@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. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
@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. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
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. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
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. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
While I suspect it is true regarding the general view of the Class I 1804 $1 and $10 gold being issued around 1834 for the sets, I think the discussion of dissenting views is worth having. It could strengthen one side or the other; or maybe show that there is not enough documentation existing to definitively prove either. Perhaps some documentation is still to be found or maybe permanently lost or never existed in writing.
Discussing may open up new theories. Such as why not two No Motto Classic Head quarter eagles with one for reverse side up rather than only either a With Motto or inauguration medal.
Likely it will make no difference in the end because not enough documentation exists to change anyones view, though it is bringing to attention info that I was not aware of or recalling before.
.
.
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.
It was not the 1806 annual Mint report that mentioned 1805 dollars but apparently a letter. What was the letter? Would Mint officials in 1834 have been more likely to see it than the 1806 Mint report which only shows 1804 minted and none for 1805? I don't have access to the "print and digital issues of Coin World" that had the Joel Orosz article mentioned below to see what the letter was. The linked article contains an image of a page from the 1806 Mint report which matches the mint report found on the NNP.
1806 "...Report of the Director of the Mint..." at NNP showing no silver dollars for 1805 but 19,570 for 1804:
Inside Coin World: About those 1805 silver dollars
An 1806 letter reporting on 1805 Mint production erroneously stated that the Mint had struck 321 silver dollars in 1805. The truth was quite different.
An 1806 Mint Report listed production of 1805 silver dollars
Joel Orosz writes in his “Numismatic Bookie” column in the July 16 issue of Coin World about a book that clarified a mysterious Mint reference to production of 321 1805 silver dollars.
“According to its own records, the Mint did strike 1805 silver dollars: 321 of them,” he writes. However, none are known or even suspected, except for one counterfeit piece. A later book, however, explained what was an error in the official report, thus ending excitement about a possible rare coin no one had ever seen. Read the explanation in Joel’s column found exclusively in the print and digital issues of Coin World.
.
.
.
The counterfeit examples of the 1804 and 1805 Dollars originally sold together are a separate yet interesting story well told when offered in two different lots by Goldbergs in their Pre-Long Beach Coin and Currency Auction September 23-24, 2002.
It takes reading both long lot descriptions of the 1804 and 1805 to get the full story. It is only tangentially relevant to this discussion by mentioning the reported mintage of 321 silver dollars from 1805.
It also shows two experts being fooled for a time while others were not, even though they were first sold as alterations.
While I suspect it is true regarding the general view of the Class I 1804 $1 and $10 gold being issued around 1834 for the sets, I think the discussion of dissenting views is worth having. It could strengthen one side or the other; or maybe show that there is not enough documentation existing to definitively prove either. Perhaps some documentation is still to be found or maybe permanently lost or never existed in writing.
Discussing may open up new theories. Such as why not two No Motto Classic Head quarter eagles with one for reverse side up rather than only either a With Motto or inauguration medal.
Likely it will make no difference in the end because not enough documentation exists to change anyones view, though it is bringing to attention info that I was not aware of or recalling before.
.
.
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.
It was not the 1806 annual Mint report that mentioned 1805 dollars but apparently a letter. What was the letter? Would Mint officials in 1834 have been more likely to see it than the 1806 Mint report which only shows 1804 minted and none for 1805? I don't have access to the "print and digital issues of Coin World" that had the Joel Orosz article mentioned below to see what the letter was. The linked article contains an image of a page from the 1806 Mint report which matches the mint report found on the NNP.
1806 "...Report of the Director of the Mint..." at NNP showing no silver dollars for 1805 but 19,570 for 1804:
Inside Coin World: About those 1805 silver dollars
An 1806 letter reporting on 1805 Mint production erroneously stated that the Mint had struck 321 silver dollars in 1805. The truth was quite different.
An 1806 Mint Report listed production of 1805 silver dollars
Joel Orosz writes in his “Numismatic Bookie” column in the July 16 issue of Coin World about a book that clarified a mysterious Mint reference to production of 321 1805 silver dollars.
“According to its own records, the Mint did strike 1805 silver dollars: 321 of them,” he writes. However, none are known or even suspected, except for one counterfeit piece. A later book, however, explained what was an error in the official report, thus ending excitement about a possible rare coin no one had ever seen. Read the explanation in Joel’s column found exclusively in the print and digital issues of Coin World.
.
.
.
The counterfeit examples of the 1804 and 1805 Dollars originally sold together are a separate yet interesting story well told when offered in two different lots by Goldbergs in their Pre-Long Beach Coin and Currency Auction September 23-24, 2002.
It takes reading both long lot descriptions of the 1804 and 1805 to get the full story. It is only tangentially relevant to this discussion by mentioning the reported mintage of 321 silver dollars from 1805.
It also shows two experts being fooled for a time while others were not, even though they were first sold as alterations.
Lots of bugs in those early records. Note the 252 Silver Quarters listed for the odd period of Nov. 29, 1796 to Dec. 31, 1797. Presumably those were 1796 Quarters issued between Nov. 29, 1796 and Dec. 31, 1797, but my 1971 Mint Report (easiest one to grab) shows 252 Quarters for 1797.
The same chart shows the mintage of 1804 Dollars as 19,570 plus the 1805 mintage as 321. It also has 156,519 1804 Half Dollars, which don't exist.
I don't know why the Mint in 1834 backdated the Silver Dollar die for the 1834-1835 made Diplomatic Presentation Sets to 1804 rather than 1805. The bottom line is that they did.
Maybe the Mint's working copies of earlier production, on hand in the Mint circa 1834, had a note that said that the pieces recorded for 1805 were just previously struck Dollars that had been included in a Deposit and had been picked out and re-issued, and the people looking at the old records i9n 1834 (or so) ignored them.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
Much appreciate the correction/ clarification regarding the “1805s.” That whole controversy may be deserving of its own thread!
Separately, and not specifically directed at/to you…. Interesting to trace the early evolving theories for the 1804 Dollar’s existence.
From 1861:
“Diplomatic Presentation Theory” looks like it first gained traction after an unsigned May 16, 1868 letter to the Editor of the Boston Telegraph--- which just happened to follow Woodward's purchases from Stickney:
Woodward was not shy in referring others to the above.
When it was birthed, legend was based on old dies being on hand and used but:
1) dies had to be cobbled together and observe punched for striking(s), whenever in fact done; and ,
2) it also omitted any reference to the other "3 sets" . Those were folded in much later. Siam & the 1804 Plain 4 Eagle, almost 100 years later in 1962-- based solely upon that problematic casket/case.
I have not found, at least of yet, any corroboration for the referenced 1865 visit to Muscat. But I don't think that matters. Account of Whalers visiting the Sultan's Court shortly after, stated he did not look with favor on the many presents, which included coins, among other things. The Sultan was said to have disposed of the presents not long after receipt. Note also that reciprocal presents were made -- but to Van Buren -- years later, when an emissary was sent to pay a return visit to the USA. Guess reference to an 1865 visit to Muscat would create some cover for a coin being repatriated.
Looks to me like Woodward was a central figure in the "Diplomatic Presentation Theory," crafted 33-34 years after 1834-35 --and well after:
1) Stickney’s 1843 exchange with the Mint Cabinet;
2) Woodward's purchase; and,
3) Class IIIs emerged ( prolifically).
Tweaks were added down the years. All of which were pure inferences. Main movers of the the “Diplomatic Presentation Theory” seemed to have a financial interest in "genuine" Class 1s. Distinguishing them as something special, different, and of distinct value from the emerging Class IIIs, seems to have worked well for them.
You should publish a monograph reproducing all of these references you have accumulated, credible and otherwise. I would suggest chronological order.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
Was interesting to find that long before his 1962 "King of Siam" reveal, Spink’s firm had a checkered history going back to 1939 with 1804 & "1805" dollars:
@JCH22 said:
Was interesting to find that long before his 1962 "King of Siam" reveal, Spink’s firm had a checkered history going back to 1939 with 1804 & "1805" dollars:
Not your fault, but please be advised that many of your images are now unreadable due to an ongoing technical problem.
Hopefully when they get i9t fixed everything will be readable again.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
@CaptHenway said:
Here is Mint paperwork accounting for the coins in the Diplomatic Proof Sets, including Dollars and Eagles.
Before I go unnecessarily re-inventing the wheel,---if the full documents listed in the excerpts from the Mint's 1835 Correspondence Log below have already been published elsewhere--sure would be good to know.
@CaptHenway said:
Here is Mint paperwork accounting for the coins in the Diplomatic Proof Sets, including Dollars and Eagles.
Before I go unnecessarily re-inventing the wheel,---if the full documents listed in the excerpts from the Mint's 1835 Correspondence Log below have already been published elsewhere--sure would be good to know.
Sorry, but I can't make that new document out. Could you please try again?
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
I will forward this to Mr. Burdette to see if he has any of these records. Sadly, as we know, many Mint records were wantonly destroyed in the 1980's.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
I will forward this to Mr. Burdette to see if he has any of these records. Sadly, as we know, many Mint records were wantonly destroyed in the 1980's.
Thanks--will put in a request for State Department docs--whenever things re-open.....
Good idea. I know someone who is retired from the State Department. They say that you should contact the State Department Library.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
I will forward this to Mr. Burdette to see if he has any of these records. Sadly, as we know, many Mint records were wantonly destroyed in the 1980's.
Thanks--will put in a request for State Department docs--whenever things re-open.....
Good idea. I know someone who is retired from the State Department. They say that you should contact the State Department Library.
@JCH22
Good luck with the State Department Library. I am told that during the Civil War many unimportant State Department archives were landfilled to make room for security guards. Still, you should ask and see what happens.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
@JCH22
Good luck with the State Department Library. I am told that during the Civil War many unimportant State Department archives were landfilled to make room for security guards. Still, you should ask and see what happens.
TD
I was able to obtain those records, and more. Short version, does look likely a dollar & eagle were included and paid for by State.
Here is letter transmitting payment by State for what I think-- is for sets 3 & 4 ( includes a $15 charge for less regal caskets). :
There Is a separate invoices for sets 1 & 2 which includes payment by State for the Invoice Julian published.
Nothing definitive about dates of Dollar & Eagle, but located a letter-- around the same date as the State Dept request was made-- asking for clarification as to when last dollar was struck as there was internal “confusion” over that. Need to track down who the person that letter was addressed to was (name known—just not person’s position). Unclear if he was external to Mint.
Dup quarter eagles were noted--purpose apparently stated ---but handwriting is tough to decipher:
Have a tall stack of pretty tattered cursive docs to decipher. Will post further, and hopefully more fully, after I am able to complete review.
Very interesting. Please post the complete document with the mention of the Quarter Eagles and I will see if I can suss it out from similar letters in other words. I was taught cursive by nuns armed with steel rulers and I can still understand much of it.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
@CaptHenway said:
Very interesting. Please post the complete document with the mention of the Quarter Eagles and I will see if I can suss it out from similar letters in other words. I was taught cursive by nuns armed with steel rulers and I can still understand much of it.
Excerpt for quarter eagles was taken from invoice for sets 1-2. Lines immediately preceding it read a bit like a Rorschach test--- " for 2 sets of coins of the United States with __?____ two quarter eagles _____?_____ ?
Perhaps: "For 2 sets of coins of the United States with the complimentary quarter eagles coins from bill amount" (or "per bill amount")?
That reading could raise a question about what were in the sets...number of holes in caskets for sets. If by complimentary it was meant they were for something, or someone, other than intended recipients of presentation sets....
Is much more to go through....
This one has been a bit of a challenge to fully decipher as well....
@CaptHenway said:
Very interesting. Please post the complete document with the mention of the Quarter Eagles and I will see if I can suss it out from similar letters in other words. I was taught cursive by nuns armed with steel rulers and I can still understand much of it.
Excerpt for quarter eagles was taken from invoice for sets 1-2. Lines immediately preceding it read a bit like a Rorschach test--- " for 2 sets of coins of the United States with __?____ two quarter eagles _____?_____ ?
Perhaps: "For 2 sets of coins of the United States with the complimentary quarter eagles coins from bill amount" (or "per bill amount")?
That reading could raise a question about what were in the sets...number of holes in caskets for sets. If by complimentary it was meant they were for something, or someone, other than intended recipients of presentation sets....
Is much more to go through....
This one has been a bit of a challenge to fully decipher as well....
Perhaps "complementary" Quarter Eagles, in the sense of the word that they go together?
All of these documents record to the cent the charges that the Mint passed on to the State Department for coins and cases, but nowhere in there any charge for any gold used in a Jackson 2nd Inaugural gold medal, or two of them, or four of them. I think that the theory that the extra hole was for a Jackson gold medal is hereby officially debunked.
BTW, Roger Burdette pointed out to me that Roberts' budget for gifts for the four monarchs was $2500. each. With this in mind, we should not be surprised if the under $50 each Proof sets were treated as mere trifles.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
Have been looking at copies of records of the orders for the sets courtesy of Roger Burdette, and they are remarkably devoid of useful details. Just "sets."
In my coffee-deprived state a possible explanation for the extra hole has occurred to me. What if either the Mint person responsible for ordering the "caskets" simply screwed up and ordered one too many holes in them, or, less likely, the company that made the "caskets" screwed up and put one too many holes in them? If the latter the Mint could have demanded that the maker redo the interiors, unless at the moment the Mint thought that the ship was leaving very soon and they would not have time for a remake.
If the former, the Mint might have been forced to eat the $31 cost of the first two "caskets." Under those circumstances, it would have saved the Mint $31 to simply strike two more Proof Quarter Eagles AND PASS THE COST OF THEM ON TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT!
Like so many other aspects of the Diplomatic Proof sets sage, this is idle speculation, backed up by exactly nothing. I merely throw it out as a possibility. And now, I am going to go have another cup of coffee.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
@CaptHenway said:
Have been looking at copies of records of the orders for the sets courtesy of Roger Burdette, and they are remarkably devoid of useful details. Just "sets."
....
TD
There are documents which contain some details. One, of some, is attached below-- Moore to Sec. of State Forysth , Nov. 29, 1834. There are additional casket specific docs.
Might require a yardstick length ruler to decode Moore's writing. Been thinking it might be best for me to not (further) wear out my welcome with so many posts, perhaps instead a more comprehensive single post, or article might be more considerate.
Have found much new info about Class IIIs as well....
Please do not stop posting. I enjoy the documents, even though Sister Gerald would have beaten the author of this latest document to death with her steel ruler for the poor penmanship. I cannot even get the gist of it.
Have had more coffee. What do you think of my partially sincere theory that the extra Quarter Eagle might simply have been the result of an error in either ordering or making the fancy cases, the extra hole then having to be filled with a coin so as not to offend the recipient?
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
@CaptHenway said:
.... What do you think of my partially sincere theory that the extra Quarter Eagle might simply have been the result of an error in either ordering or making the fancy cases, the extra hole then having to be filled with a coin so as not to offend the recipient?
TD
Tom--too early in review of paperwork to really say. Is plausible. If struck contemporaneous with Eckfeldt's bill, coins were produced late December 1834--at least for sets 1& 2.
Last 2 docs, for a short while, while I get through all.
First doesn't really add info---just cool--Moore's letter to Forysth of 11/14/1834 acknowledging request.
Second--do need to clarify my prior post about "confusion" over when last dollar was struck which made on 10/17. Confusion was on the part of an outside firm, and predated the request for sets of coins--- by six days.
BTW, my primary school nuns preferred wood over metal--think because it left less of a mark!
Class III materials involve very wide range of sources. Likely will write that all up, open a separate thread, and post one single pdf.
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.
While I suspect it is true regarding the general view of the Class I 1804 $1 and $10 gold being issued around 1834 for the sets, I think the discussion of dissenting views is worth having. It could strengthen one side or the other; or maybe show that there is not enough documentation existing to definitively prove either. Perhaps some documentation is still to be found or maybe permanently lost or never existed in writing.
Discussing may open up new theories. Such as why not two No Motto Classic Head quarter eagles with one for reverse side up rather than only either a With Motto or inauguration medal.
Likely it will make no difference in the end because not enough documentation exists to change anyones view, though it is bringing to attention info that I was not aware of or recalling before.
.
.
It was not the 1806 annual Mint report that mentioned 1805 dollars but apparently a letter. What was the letter? Would Mint officials in 1834 have been more likely to see it than the 1806 Mint report which only shows 1804 minted and none for 1805? I don't have access to the "print and digital issues of Coin World" that had the Joel Orosz article mentioned below to see what the letter was. The linked article contains an image of a page from the 1806 Mint report which matches the mint report found on the NNP.
1806 "...Report of the Director of the Mint..." at NNP showing no silver dollars for 1805 but 19,570 for 1804:
https://archive.org/details/messagefrompresi1806unit/page/n13/mode/2up
.
.
.
By William T. Gibbs
Published: Jun 29, 2018, 5 AM
Inside Coin World: About those 1805 silver dollars
An 1806 letter reporting on 1805 Mint production erroneously stated that the Mint had struck 321 silver dollars in 1805. The truth was quite different.
An 1806 Mint Report listed production of 1805 silver dollars
Joel Orosz writes in his “Numismatic Bookie” column in the July 16 issue of Coin World about a book that clarified a mysterious Mint reference to production of 321 1805 silver dollars.
“According to its own records, the Mint did strike 1805 silver dollars: 321 of them,” he writes. However, none are known or even suspected, except for one counterfeit piece. A later book, however, explained what was an error in the official report, thus ending excitement about a possible rare coin no one had ever seen. Read the explanation in Joel’s column found exclusively in the print and digital issues of Coin World.
https://coinworld.com/news/us-coins/about-those-1805-silver-dollars-in-a-mint-report.html
.
.
.
The counterfeit examples of the 1804 and 1805 Dollars originally sold together are a separate yet interesting story well told when offered in two different lots by Goldbergs in their Pre-Long Beach Coin and Currency Auction September 23-24, 2002.
It takes reading both long lot descriptions of the 1804 and 1805 to get the full story. It is only tangentially relevant to this discussion by mentioning the reported mintage of 321 silver dollars from 1805.
It also shows two experts being fooled for a time while others were not, even though they were first sold as alterations.
altered 1804 $ :
images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?sale=16&lot=540
altered 1805 $ :
images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&lang=1&sale=16&lot=541
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Lots of bugs in those early records. Note the 252 Silver Quarters listed for the odd period of Nov. 29, 1796 to Dec. 31, 1797. Presumably those were 1796 Quarters issued between Nov. 29, 1796 and Dec. 31, 1797, but my 1971 Mint Report (easiest one to grab) shows 252 Quarters for 1797.
The same chart shows the mintage of 1804 Dollars as 19,570 plus the 1805 mintage as 321. It also has 156,519 1804 Half Dollars, which don't exist.
I don't know why the Mint in 1834 backdated the Silver Dollar die for the 1834-1835 made Diplomatic Presentation Sets to 1804 rather than 1805. The bottom line is that they did.
Maybe the Mint's working copies of earlier production, on hand in the Mint circa 1834, had a note that said that the pieces recorded for 1805 were just previously struck Dollars that had been included in a Deposit and had been picked out and re-issued, and the people looking at the old records i9n 1834 (or so) ignored them.
@WinLoseWin
Much appreciate the correction/ clarification regarding the “1805s.” That whole controversy may be deserving of its own thread!
Separately, and not specifically directed at/to you…. Interesting to trace the early evolving theories for the 1804 Dollar’s existence.
From 1861:
“Diplomatic Presentation Theory” looks like it first gained traction after an unsigned May 16, 1868 letter to the Editor of the Boston Telegraph--- which just happened to follow Woodward's purchases from Stickney:
Woodward was not shy in referring others to the above.
When it was birthed, legend was based on old dies being on hand and used but:
1) dies had to be cobbled together and observe punched for striking(s), whenever in fact done; and ,
2) it also omitted any reference to the other "3 sets" . Those were folded in much later. Siam & the 1804 Plain 4 Eagle, almost 100 years later in 1962-- based solely upon that problematic casket/case.
I have not found, at least of yet, any corroboration for the referenced 1865 visit to Muscat. But I don't think that matters. Account of Whalers visiting the Sultan's Court shortly after, stated he did not look with favor on the many presents, which included coins, among other things. The Sultan was said to have disposed of the presents not long after receipt. Note also that reciprocal presents were made -- but to Van Buren -- years later, when an emissary was sent to pay a return visit to the USA. Guess reference to an 1865 visit to Muscat would create some cover for a coin being repatriated.
Looks to me like Woodward was a central figure in the "Diplomatic Presentation Theory," crafted 33-34 years after 1834-35 --and well after:
1) Stickney’s 1843 exchange with the Mint Cabinet;
2) Woodward's purchase; and,
3) Class IIIs emerged ( prolifically).
Tweaks were added down the years. All of which were pure inferences. Main movers of the the “Diplomatic Presentation Theory” seemed to have a financial interest in "genuine" Class 1s. Distinguishing them as something special, different, and of distinct value from the emerging Class IIIs, seems to have worked well for them.
You should publish a monograph reproducing all of these references you have accumulated, credible and otherwise. I would suggest chronological order.
Was interesting to find that long before his 1962 "King of Siam" reveal, Spink’s firm had a checkered history going back to 1939 with 1804 & "1805" dollars:
Not your fault, but please be advised that many of your images are now unreadable due to an ongoing technical problem.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1117269/why-are-posted-images-small-distorted-irregular-now#latest
Hopefully when they get i9t fixed everything will be readable again.
Before I go unnecessarily re-inventing the wheel,---if the full documents listed in the excerpts from the Mint's 1835 Correspondence Log below have already been published elsewhere--sure would be good to know.
Sorry, but I can't make that new document out. Could you please try again?
A simple transcription would be fine.
Hope the below is clearer. It is a two page ledger so hard to capture. Top pic is left side of ledger, bottom is corresponding right side.
Essentially correspondence and billing docs. Thinking they have the potential to prove or disprove sets' contents
Much better. Thank you.
I will forward this to Mr. Burdette to see if he has any of these records. Sadly, as we know, many Mint records were wantonly destroyed in the 1980's.
Thanks--will put in a request for State Department docs--whenever things re-open.....
Good idea. I know someone who is retired from the State Department. They say that you should contact the State Department Library.
-
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
And now for something completely different, Mint to "restrike" 1804 silver dollars!
https://www.usmint.gov/coins/coin-programs/semiquincentennial/?cm_mmc=ExactTarget--Campaign--20251006_SEMIQ_OctoberTeaser_PP-_-LearnMore_CTA&utm_source=Campaign&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_content=LearnMore_CTA&utm_campaign=20251006_SEMIQ_OctoberTeaser_PP&cm_mmca1=Marketing&cm_mmca2=&cm_mmca3=&cc=SEMIQ
@JCH22
Good luck with the State Department Library. I am told that during the Civil War many unimportant State Department archives were landfilled to make room for security guards. Still, you should ask and see what happens.
TD
I was able to obtain those records, and more. Short version, does look likely a dollar & eagle were included and paid for by State.
Here is letter transmitting payment by State for what I think-- is for sets 3 & 4 ( includes a $15 charge for less regal caskets). :
There Is a separate invoices for sets 1 & 2 which includes payment by State for the Invoice Julian published.
Nothing definitive about dates of Dollar & Eagle, but located a letter-- around the same date as the State Dept request was made-- asking for clarification as to when last dollar was struck as there was internal “confusion” over that. Need to track down who the person that letter was addressed to was (name known—just not person’s position). Unclear if he was external to Mint.
Dup quarter eagles were noted--purpose apparently stated ---but handwriting is tough to decipher:
Have a tall stack of pretty tattered cursive docs to decipher. Will post further, and hopefully more fully, after I am able to complete review.
Very interesting. Please post the complete document with the mention of the Quarter Eagles and I will see if I can suss it out from similar letters in other words. I was taught cursive by nuns armed with steel rulers and I can still understand much of it.
Excerpt for quarter eagles was taken from invoice for sets 1-2. Lines immediately preceding it read a bit like a Rorschach test--- " for 2 sets of coins of the United States with __?____ two quarter eagles _____?_____ ?
Perhaps: "For 2 sets of coins of the United States with the complimentary quarter eagles coins from bill amount" (or "per bill amount")?
That reading could raise a question about what were in the sets...number of holes in caskets for sets. If by complimentary it was meant they were for something, or someone, other than intended recipients of presentation sets....
Is much more to go through....
This one has been a bit of a challenge to fully decipher as well....
Perhaps "complementary" Quarter Eagles, in the sense of the word that they go together?
All of these documents record to the cent the charges that the Mint passed on to the State Department for coins and cases, but nowhere in there any charge for any gold used in a Jackson 2nd Inaugural gold medal, or two of them, or four of them. I think that the theory that the extra hole was for a Jackson gold medal is hereby officially debunked.
BTW, Roger Burdette pointed out to me that Roberts' budget for gifts for the four monarchs was $2500. each. With this in mind, we should not be surprised if the under $50 each Proof sets were treated as mere trifles.
TD
Have been looking at copies of records of the orders for the sets courtesy of Roger Burdette, and they are remarkably devoid of useful details. Just "sets."
In my coffee-deprived state a possible explanation for the extra hole has occurred to me. What if either the Mint person responsible for ordering the "caskets" simply screwed up and ordered one too many holes in them, or, less likely, the company that made the "caskets" screwed up and put one too many holes in them? If the latter the Mint could have demanded that the maker redo the interiors, unless at the moment the Mint thought that the ship was leaving very soon and they would not have time for a remake.
If the former, the Mint might have been forced to eat the $31 cost of the first two "caskets." Under those circumstances, it would have saved the Mint $31 to simply strike two more Proof Quarter Eagles AND PASS THE COST OF THEM ON TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT!
Like so many other aspects of the Diplomatic Proof sets sage, this is idle speculation, backed up by exactly nothing. I merely throw it out as a possibility. And now, I am going to go have another cup of coffee.
TD
There are documents which contain some details. One, of some, is attached below-- Moore to Sec. of State Forysth , Nov. 29, 1834. There are additional casket specific docs.
Might require a yardstick length ruler to decode Moore's writing. Been thinking it might be best for me to not (further) wear out my welcome with so many posts, perhaps instead a more comprehensive single post, or article might be more considerate.
Have found much new info about Class IIIs as well....
Please do not stop posting. I enjoy the documents, even though Sister Gerald would have beaten the author of this latest document to death with her steel ruler for the poor penmanship. I cannot even get the gist of it.
Have had more coffee. What do you think of my partially sincere theory that the extra Quarter Eagle might simply have been the result of an error in either ordering or making the fancy cases, the extra hole then having to be filled with a coin so as not to offend the recipient?
TD
Tom--too early in review of paperwork to really say. Is plausible. If struck contemporaneous with Eckfeldt's bill, coins were produced late December 1834--at least for sets 1& 2.
Last 2 docs, for a short while, while I get through all.
First doesn't really add info---just cool--Moore's letter to Forysth of 11/14/1834 acknowledging request.
Second--do need to clarify my prior post about "confusion" over when last dollar was struck which made on 10/17. Confusion was on the part of an outside firm, and predated the request for sets of coins--- by six days.
BTW, my primary school nuns preferred wood over metal--think because it left less of a mark!
Class III materials involve very wide range of sources. Likely will write that all up, open a separate thread, and post one single pdf.
Thanks to everyone for sharing the thought-provoking information.