1866 NO MOTTO Dollar

EVillageProwler

The only known specimen of this famous rarity is available in public auction for the first time in 31 years. Check out the lot in the upcoming ANR auction in Beverly Hills (pre-LB): FANTASTIC RARITY.

It is too bad what happened to the du Pont specimen (not to mention to his family!)...

EVP

lordmarcovan

<< <i>It is too bad what happened to the du Pont specimen (not to mention to his family!)... >>



???

Enlighten me. I have heard of the robbery, but no details.

EVillageProwler

All I know is that the family, as well as the servants, were held at gun point. Pretty scary as is...

EVP

Coinosaurus

The 1866 no motto coins irritate me, because the guide books insist on listing them in the regular series even though they are fantasy pieces. The implication is that you can't have a "complete" seated series set unless you get one of these unique coins. That aside, this IS a historic occassion for all SD collectors.

ddink

But the coin isn't blast white. It clearly is in need of "conservation" services...

...NOT.

Conder101

I keep wondering how long it will be until the missing DuPont coin turns up in another box of junk coins being sold over the counter to a California dealer?

MrEureka

The 1866 no motto coins irritate me, because the guide books insist on listing them in the regular series even though they are fantasy pieces.

You mean like the 1913 Lib nickel?

FC57Coins

I agree that this a fantasy piece rather than a pattern piece - there was no intention of ever placing such a coin into circulation without the motto - so it was obviously made for collectors, particularly since it was made in proof. Its kinda neat that they could do those things back then, but they are obviously not part of a regular collection.

tradedollarnut

Which seated dollar would YOU rather have: the 1866 No Motto or the 1851-O proof??

MrEureka

Which seated dollar would YOU rather have: the 1866 No Motto or the 1851-O proof??

Good question. I'd rather have the 66, for two reasons:

1. The 66 has a mystique from long having been included in the Redbook.

2. The 51-O is controversial and therefore less valuable. Many people do not think that the coin was intentionally struck as an O-Mint coin. They think that it is a much more common P-Mint struck on a previously struck common date O-Mint, with the preexisting O-Mint remaining, though significantly flattened by the second strike. BTW, I strongly disagree.

Nevertheless, I appreciate what I think is your point, i.e., that the 51-O SHOULD ONE DAY be more valuable than the 66.

oreville

Love that 51-O proof!

I am not usually a big fan of proofs but this is one of the exceptions along with patterns!

tradedollarnut

The 51-O is controversial and therefore less valuable. Many people do not think that the coin was intentionally struck as an O-Mint coin. They think that it is a much more common P-Mint struck on a previously struck common date O-Mint, with the preexisting O-Mint remaining, though significantly flattened by the second strike. BTW, I strongly disagree.

Since when did "controversial" mean less valuable?

I understand that there is no trace of any undertype from the supposed host coin on the 51-O. Is this why you strongly disagree with the theory? It's a proof - was it struck twice? Would striking the coin twice destroy any evidence of the undertype if it was perfectly aligned? What is your theory of how it was made?

kamehameha00

jonesy

Looks AT and Tooled to me!

jonesy

Could use a good dipping too!

tjkillian

Was the half dollar and quarter made under the same circumstances?

Tom

Comet

There is no record at the Philadelphia Mint that any of the four (2 dollars, 1 half and 1 quarter dollar) No Motto coins were struck in 1866. Experts have confirmed they were minted in Philadelphia. However, the reason they were made may always be a mystery. They are not patterns or transitional pieces. They were most likely minted illegally to satisfy a wealthy collector by mint associate(s).

DMWJR

Makes you wonder why this coin hasn't been confiscated.

The write up is very well done. This coin seems to be made just like the 13 nickels, but since there is only one with known whereabouts, I'll vote for $2M - $2.5M.

Comet

As a footnote to this subject, there are 1866 No Motto coins that are 'official' mint products. 50 cent pieces, $5 gold, $10 gold and $20 gold coins all were minted at the San Francisco Mint with No Motto in 1866. They are true 'transitional pieces' (which are coins minted and released into circulation during a year when a design change has been made, but the coins themselves do not exhibit the change). These coins are also a bit more reasonable in price.

tradedollarnut

If the 1866 no motto were a singular Mint State specimen, all bets would be off! But alas, it's not.....

MrEureka

I understand that there is no trace of any undertype from the supposed host coin on the 51-O. Is this why you strongly disagree with the theory? It's a proof - was it struck twice? Would striking the coin twice destroy any evidence of the undertype if it was perfectly aligned? What is your theory of how it was made?

Yes, if it was struck over another coin I expect that you would see a lot more than just the squashed mintmark.

My theory is that a midnight minter did one of the following:

1. He punched a hardened die with an "O" mintmark.

2. He punched a hardened die with an "O" mintmark punch that had not itself been hardened.

If I knew more about the minting process, I'd limit myself to one of the above. Truth is, I don't know if dies are hardened before or after they are punched with a mintmark. I also don't know if mintmark punches need to be hardened in the same way as dies. Can anyone answer these questions?

Conder101

The dies are hardened AFTER being punched with the mintmark. The punches are also made of hardened steel. If the punches weren't hardened they would wear out or be damaged too quickly punching steel dies. If the dies were hardened before the mintmarks were punched in the metal would have a tendency to chip or spall.

The question is why would he punch the reverse die at all since the minter was trying to create a restrike of the 1851 dollar, and there were no 51-O dollars issued? I would think that it was more likely that an O mint die was ground down to try and remove the mintmark. But the grinding was incomplete for some reason, possibly because they realized that to do so might remove a significant portion of the surrounding design as well.

tradedollarnut

I would think that it was more likely that an O mint die was ground down to try and remove the mintmark. But the grinding was incomplete for some reason, possibly because they realized that to do so might remove a significant portion of the surrounding design as well.

If that had occurred, there would be a huge bulge in the area of the mintmark - one that was not apparent when I viewed the coin at ANA.

billboat

<< <i>The 1866 no motto coins irritate me, because the guide books insist on listing them in the regular series even though they are fantasy pieces.

You mean like the 1913 Lib nickel? >>

Not to mention the 1804 Dollar (ClassI, II and III)

drainbamage

<< <i>I keep wondering how long it will be until the missing DuPont coin turns up in another box of junk coins being sold over the counter to a California dealer? >>



No kidding on this one..... if some dumb idiot stole it then he might of sold it to some pawn shop for almost nothing.... makes me sick to think about it.

MrEureka

I would think that it was more likely that an O mint die was ground down to try and remove the mintmark.

If you look at the 51-O in person (I have), it is obvious that the mintmark has been squashed, not ground down. The mintmark is fat, flat and irregular.

Don't rule out the possibility that the midnight minter thought he could sell a 51-O dollar. These guys had a lot of imagination. (Take a look through Judd if you have any doubts about that!)

It is interesting to think that the 51-O dollar was the coin that taught the midnight minter not to try that stunt again. It's the only mintmarked restrike of its era.

BTW, the marks on the mintmark occurred after the coin was struck. Apparently, somebody tried to remove the mintmark, but he quickly gave up. (Edited to say that the post-striking damage did not cause the flattening of the mintmark!)

BillJones

The 1866 No Motto silver dollar has never done much for me. It's just a mule that was struck at time when the mint was willing to supply you with about anything you wanted for a price. I don't can much for the 1913 Liberty nickels for the same reason.

The 1804 Original Silver dollars (struck for diplomatic purposes), the 1822 half eagles (3 known and a "natural" rarity because the mintage was low and most of the others were worn out or melted) and even the 1933 double eagle and 1876-CC twenty cent pieces (Coins stuck legally but mostly not released), THOSE are "good" rarities so far as I'm concerned. They were struck under legitimate circumstances, and the “contrivance factor,” if there was one, was pretty low.

tradedollarnut

Great picture, Andy!

Two things come to mind:

1) If the 'O' were unevenly raised above the surface, it could be evidence of a weak punch from a mintmark punch after hardening rather than strike flattening.

2) If the 'O' was flattened after strike, the metal would naturally flow outward and inward as it was flattened. What is the thickness of the mintmark compared to an 1850-O? If the same, I would tend to agree with your theory. If thicker, I would tend to agree with the overstrike theory.

MrEureka

TDN - More likely, the punch itself flattened in the process of impressing the mintmark into the hardened die. Hence, the fat mintmark.

ddink

Do you think that the price on this piece might be held back by the knowledge that there is one more out there somewhere, though presumed to be lost?

tradedollarnut

More likely, the punch itself flattened in the process of impressing the mintmark into the hardened die. Hence, the fat mintmark

I have a tough time with that one. I'd be more inclined to believe the overstrike theory with perfect alignment on the first strike.

MrEureka

I have a tough time with that one. I'd be more inclined to believe the overstrike theory with perfect alignment on the first strike.

The Gallery Mint should very easily be able to prove me right or wrong. If I owned the 51-O, I'd have already commissioned the experiment.

Sunnywood

In my opinion, the 1863, 1864 and 1865 With Motto sets were produced in late 1867 - early 1868, based on the reverse dies used. (I have owned an 1864 and 1865 With Motto, J-396 and J-434 respectively, as well as copper strikings of the 1863 and 1865, and also silver strikings of the quarters.) For example, there were probably seven complete sets 25c-50c-S$1 of the 1865 With Motto produced for collectors.

By contrast it appears that there were two sets of the 1866 No Motto produced. I believe they were likely produced in 25c-50c-S$1 sets just like the backdated With Motto coins. They were probably produced at the same time, and are thus likely backdated fantasy pieces. These coins are interesting and valuable, but they are NOT NOT NOT part of the regular series. The 1866 No Motto has been the subject of a long-term campaign to turn it into a "million-dollar rarity." It is included in the PCGS numbering system, the Redbook, etc. It does not belong there.

There are many other unique "patterns" included in the Judd series. The is merely one of them. I think it is a cool coin, and when I was collecting proof seated dollars, I would have loved owning it along with the backdated With Motto pieces that I had. But let's not start hyping it up even beyond what the coin merits...

I am most interested in legitimate REGULAR ISSUE rarities, not 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, 1894-S dimes, 1870-S pieces, 1885 trade dollars, etc. , although needless to say, I would love to own them all ... These coins have achieved notoriety and high values due to their questionable origins.

Sunnywood

tradedollarnut

I am most interested in legitimate REGULAR ISSUE rarities, not 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, 1894-S dimes, 1870-S pieces, 1885 trade dollars, etc. , although needless to say, I would love to own them all ... These coins have achieved notoriety and high values due to their questionable origins.

Understandable - tho in my opinion the 1870-S dollar was a legitimate regular issue. It seems to me that the quality of the surviving pieces precludes them from being presentation coins.

MrEureka

I have a tough time with that one. I'd be more inclined to believe the overstrike theory with perfect alignment on the first strike.

One more thought. Take a look at the mintmark on an 1854-O Huge "O" quarter and then tell me what you think.

Conder101

<< <i>f that had occurred, there would be a huge bulge in the area of the mintmark >>


Not if the entire field was ground, not just the mintmark area. Kind of like the 37-D three legged buffalo. The relief od the entire coin wa reduced until the foreleg was missing. But I will admit that the picture posted of the mintmark area does not look like the die was excessively ground down.

The shape of the mint mark does not match that of the O on the 54 Huge O quarter. I can't tell for sure but I don't think the positioning of the mintmark matches that seen on the 1850-O dollar, but it is close. One question would be, Why overstrike another dollar, especially an O mint coin? If it was produced at the Philadelpia mint they would have had planchets readily available. If it was created in New Orleans an overstrike might make sense.

MrEureka

The shape of the mint mark does not match that of the O on the 54 Huge O quarter.

Correct, but both "O"s look like they have similar origins. In other words, I think that the "Huge O" was also produced by punching the mintmark into an already hardened die.

Sunnywood

As an addendum to my post above, regarding the 1863, 1864 and 1865 With Motto issues, I have just learned that while the 1865 With Motto seated dollar (J-434) does have a reverse from 1867-1868, the earlier-dated 1863 (J-345) and 1864 (J-396) coins in the upcoming ANR Sale have reverse dies used on regular issue proofs dated 1870 and 1871 respectively.

It looks as though the Mint first made the 1865 sets in 1867-1868, then decided it was a profitable venture, and went on to make the 1863 and 1864 sets in 1870-1871. I still believe the 1866 No Motto sets were similarly backdated.

Sunnywood

EVillageProwler

Sunnywood,

For J345 and J396, do they use a reverse die that have doubling that is evident in the motto as well as in the feathers in the left (our view) wing?

Condor,

The position of the MM varied greatly from year to year, and even intra-year. Look at the 1870-CC, which had something like 5 different reverse based on MM positioning.

EVP

Russ

TTT for a thread related to a recent event.

Russ, NCNE

Conder101

Andy, now that another 1851 proof has been found overstruck on an 1846 with the host coin carefully positioned so that the overstrike is in the same position so that the undertype will not be visible, does this change your opinion on the possibility that the 1851-"O" was struck over an O mint host coin?

MrEureka

Andy, now that another 1851 proof has been found overstruck on an 1846 with the host coin carefully positioned so that the overstrike is in the same position so that the undertype will not be visible, does this change your opinion on the possibility that the 1851-"O" was struck over an O mint host coin?

Of course. You have a good memory. Damn you!

Conder101

Not really, someone else brought up the thread, I reread it, and I happen to have just read the March 2nd Numismatic News this morning that discusses the newly discovered overstrike. Pure happenstance.

tradedollarnut

ttt. Great thread!

tradedollarnut

Anything new on this?

Coinerww

I never could afford that.

lloydmincy

DMWJR:

Your comment on the final sale price of the 1866 NO MOTTO $1 was way off. no one bid the $600,000 minimum. DID ANYONE BUY IT?????????


I agree with Andy on how the 1851-O proof was struck. I think the reverse die was an O die, and I think the O was attempted to be rubbed off. LOOK AT ANDY"S (great) PICTURE. You can see the scrapes AFTER the coin was pressed. And the "inverse bubble" on the planchet around the "O" that protrudes (sp) to the southeast of the mintmark looks as if the mint mark was attempted to be rubbed away, and the rubbing was digging deeper into the planchet while not quite getting rid of the O. And like Andy said, the mint employee gave up, before damaging the coin any further.

BUT.... why would the "midnight minter" use an O reverse die, then later try rubbing the mintmark off?? Was it that he wanted to have a unique 1851-O proof, then was nervous, and tried to scrape the O off? If that was the case, why didnt he just destroy the coin? Another great coin mystery.