What's your opinion on the 1794 $? Here's mine, and you are NOT going to like it....
JadeRareCoin
Posts: 2,768 ✭
ElectricEye linked an AP story regarding the 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar that is purported to be "the first ever minted by the U.S. Mint". I have been avoiding this subject out of frustration, but that news story put me over the edge and I want to share my opinion.
A few quotes from article:
Experts said it's impossible to say for certain that the coin was the very first U.S. silver dollar struck, but its details are so crisp that it certainly was among the first.
HUH?? Just because it is well struck, or as they put it, "crisp", qualifies it as being the first struck? So, can one assume that all of the "pop 1" coins in the census are the first struck of their respective dates/types?? So far, I am not convinced.
``Until someone walks up to me with a coin in an earlier state that looks better, I'd consider it the first,'' said John Dannreuther, co-founder of Professional Coin Grading Service.
Again........HUH??? Are you serious? We will never know the die state of most of the 1794 dollars because they are too worn. If there are only a few examples that even approach being mint state, to what can you compare the Neil-Carter coin? Since when does wear have anything to do with die emission order? Also, there were only 1,758 dollars struck that are dated 1794 (according to mint records), so it is unlikely that any die states developed, considering the very low mintage. We know that there is only one die pair for the 1794 Dollar.
Are the experts assuming that the Contursi coin is the first dollar struck by the Mint because it has a silver plug and it is well struck? PCGS has graded the coin "Specimen" as opposed to "Mint State". That indicates that this coin is considered a presentation piece, or proof. If the US Mint were to strike the first US Silver Dollar in a special ceremony, would they really care if it were off by a few grains of silver in weight? Would they take the time to add the silver plug? Furthermore......and this is important........would the US Mint modify the first stuck coin.......presumedly a presenation piece......with a FILE???? That's right, the Neil-Carter 1794 Dollar has adjustment marks. Does that sound like a "specimen" piece to you?
What about the fact that the Neil-Carter coin is the only known 1794 Dollar with a silver plug? Well, remember that the Neil-Carter coin is one of only 130 or so survivors out of a mintage of 1,758. Actually, a good debator could argue that the Neil-Coin was the LAST 1794 Dollar stuck at the US Mint. You see, silver plugs are known to exist in several 1795 Dollars and Halves. That means that the US Mint was adjusting planchets for proper silver weight with the 1795 issues. What if the Mint adopted the silver plug policy and the end of the 1794 mintage of dollars? Isn't that explanation more logical than the notion that the US Mint put a silver plug in the very first dollar ever struck?
Want more? Jules Reiver states in his book, The United States Early Silver Dollars, that there are 2 different copper 1794 Dollars known (one with stars and one without). One could argue that the copper 1794 Dollar is the first dollar stuck, since it was made with dies that had not been finished. The copper examples are technically die trial pieces, but you see where I am going with this. Some have stated that the Neil-Carter coin is the same die state as the copper die trial with stars. Well, how many other 1794 dollars were struck with those dies? 1,758? What about the fact that the planchet is specially prepared? Did that happen at the mint before being struck? Couldn't the mint have specially prepared the LAST planchet of the 1794 dollars? Some just assume that it was the first.
The claim that the Neil-Carter 1794 Dollar is the first ever struck at the US Mint borders on being an egregious overstatement, as it may eventually result in an gullable individual paying a few extra million dollars for something that is not. Wouldn't be the first time.
Of course it is possible that the 1794 is the first dollar ever struck at the US Mint, but without solid evidence, it should only be presented as light-hearted dinner conversation and not a national media campaign designed to add millions of dollars to it's value. I need solid evidence before I am convinced.
There is, by the way, one thing that I do agree with in the AP article; the Neil-Carter specimen is indeed a national treasure, but so are all 1794 dollars, imo. I will also agree that this will be a classic numismatic mystery that will probably never be solved.
What's your opinion?
A few quotes from article:
Experts said it's impossible to say for certain that the coin was the very first U.S. silver dollar struck, but its details are so crisp that it certainly was among the first.
HUH?? Just because it is well struck, or as they put it, "crisp", qualifies it as being the first struck? So, can one assume that all of the "pop 1" coins in the census are the first struck of their respective dates/types?? So far, I am not convinced.
``Until someone walks up to me with a coin in an earlier state that looks better, I'd consider it the first,'' said John Dannreuther, co-founder of Professional Coin Grading Service.
Again........HUH??? Are you serious? We will never know the die state of most of the 1794 dollars because they are too worn. If there are only a few examples that even approach being mint state, to what can you compare the Neil-Carter coin? Since when does wear have anything to do with die emission order? Also, there were only 1,758 dollars struck that are dated 1794 (according to mint records), so it is unlikely that any die states developed, considering the very low mintage. We know that there is only one die pair for the 1794 Dollar.
Are the experts assuming that the Contursi coin is the first dollar struck by the Mint because it has a silver plug and it is well struck? PCGS has graded the coin "Specimen" as opposed to "Mint State". That indicates that this coin is considered a presentation piece, or proof. If the US Mint were to strike the first US Silver Dollar in a special ceremony, would they really care if it were off by a few grains of silver in weight? Would they take the time to add the silver plug? Furthermore......and this is important........would the US Mint modify the first stuck coin.......presumedly a presenation piece......with a FILE???? That's right, the Neil-Carter 1794 Dollar has adjustment marks. Does that sound like a "specimen" piece to you?
What about the fact that the Neil-Carter coin is the only known 1794 Dollar with a silver plug? Well, remember that the Neil-Carter coin is one of only 130 or so survivors out of a mintage of 1,758. Actually, a good debator could argue that the Neil-Coin was the LAST 1794 Dollar stuck at the US Mint. You see, silver plugs are known to exist in several 1795 Dollars and Halves. That means that the US Mint was adjusting planchets for proper silver weight with the 1795 issues. What if the Mint adopted the silver plug policy and the end of the 1794 mintage of dollars? Isn't that explanation more logical than the notion that the US Mint put a silver plug in the very first dollar ever struck?
Want more? Jules Reiver states in his book, The United States Early Silver Dollars, that there are 2 different copper 1794 Dollars known (one with stars and one without). One could argue that the copper 1794 Dollar is the first dollar stuck, since it was made with dies that had not been finished. The copper examples are technically die trial pieces, but you see where I am going with this. Some have stated that the Neil-Carter coin is the same die state as the copper die trial with stars. Well, how many other 1794 dollars were struck with those dies? 1,758? What about the fact that the planchet is specially prepared? Did that happen at the mint before being struck? Couldn't the mint have specially prepared the LAST planchet of the 1794 dollars? Some just assume that it was the first.
The claim that the Neil-Carter 1794 Dollar is the first ever struck at the US Mint borders on being an egregious overstatement, as it may eventually result in an gullable individual paying a few extra million dollars for something that is not. Wouldn't be the first time.
Of course it is possible that the 1794 is the first dollar ever struck at the US Mint, but without solid evidence, it should only be presented as light-hearted dinner conversation and not a national media campaign designed to add millions of dollars to it's value. I need solid evidence before I am convinced.
There is, by the way, one thing that I do agree with in the AP article; the Neil-Carter specimen is indeed a national treasure, but so are all 1794 dollars, imo. I will also agree that this will be a classic numismatic mystery that will probably never be solved.
What's your opinion?
www.jaderarecoin.com - Updated 6/8/06. Many new coins added!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
0
Comments
Well said !!!
You're now official, Bubba 4/24/04
siliconvalleycoins.com
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
I just didn't care enough to respond but now you've so eloquently pointed out the stupidity.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Do you think it should have a Norweb pedigree on the holder?
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Not germane here. The issue of the die state has nothing to do with the planchet.
Overall, though, I think folks are making much more of this than is warranted. It's a newspaper article, and the writers seldom get every detail correct. Plus, that isn't their objective. What they want is sensationalism.
I am convinced that this coin is certainly one of the earlier strikes.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Tom
My issue is with the experts who, in the absence of any evidence, have declared the coin to be the first dollar coin, or strongly hinted at it. Believe me, EVP, if I owned that coin and made the same claim, people would laugh me out of the room. And rightfully so.
I'd like to see other well-known numismatists come down on one side or the other. Because I would be stunned if they jump on the "first dollar coin" bandwagon, absent any evidence.
To make a unsupportable claim like this, for whatever the reason, is absurd. Say it's an early die state? Fine. Particularly impressive state of preservation? Sure. But a claim like "first dollar coin" is unsubstantiated and baseless.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>It's a newspaper article, and the writers seldom get every detail correct. >>
It is far more than just a newspaper article. The story has appeared in dozens of publications and on dozens of broadcasts all over the country, including such luminaries as Paul Harvey repeating what is, in essence, a speculative fabrication. I have no real beef with the owner of the coin playing the PR hype game to the hilt. That's business. But, I find it exceedingly irresponsible for the top professionals in the hobby to blithely aid him in that pursuit by making unsupportable claims.
Russ, NCNE
Proof that it was the first coin: none.
Extremely nice coin, though.
<< <i>Couldn't the mint have specially prepared the LAST planchet of the 1794 dollars?
Not germane here. The issue of the die state has nothing to do with the planchet. >>
Slightly germane, because it can be fairly good evidence that the coin is NOT the first coin struck. Since no other 94's are known struck on plugged planchets but 95's are, it makes it much more likely that this planchet was prepared late in the production and closer in time to the production of the 1795 dollars. As JadeRareCoin has pointed out, with a coinage of less than 2,000 coins there probably wasn't much in the development of die states on this issue. The closest thing to dies states on the 94 dollars was that the die alignment comes two ways. Most 1794 dollars come weakly struck on the left hand side due to an axial misalignment of the dies (faces were not parallel). But there are a few, including this one and the copper die trial, that are properly aligned and the stars are strong on the left side. The question is, which alignment came first?
DENVER (AP) - Coin collecting experts say they have identified a 210-year-old silver dollar that is likely the first one coined by the United States Mint.
The PCGS { PROPHETS } have helped an old BUDDY { PROFIT } on a coin worth maybe 3 to 4 million to what Contursi himself says, is now worth at least 10 million.
PROPHETS=PROFIT
HYPE =MONEY
Here is the true story of the 1794 dollar;
MY great, great, great grandfather, John Taylor, was a friend of Thomas Jefferson. I have original letters sent from Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, who was a farmer. In one of the letters I possess, dated, February 28, 1795, Thomas Jefferson thanks John Taylor for his farming help through the years and encloses a "special silver dollar " as a momento, with detailed instuctions " to not use it for barter ". From these facts I surmise that I may possess the first silver dollar ever struck. My silver dollar is in very fine condition, and does not have a plug. It has been handled by almost every person in my family for the past two hundred years, and we will keep it in the family, in its present state. I " surmise " that I may have the first silver dollar struck, but do not plan to capitalize on that, as I consider it to be a " National Treasure ".
I plan on exhibiting my 1794 silver dollar in it's custom wooden case and the letter verifying that it was a present from Thomas Jefferson, at the ANA, this Summer. I also have an affidavit from Dionne Warwick claiming that it is without doubt, the first struck, silver dollar.
Paul Taylor
-------------------------
All Time Finest Proof Barber Halves
MORGAN PROOFS #1
but I think calling it the "first", absent any corroborating "presentation letter" or other documentation, is a bit of a stretch.
"one of the first" by definition, and certainly "specimen", (because of it's extraordinary preservation, to today) irrespective of die state or presence of adjustment marks, of which are less special.
in short, I think this "first dollar" is a marketing ploy, which may or may not increase the sale price of the coin (probably will help) and will also popularize coin collecting, like the treasure ships, 1933 $20, finding of the 1913 5c., and other recent events have done.
The bull is roaring and this is further evidence. could also be signs of a top
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Would you still bash this if it were your's?
Ray
The coin is not being bashed (nor should it be). The unsubstantiated inferences, claims, exaggerations and excessive over-hyping ARE being bashed and I think that bashing is very well deserved.
No question with that one since it says it right on the coin.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Tuesday March 16, 2004 12:18 PM (NEW!)
Here is the true story of the 1794 dollar;..................I also have an affidavit from Dionne Warwick claiming that it is without doubt, the first struck, silver dollar.
Paul Taylor >>
There's THE proof!
I value my 1794 silver dollar, most likely the first struck, more than my PCGS MS 68 1908-s $5, which is also unique.
link
Would you still bash this if it were your's?
Ray
Please believe me when I say that I LOVE the coin in question. It is breathtaking and a real jewel. In my original post to this thread, I agreed that the Neil-Carter 1794 was a national treasure......but not because some claim that it is the first one struck. I will accept that notion only as a theory and nothing more. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I have stated mine. But please understand that I have NEVER bashed the Neil-Carter 1794 dollar, but rather only the hype with the news story.
BTW, I had several people call or stop in the office today regarding this news story. I am not complaining, because I don't mind talking about coins. But I had to explain that it was only a theory and nothing more.
Dennis
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Zerbe-
Wow - That's great.
As far as the news story, it's a filler piece that says it's probably the first coin struck based on it's condition and the 130 pieces. I guess they could say the odds are 1 in 130, but that's not as exciting.
Now back to Jim for the sports and weather...
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
My question to the bashers is, what experience do you have regarding 1794 dollars in particular? I have met many individuals with a great amount of knowledge about early U.S. coins, but with only limited "hands on" experience with 1794 dollars. How many 1794 dollars, and in what grades, have you personally examined? That would really help me understand the basis for the opinions expressed here, as I must strongly disagree with some of them.
JadeRareCoin said "there were only 1,758 dollars struck that are dated 1794 (according to mint records), so it is unlikely that any die states developed, considering the very low mintage. We know that there is only one die pair for the 1794 Dollar".
Conder 101 added, "with a coinage of less than 2000 coins there probably wasn't much in the development of dies states on this issue."
Actually, the Silver Dollar Encyclopedia written by Q. David Bowers and published in 1992 sets out 3 different die states for the single pair of dies ussed for the coining of 1794 dollars:
These die states are really quite distinctive. The 1794 dollar that I happen to own is one of the pieces from Die State II -- the die state displaying prominent clash marks and full length hair curls to Miss Liberty. Here are pictures of my coin, and close-ups of the noted clash marks and hair curls.
When you look at the Amon Carter 1794 dollar, you still see the full length hair curls, but NO clash marks:
(photo by Jay Miller, per the Coin Facts website)
Contrast this with the Harry Bass 1794 dollar, a Die State III specimen:
(photo by Bowers and Merena, from the Phillip Flannagan online auction catalog)
Notice how on the Bass example, the second hair curl (from the bottom) is now shortened and no longer turns downward as it approaches star number 3. Also, the third hair curl is mostly gone. The Bass specimen is VERY sharply struck, so obviously the loss of the ends of the hair curls is NOT due to strike weakness. The shortening of the hair curls is undeniably due to the state of the die, having been re-lapped prior to the striking of Die State III coins.
Yes, there were only 1758 pieces reported to have been struck, and there are only about 130 accounted for today, but the surviving specimens provide clear evidence to differing die states.
a good debator could argue that the Neil-Coin was the LAST 1794 Dollar stuck at the US Mint. You see, silver plugs are known to exist in several 1795 Dollars and Halves. That means that the US Mint was adjusting planchets for proper silver weight with the 1795 issues. What if the Mint adopted the silver plug policy and the end of the 1794 mintage of dollars? Isn't that explanation more logical than the notion that the US Mint put a silver plug in the very first dollar ever struck?
It is true that the Mint did use silver plugs in the preparation of planchets for certain 1795 dollars and half dollars, but the minting of 1794 dollars didn't extend so long as to allow for the adoption of a new "policy." All of the 1794 dollars are recorded as have been struck all on one day -- October 15, 1794. So, I find it unlikely the Mint took time that day to debate the use of silver plugs and then officially adopt a new policy for their use, then apply the new policy to one last dollar struck before production was suspended pending the arrival of new equipment in 1795. However, regardless of when the silver plug policy was adopted (if an official policy ever was adopted), the Amon Carter 1794 dollar could NOT have been the last one struck, as it undeniably was struck from the earliest state of the dies.
Another question to ponder is, "How many specimens were struck from this earliest state of the dies.?" The unique copper specimen (with stars on the obverse) in the Smithsonian is from this die state, as is the Amon Carter coin. However, I cannot recall having seen even one other Die State I specimen. That makes me think that it is not mere conjecture but there IS some credible evidence to the theories of the Amon Carter coin being the first SILVER dollar struck under the official authorization of the U.S. Mint.
My library happens to include images of virtually every 1794 dollar ever reported. (That has been one of the objectives in my library acquisitions.) Contrary to JadeRareCoin's thought, the die state of a 1794 dollar is very evident, even on well worn specimens. So, I will review the documented population to see if I can find another Die State I specimen.
What would all your opinions be if the Amon Carter coin is the only remaining Die State I specimen?
What would all your opinions be if the Amon Carter coin is the only remaining Die State I specimen?
My opinion would be that this is still NOT proof that the Contursi 1794 was the first dollar struck at the US Mint. Now, if you can produce the other 1,628 1794 dollars that were purportedly struck that day, then we can do a more valid die study. Until then, you would only have a 1794 that was possibly one of the first many struck.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
You asked: "What would all your opinions be if the Amon Carter coin is the only remaining Die State I specimen?"
I would still say that there is way too much unsubstantiated hype involved. And, that as a consequence, an amazing coin will be tainted in the eyes of many, rather than being appreciated for its very special (substantiated) qualities.
Would you at least concede that the Neil-Carter specimen is a very early striking and possibly the first? For what it's worth, I debated this same issue with Cardinal last year and he ran circles around me!
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Thank you for the facts Cardinal (I was waiting for you to bring your knowledge to this thread).
And if the Carter coin was the only remaining Die State I coin? I would still say that it is complete conjecture whether it was the "first". Such a claim requires some form of corroboration. It certainly can't acquire that mantle solely based on what a few high-profile experts say 200 years after the fact.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Well, I must admit that there's something to be said regarding the die study and I will concede that it is an early die state. Notice that I made this statement in my post prior to your post (see above).
BUT........................
..........I have a question for Cardinal: If someone owns a 1793 Cent (Sheldon-1, Die State 1), can he now make the claim that his coin was the first Cent ever struck at the US Mint? No? Why not? It would be an example of the earliest known die state of the first documented variety of Chain Cents. Right?
Again (and again, and again), I think that the Neil-Carter 1794 is an incredible coin that is undeniably one of the most important coins in US numismatics. Therefore, I am not "bashing" the Contursi dollar, but rather the research that was propagated throughout the media.
Edited to add S-1 DS-1 variety
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
However, I have to say my opinion is that the existing evidence does prove that the coin was ONE of the very first, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests (in my opinion) a likelihood that the coin was indeed the first silver striking off the dies.
If a Chain cent happened to be the very earliest documented die state from the very earliest documented die variety, then my opinion would be that there existed some evidence that the coin could represent the very first cent (as could any other specimen from that die state and die variety).
During the striking process of any series of coins, one coin has to come first, and logic tells me that coin would have to come from the earliest state of the first set of die varieties.
If the US Mint would go out of the way to specially prepare a planchet with a mirror finish, why would they then impair the finish with adjustment marks? I just don't understand this part of the puzzle.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Let me say that tomorrow, I will have a friend videotape me when I take my 1794 dollar outside and punch it with my fist. This will provide ample evidence that the coin I own is, in fact, the first - ever - struck!
(and hand-struck, too! none of this fancy steam-powered machinery for me!)
Check out the Southern Gold Society
But Mint records indicate that 11,178 cents were struck between Feb. 27 and March 1, 1793, all of which were either S-1 or S-2, which shares the obverse die of S-1. Breen suggests that 6,350 S-1 Cents were possibly struck. There are 6 recognized die states for the S-1 cents, but how many D/S-1 examples were struck? According to Breen's Encyclopedia on US Cents, it is possible that some Chain Cents were ceremonially struck on Washington's birthday (2-22-93), supposedly with S-1 dies. Imagine if someone owned a high grade S-1, D/S-1 1793 Chain Cent and then made up a story about the coin being the first US Cent ever struck and, on top of that, was struck by George Washington on his birthday. How much would that be worth?
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
http://www.money.org/press/20040315-1794dollar.html
-donn-
I wonder if Cardinal has a photo of Paul Taylor's (Zerbe) dollar?
Thanks for the link to those Jefferson letters Paul! Great stuff all around...
PS - note to everyone: please read the title of this thread. It is all about opinions. That's all.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
1) Why would the mint choose a twice rejected planchet for the first coin? The Carter coin has serious adjustment marks [rejected for being too heavy] and a silver plug [rejected for being too light]. You'd think they'd pick one with few adjustment marks.
2) Bowers conjects that the dies were off perpendicular at the shank. Yet the Bass coin is extremely well struck and argued to be from Die State III. And it's not prooflike. Wouldn't one of the first coins struck from freshly relapped dies be prooflike?
With that said, I can definitely state that I LOVE THAT COIN! It's a great numismatic treasure, no matter which coin it was as it came off the dies...
I'm more than satisfied to take Contursi's word for it.
roadrunnner
Well....some.
The fabric of the Neil/Carter/Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It would not surprise me if the coin were a very early striking based on its unique status as a representative of Die State I. The prooflike surfaces bespeak some special preparation, although not necessarily a specimen first striking. As TDN and others have pointed out, the combination of a silver plug and adjustment marks is particularly damning of this planchet. It does seem unlikely that this particular planchet would have been chosen for a special specimen striking or a first striking.
The suggestion, however, that some "new discovery" has been made of the first silver dollar ever minted is completely absurd. The unabashed hucksterism and the blatant attempt to grossly overinflate the market value of this coin are, if anything, demeaning to this "National Treasure." What sort of person goes about bragging about a recent acquisition, prints brochures suggesting that it is worth more than three times what he paid for it, and gets the press involved with nonsensical hype, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME claiming that the coin is such a "National Treasure" that it is not for sale. What a load of bovine excrement. No wonder we are all so annoyed. Cardinal, this isn't about die states. This is about the hobby being overrun by overwhelmingly greedy profiteers. Well, nothing new about that I suppose.
Again, I also point out that the silver specimens of the Continental Dollar trump the flowing hair issue as the first silver dollars ever minted under federal authority.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
But "greed is good", right?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
As others have stated, the coin is a national treasure for sure. Very likely, ONE of the first struck, but I agree there is just not enough evidence to to say it is THE first dollar.
The first struck would be die state I
The first struck would be prooflike
The first struck would be saved and not spent
The first struck is known to collectors
If those assumptions are made [and they aren't very farfetched], then by the process of elimination the coin must be the first struck since there are no others that qualify!