) Work backwards to craft some kind of theory addressing the problematic smallest, empty hole.
Even then, I just don’t get how that theory is taken as some kind of fact. Yes, there is an invoice for 4 quarter eagles and other “Coins of the United States.” But that invoice does not state all coins, or even any of the coins, were only for presentation sets for Muscat & Siam.
All fair points.
I still think we need to get PRECISE measurements of the diameters of the With Motto coins, the No Motto coins, the Jackson gold medal and inside diameters of BOTH “Quarter Eagle” holes.