Options
Picture thread: show a 1796 or 1797 Draped Bust, small eagle half dollar
Baley
Posts: 22,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
(Edit: above piece not in my collection, but scroll down to see the owner's post, as well as great pictures and an interesting story from Cardinal)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
0
Comments
<< <i>To be honest with you, I would rather have an AG3 than anything from The Gallery Mint. I have never been into quasi-numismatics. Its really worth the wait to save up for a real one. These are truly magnificent coins. Please share it when you get it. I wish I had one. >>
I agree, but for only $20 you can get real silver that looks pretty close. An AG specimen will set you back four figures, if you can find one, but would be a whole lot cooler.
Tom
you know for a fact it MUST be uncirculated!
K S
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
K S
Looks like the day it was minted. Thursday.
Good one!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Can anyone guess the grade and pedigree on this one? It really does have a very interesting history!
And Draped Bust silver HAS been found down here...
Can't wait to hear the explication of the coin
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Baley, thank you for egging the folks on, you actually got your wish, which would also be my wish, to see folks who actually have originals and not copies.
Tom
By the way, I guess MS-63+
Now, with that help, can someone expand on the history of my specimen?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I don't have the references or know where to look to find the story, and it may not be as dramatic as jadecoin's banishment (but I'll bet james or dennis know a little about the coin but alas, cannot tell us) but I bet it's a pretty interesting story this specimen-66 1796 half dollar has to tell us, in 1796 they didn't just hand out specimen half dollars all over the place like they do now and they didn't have rigid plastic holders to keep coins in so how does it arrive at the present time in it's magnificent preservation?
Cardinal may have to just stump us and tell the story himself?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
First off...Did I ever say that the Specimen-66 coin was mine? The first one I posted is mine, but is it the same piece as the Specimen-66? Check out the "V" shaped lint-mark on Liberty's neck, the curved mark in the left obverse field between star 3 and Liberty's hair curls, and the curved line at the top of the eagle's right (viewer's left) wing, and make the comparison. Do they still look the same? Therein lies the story!
Researchers believe that all half-dollars minted during 1796 were actually dated 1795. The thought then is that all half dollars dated 1796 were minted in 1797 or later, and that is why the mint did not keep separate records of how many 1796-dated vs. 1797-dated half dollars were produced. Clearly, the 1796 half-dollar DIES were made during 1796. The 15 Star obverse die would have been produced prior to June, 1796, when the State of Tennessee was added to the Union (bringing the number of states to 16). After Tennessee became a state, the other obverse die was created, showing 16 Stars. Very few specimens of the 1796 and 1797 half-dollars were ever produced, and even fewer remain in existence. So, collectors recognized very early on just how rare and valuable these were.
My piece came from the Leo Young collection. It was purchased by Leo Young some time back in the early 1940's -- but he did not record exactly when, or from whom he had acquired it. In March of 1948, when the Allenburger collection came to auction, Leo Young attended the auction. By that time, he already had his specimen, and so he examined the Allenburger specimen (which IS a different piece) to see if it would represent an upgrade for him. Leo Young's conclusion was that the one he had already (my piece) was BETTER than the Allenburger specimen.
The Allenburger coin sold at auction and then went through various other owners until it appeared in Stack's October 1990 auction. At that auction, John Whitney Walter ("Mr. 1796") purchased the coin, and it remained in his collection until Stack's May, 1999 auction of his set. It was as part of that auction that Stack's described the coin as a Specimen-66, and FINEST-KNOWN of the 15 Star variety. The coin realized $138,000. Remember though, Leo Young had thought his specimen was even better!
Leo Young held onto his collection until it came to auction in August, 1980. The 1796 15 Star Half Dollar was listed by Rarcoa as an "Excessively Rare Mint State 1796 Half," and "One of the highlights of the Leo A. Young Collection," which included such rarities as a Gem Proof 1894-S Barber Dime and an 1885 Proof Trade Dollar. The coin sold to a major dealer for $82,500 -- 23 years ago!
The Leo Young piece next showed up in Superior's section of Auction '86 (July, 1986), where it was described as "Brilliant Uncirculated...A Condition Census coin and one of the finest to exist. This is the boldest strike on this coveted date that we have seen with full sharpness, including full separation within all the denticles and full separation in the hairlines. The surfaces are a bit matted, due to being cleaned at one time. Nevertheless, a remarkable strike for this first year of issue." Apparently, the coin market was somewhat down at that time, because even after heated bidding, the piece realized just $46,200 -- again going to a prominent dealer.
Well, there was one other MAJOR development in the coin market at that time -- the creation of PCGS. Now, for the first time coins could get an independent third-party opinion and GUARANTEE on grading. The market immediately placed a premium on such guaranteed coins, and so there became a rush to send the best, most valuable coins to PCGS for grading. Accordingly, the dealer who purchased the Leo Young specimen submitted it to PCGS for grading.
Remember, in my first post to this thread I asked if anyone could guess at the grade? Baley and tjkillian have guessed MS-62 to MS-63+? What was PCGS's opinion? Remember, Superior described the coin has having been cleaned at one time, and the surfaces ARE somewhat subdued.
Well, here's the answer...(drumroll)...The piece came back in what must have been one of PCGS's first BODY BAGS! No, not because the piece was cleaned at one time. The piece was body bagged as being a FAKE! That's right, the piece (notice how I've never described it as a "coin" in this thread) that Leo Young thought was better than the Allenburger Specimen-66 coin, that Rarcoa catalogued as a genuine mint state coin, that a dealer paid $82,500 for back in 1980, that Superior catalogued as a genuine mint state coin with the finest strike ever seen, and that another dealer paid $46,200 for in 1986 is not a genuine coin. The fake is so extremely deceptive that it fooled them all -- except PCGS.
Now don't just think that all of those dealers back then were just naive about fakes, or that they just didn't have any expertise back then with early coins. The piece is just that good of a fake. In the time I have owned it, I have shown it to numerous other dealers who specialize in early coins and they have all believed it was genuine. I have even received six-figure offers for it from dealers. It is simply that good of a fake! You can check out the PCGS "Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection," page 259, for a for detailed technical discussion of this amazing and famous fake. For those of you who compared the images of my piece with the Allenburger specimen, you noticed all of the marks I referred to appear on both pieces. No doubt at some point in the past, the Allenburger specimen served as the model to create transfer dies, which were then used in striking my specimen. (Yes, the piece was die struck -- it even rings when tapped on the edged, just like a real coin.)
Now, talk about a quandry between the dealer who purchased it from the Superior auction and all of the former owners! Every auction house provides an authenticity guarantee, and they back that up with an enforceable indemnification clause on consigners. So, the dealer returned the coin to Superior for refund, who returned it to the consigner, who returned it to the prior owner, and so on and so on, until finally it got returned back to Leo Young. Leo didn't have records of who he purchased it from in back in the 1940's, so he had no one to return it to. He later sold the coin to a prominent pre-Turban half dollar collector (as a fake), who later consigned his collection to Sheridan Downey for auction. I was the fortunate bidder in that auction, and it has been in my collection ever since.
So there you have it. No doubt "real" coins are far preferable to replicas, but some fakes can have a special history of their own. I purchased the piece for its history and the amazing quality and faithfulness of the reproduction, and I have been emminently pleased to have it and show it off from time to time and relay its story.
Thanks for the story, incredible!
Tom
I have to agree with PCGS on this one being a fake. The marks I described on the piece are so-called "lint marks." They are created when loose threads from a die polishing cloth remain on the die and come between the die and the planchet during striking. So, effectively, the Allenburger coin would have been, technically, a "strike thru" error. Since the loose threads will never be in exactly the same place on the die for more than one strike, there can only be ONE real coin with the lint marks in any specific positions. Since my piece and the Allenburger coin have all the same link marks in the same places, they can't both be genuine. One must be a copy of the other.
As it turns out, the Allenburger coin is the proper weight for a genuine 1796 half dollar. By contrast, my piece is fully one gram light -- way out of technical specifications for the time. Also, according to the PCGS book, the fake has the wrong specific gravity as well. So, if only one specimen can be real and the other is the fake, my piece would have to be the fake.
Like I said earlier, I purchased the coin for its history, and I guess I was not alone in appreciating that factor. At competitive auction, I acquired the piece six years ago for about $3k. (Just a tad more than a Gallery Mint copy
Who would have thought this thread would turn into a case of "Cardinal's 1796 half dollar is a waaaay better fake than baley's"!!
Still, awesome coin with a fascinating story, Jules Reiver tells a similar in his book, where two coins had the identical marks, one the almost perfect copy of the other, one wonders why, if they were so skilled, they didn't make more copies with their transfer die.... or did they? [cue ominous music.. dun dun DUM)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
In the story I had read, however, the coin was described as a cast counterfiet. If it was truly a die strike, couldn't it be surmised that more than one would probably have been produced? It would seem a considerable amount of work to go to the trouble of creating dies for the striking of a single coin. Perhaps the counterfieter was afraid he'd get cought if he tried to release more than one?
I am also surprised the coin went so long without being weighed. Incorrect weight is a telltale sign of a counterfiet, and numismatists have been using this authenticating method forever. I suppose once the coin was pedigreed to Leo Young, who must have been esteemed as a collector, the thought that the coin was not real was something that no subsequent owner ever could fathom.
A marvelous story, and fascinating piece of coin collecting history.
<< <i>If it was truly a die strike, couldn't it be surmised that more than one would probably have been produced? It would seem a considerable amount of work to go to the trouble of creating dies for the striking of a single coin. Perhaps the counterfieter was afraid he'd get cought if he tried to release more than one? >>
It's quite possible more were made. Some of the cleaned low grade pieces could have come from these fake dies. Once worn, those lintmarks that identified it as a fake would no longer be visible. (Question, since we believe the linkmark is in the die, what is the possibility that the Allenburger coin could be a full weight specimen from the same dies?
I saw one more than 10 years ago that would have fit in with my collection perfectly. It was an uncleaned VF, and the asking price then was $29.000. The dealer who had it (Teaparty in Boston) sold it very quickly. Another time I had an NGC VF-20 on consignment as a part of my business at $20,000. That one had been cleaned, but I would have taken it if I could have afforded to have committed that much money to it for my colletion. That coin also sold very quickly.
I've got one of those Gallery Mint coins too. It's the only Gallery Mint coin that I own. It's not much fun. It's like kissing your sister, but for $20 I guess you shouldn't complain.
I have read stories of how museums and ultra-wealthy collectors would specifically commission an expert to duplicate a rarity. (I've heard of this being done for both coins and jewelry.) Once the real specimen was duplicated, the copy was put on display, while the genuine coin remained in a very secure location. So, perhaps some former owner of the Allenburger specimen knowingly had his coin duplicated. Under such a scenario, I think it would be likely that the owner would either keep the dies or demand that they be destroyed, so that his rarity couldn't be duplicated to the point that it became a common coin.
It's quite possible more were made. Some of the cleaned low grade pieces could have come from these fake dies. Once worn, those lintmarks that identified it as a fake would no longer be visible. (Question, since we believe the linkmark is in the die, what is the possibility that the Allenburger coin could be a full weight specimen from the same dies? )
It is certainly possible that more such copies are out there and not reported. However, I don't think they would fool the grading services at this point. While the link marks certainly pedigree the copy, they are not what shows the coin to be a fake. The fake is both too light AND exhibits the wrong specific gravity, meaning its metal composition is wrong. The Allenburger coin is not only the correct weight, but also the correct metallic composition. As Bill Jones points out, the 1796-1797 half dollars are extremely valuable, even in very worn grades. Since they are so valuable and so few exist, the grading services give them the full battery of tests for authenticity.
Jules Reiver tells a similar in his book, where two coins had the identical marks, one the almost perfect copy of the other
The case described by Jules Reiver relates to another super rarity -- the 1794 dollar. As with the 1796 half, the 1794 dollar fake looks exactly like a genuine one and was purchased as such. Just like Leo Young purchased the fake coin first and then had an opportunity to buy the real coin, Jules Reiver had the fake coin first (not knowing it was a fake) and then located and purchased the real one. Both specimens show the exact same adjustment marks and other handling marks. On the second specimen, the marks were sharper than on the first specimen, and so it was thought that the first one was the copy of the second. To confirm his conclusions Jules Reiver sent the coins in to ANACS separately for authentication. BOTH were labeled by ANACS as authentic!
In this case, both coins not only looked real, but they were both of proper weight AND metallic composition. Without seeing the two side by side, there was absolutely no way to identify either one as a fake. How could this be? I had a very long conversation with Jules on this particular point. The legal standards for the composition of each coin relate to the PRECIOUS metal content (gold or silver), and other metals are alloyed in for hardness and durability. So, while the silver content would remain unchanged from year to year, the proportions of other metals would change slightly. So, even if a fake had the right amount of silver, it could still be detected as being a fake due to exhibiting the wrong amounts of the other elements (in comparison to other known specimens). So, how could someone fake Jules Reiver's 1794 dollar and get the metallic composition so precisely correct? My theory is that once the transfer dies were created, someone took a totally screwed up -- but genuine -- 1794 dollar, melted it down and created a brand new blank planchet. Since the planchet would be made from a real 1794 dollar, it would have precisely the correct metallic composition. The new planchet would then be struck with the copy dies, and voila', a seemingly genuine 1794 dollar is born.
Put it another way; I'd rather own many, many, many GMM pieces than one lousy "perfect" 1940 wheatie for an astounding $20,000. Then again, there are many things on a list of what I'd buy before I'd shell out for a 1940 cent @ $20,000 - such as an original 1796-7 half, yes.
<laughing> yes, they an easy "straw man" and I guess it's easy to say they're no good and what a fool for having some replicas... although I noticed none of the detractors have stepped forward to say they own a genuine coin of this type. I'm not saying the GM coins great or anything, but i think my replica 1796 half dollar, quarter, dime, and half cent are kind of fun and are certainly, for the low price, a lot more fun than an empty hole in my type set album.
Baley, thank you for egging the folks on, you actually got your wish, which would also be my wish, to see folks who actually have originals and not copies.
I was really hoping that someone would have a picture and a story about a small eagle half dollar, and Cardinal's tale blew away all my expectations, what an interesting story, and a great piece of numismatic lore. I am just surprised more people aren't interested in this kind of thing.
Thanks again, Cardinal and all who responded, and the call is still out for some photos and acquisition stories of genuine or replica small eagle half dollars, I suspect there is an advanced collector among us who has a nice one...
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Bueller... Bueller?
TTT for a fascinating story from Cardinal.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Bravo!
Tom
siliconvalleycoins.com
1796 PCGS AG03 Half for Sale on ebay
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
The Norweb MS66 1797 O.101a is being auctioned in a few days at ANR. Possibly the first $1M half dollar? B&M will also auction a high grade 1796 soon.
I suspect some of the lower grade ones could be fakes from transfer dies and then worn down, we will never know for sure.
When I squander my 401K retirement fund on one of these in 12 years, I would rather get a later die state with advanced die cracks, more difficult to fake as most are in a unique state.
When I saw the post about a 4 figure price for even an AG, I was thinking there way more than that. Reedededge's price may be a little high, but Ill bet you couldn't buy one in that grade certified by PCGS for less than 18k.
The Ebay coin is back on, here it is go bid!
Only one day left,
RARE 1796 15 STARS 1/2 DOLLAR, PCGS AG-3! Item number: 3900592124
BUY IT NOW US $23,995.00
Heritage also has one or perhaps thats the 1797, its only up to $15,500 WOW look out Portland!
no thanks, and not just because i don't have $23K burning a hole in my pocket.
IF/when the time comes to get one of these (and this is definitely the toughest US type), then I will want a "small eagle" half where you can actually SEE the eagle!
I'd rather have the design and legends complete, and would tolerate some scratches that net it down a little.
either way, it will be quite some time until most of us can afford this type coin, although I heard a rumor that a board member is considering the purchase of one!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Cardinal - NOBODY is going to melt a 1794 dollar, whatever it looks like. A master counterfeiter might go to the expense of melting a 1795 with 99% certainty that it will be good enough. If he wants to go to 100%, he'll analyze a real 1794 and prepare a duplicate alloy. But melt a 1794 dollar? (Actually he would probably have to melt two really bad ones to get enough metal for one good counterfeit.) I don't think so. BTW, could the adjustment marks have been of differing sharpness due to striking pressure or planchet thickness? Or might the counterfeit die have worn through use, leading to the same results? If so, both coins could be fake, in which case the identical alloys would make perfect sense.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
Yep, the Good ole Gallery Mint keeps the hole in my album filled until I can afford a genuine AG or Good example.
what do you think that one would "grade"?
Anyone have a real small eagle half dollar of 1796 or 1797?
Or how about a picture of one? >>
Hey, that's a beauty. Looks "crisp"!!