Home U.S. Coin Forum

Is the Gobrecht Dollar a pattern?

MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 23,892 ✭✭✭✭✭
Whaddaya think and why?
Andy Lustig

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
«1

Comments

  • clw54clw54 Posts: 3,816 ✭✭✭
    Yes. Not sure why. I'll look it up and get back to you.
  • SethChandlerSethChandler Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, the coin had too many design modifications and is a proof only issue.
    Collecting since 1976.
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Some are, some aren't. And some are fantasy pieces.
  • clw54clw54 Posts: 3,816 ✭✭✭
    Okay, some are some aren't.

    Link
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm a bit of a maverick as I consider the 1838 [J-84] to not be a pattern, but rather a regular issue coin as well.
  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Simple:

    Anything I can't afford to add to my type set is automatically a pattern.


    image
    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • They were considered patterns, but then the more common issues were deemed to be business strikes.
  • morgannut2morgannut2 Posts: 4,293
    They were made persuant to a regular warrent and sent to the Bank of the US for issuance to circulation (Breen) so they aren't patterns in the normal sense. I would call the ones made in the late 1850's -1860's restrikes or fantasy pieces depending on the die combination.
    morgannut2
  • Dennis88Dennis88 Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭
    Not always, just like the 1856 FE cent which IS a pattern.....

    These dollars were long called patterns (and are included in both the Judd and Pollock books), but recent research has revealed that there are indeed some patterns, but also some struck for general circulation, and those were used as such.

    Restrikes were already made in 1839, but most of these between 1850 and the 1870's.... Die states and die alignments are important to see if a coin is an original or a restrike, but at this point most of the time only the die alignments are used.

    The first Gobrecht dollars struck in December 1836, which were reported on the last day of the year are listed in the pattern books (J-60/P-65) but these are circulation issues. There were 1,000 struck, with the dies in die alignment I (coin turn). In another chapter, this will be covered in more detail.
    After these first dollars were struck, there were more to come. The Bank of the United States had paid out the 600 dollars on hand (The other 400 were most likely given out as presentation pieces). In March 1837 another 600 coins were struck, from the dies of 1836. These are often already called restrikes, but in my opinion this is wrong. It is better to call them “second originals”. To distinguish these coins and the coins of December the dies were reversed. The dies used in December had normal alignment (180 degrees, used on most United States coins since 1792, also called “coin alignment”), those of March were inverted (0 degrees, also called “medal alignment”). This is seen most clearly when you turn the coin horizontal. Those with coin alignment have the reverse then upside down, those with medal alignment have the reverse normally. You can also compare this with a regular issue United States coin from your pocket, and a Euro coin struck in most European country’s since 2002. US coins are coin alignment, Euro coins are medal alignment.



    Dennis

    PS small part of a book I want to publish sometime about these fascinating coinsimage
  • TorinoCobra71TorinoCobra71 Posts: 8,020 ✭✭✭
    I would call it a pattern, suffice to say that not enuff were minted to call it a regular issue.

    TorinoCobra71

    image
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    As opposed to the mintages for the following I found on a quick look at two series:

    1794 dollar 1,758
    1854-S $2.5 246
    1856-D $2.5 874
    1875 $2.5 400
    1881 $2.5 640
    1885 $2.5 800

    A mintage of 1600 is more than ample... and is much more than most any pattern.
  • ziggy29ziggy29 Posts: 18,668 ✭✭✭
    Personally, I think you have to look at more than just mintages. Was the coin ever produced with the intention of release to general circulation?

    I'm no Gobrecht scholar, but I would think that if this were the intent, then it's not a pattern.

    But that breaks down in some sense, because to be complete you'd have to have several of these in order to have a "type set." But then, are *some* of the types patterns and others regular issues? It starts to get confusing. If it can be said that these aren't patterns, then I'd think you'd have to limit yourself to types where a significant number (several hundred to 1,000+) were minted. Some of these types only have a few dozen minted, and those, I would say, are pattern types.
  • Dennis88Dennis88 Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Personally, I think you have to look at more than just mintages. Was the coin ever produced with the intention of release to general circulation?

    I'm no Gobrecht scholar, but I would think that if this were the intent, then it's not a pattern.

    But that breaks down in some sense, because to be complete you'd have to have several of these in order to have a "type set." But then, are *some* of the types patterns and others regular issues? It starts to get confusing. If it can be said that these aren't patterns, then I'd think you'd have to limit yourself to types where a significant number (several hundred to 1,000+) were minted. Some of these types only have a few dozen minted, and those, I would say, are pattern types. >>



    It's even more confusing when you know that all types of gobrecht dollars, including regular issue coins were struck as proofs, mostly in high quality.....
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If doing a basic type set, then you'd just need an example of either the 1836 or 1839 originals. If doing an extensive type set, then you really should have one of each as the stars were removed from the reverse and placed on the obverse for the 1839. As significant a change as the addition of the motto or arrows for seated liberty coinage.
  • JulianJulian Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭
    There are Gobrecht $ patterns and there are Gobrechts that were, in theory, made for circulation. I have never seen a frosty BU Gobrecht, but research has illustrated that some were made for general circulation.
    PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows.
    I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.

    eBaystore
  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am having a disagreement with another forum member on this very point. image

    Anyone else care to chime in?
  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 33,811 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd like to think there are a couple of circulation types for the reasons listed. My personal reason is that I think they are among the most beautiful circulation types and a US Type Set would be much less interesting without them.
  • The definition of a pattern is: "A coin made to test new designs for possible use on coins made for circulation". Why do you need to mint 1600 (J-60) to fit this definition??? In 1836, J-58 and J-59 definite patterns and then the minting of the J-60's for circulation. After J-60's, so many different styles, (with little mintage) messed around with stars/no stars and Gobrechts initials in different areas, I would deem to call these mainly fantasy pieces, with some patterns. (except for J-104, 300 minted, circ strike!!!). Confusing?? Not if you really look at it.
    The Accumulator - Dark Lloyd of the Sith

    image
  • IGWTIGWT Posts: 4,975


    << <i>I am having a disagreement with another forum member on this very point. image

    Anyone else care to chime in? >>


    I'd say you need two for that Liberty Seated type set that you're contemplating. Sorry.
  • RYKRYK Posts: 35,772 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>I am having a disagreement with another forum member on this very point. image

    Anyone else care to chime in? >>


    I'd say you need two for that Liberty Seated type set that you're contemplating. Sorry. >>



    Mrs. RYK. Sorry, we will NOT be getting that Subzero. We will keep the old Whirlpool. image
  • some are, some aren't.

    1836 and 1839 saw a cumulative 1,900 business strikes. However, patterns, all with minor design variations, were struck in 1836 and 1838.
  • RWBRWB Posts: 8,082
    The PCGS Rare Coin Market Report (April 2007, pp.16-19) has a good article by John Dannreuther on engraver Robert Ball Hughes. He also mentions the Gobrecht dollars and concludes that, "...the originals (struck in December 1836 and March 1837 for the 1836-dated ones and 1839 for those with that date) are just prooflike circulation strikes..."
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 31,499 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I am having a disagreement with another forum member on this very point. image

    Anyone else care to chime in? >>



    I think that it began as a pattern and progressed to a regular issue.

    A comparable issue would be the 1864 Small Motto two cents piece. This die was made as part of the development of the design, and was so close to what was finally settled upon that they just went ahead and used it as a regular issue die.

    MOO
    TD
    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.


  • << <i>The definition of a pattern is: "A coin made to test new designs for possible use on coins made for circulation". Why do you need to mint 1600 (J-60) to fit this definition??? >>


    What do you call 1.5 MILLION 1974 aluminum cents? Or several hundred thousand 2000-S business strike Sac dollars? I think the cents would be considered a pattern, I'm not sure what to call the Sac dollars. image
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    Dennis88 Wednesday June 22, 2005 5:39 AM

    Not always, just like the 1856 FE cent which IS a pattern.....

    These dollars were long called patterns (and are included in both the Judd and Pollock books), but recent research has revealed that there are indeed some patterns, but also some struck for general circulation, and those were used as such.

    Restrikes were already made in 1839, but most of these between 1850 and the 1870's.... Die states and die alignments are important to see if a coin is an original or a restrike, but at this point most of the time only the die alignments are used.

    The first Gobrecht dollars struck in December 1836, which were reported on the last day of the year are listed in the pattern books (J-60/P-65) but these are circulation issues. There were 1,000 struck, with the dies in die alignment I (coin turn). In another chapter, this will be covered in more detail.
    After these first dollars were struck, there were more to come. The Bank of the United States had paid out the 600 dollars on hand (The other 400 were most likely given out as presentation pieces). In March 1837 another 600 coins were struck, from the dies of 1836. These are often already called restrikes, but in my opinion this is wrong. It is better to call them “second originals”. To distinguish these coins and the coins of December the dies were reversed. The dies used in December had normal alignment (180 degrees, used on most United States coins since 1792, also called “coin alignment”), those of March were inverted (0 degrees, also called “medal alignment”). This is seen most clearly when you turn the coin horizontal. Those with coin alignment have the reverse then upside down, those with medal alignment have the reverse normally. You can also compare this with a regular issue United States coin from your pocket, and a Euro coin struck in most European country’s since 2002. US coins are coin alignment, Euro coins are medal alignment.

    Dennis
    *************
    Some additions and corrections to the above, which is on the whole correct:

    1) The 1836 Gobrecht dollars were struck in two batches, 400 and 600. The first 400 pieces, which were retained at the Mint, may have been struck as early as the first week of December but in 1836 warrants for silver and gold coins were issued only at the end of a given month. The last 600 were paid directly to the Bank of the U.S. and were mostly used to pay off small depositors. The Mint-retained pieces were sold at $1 to interested citizens or used to pay off small silver deposits. These were legal coins in every sense of the word and were definitely meant for circulation. No type set is complete without one of these. The Mint had a ready supply of the December 1836 issues well into 1838 and perhaps as late as the early 1840s.

    2) The 600 pieces of March 1837, using dies of 1836, were all paid out through the banking system and today are of extreme rarity. Restrikes of the late 1850s are available, however. Originals have the eagle flying "onwards and upwards" when turned on a vertical axis (medal turn) while the restrikes have the eagle flying flat. Why the original 1837 coins were ever called "restrikes" is baffling and appears to be a term created by someone who does not understand the meaning of the word "restrike." (The 1837 pieces were struck under the law of January 1837, which called for a different gross weight and fineness although the amount of silver remained the same.)

    3) The original 1838 coins, of which none is known to exist, are patterns as no warrant was ever issued by Director Patterson. Restrikes were made in the late 1850s, however.

    4) There is no proof, except for sheer speculation, that restrikes were made into the 1870s. Based on internal Mint documents it is highly unlikely that any Gobrecht restrikes were made after 1869 but a final date of 1860 is the most likely. If we go by the first appearance of a coin at auction, which is essentially meaningless, the 1885 Trade dollars were not struck until after 1900.

    5) The grading services have been slabbing restrike 1839 dollars (eagle flying flat or nearly so when turned on a horizontal axis) as originals, a disservice to collectors. The 1839 coins were also paid out through the banking system, no doubt the reason that originals are unknown today.

    Denga
  • Dennis88Dennis88 Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭
    Here is a more detailed article I published on the forums some time ago:An introduction to Gobrecht Silver Dollars 1836-1837

    Dennis
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Sunday March 25, 2007 11:47 AM



    Restrikes of the late 1850s are available, however. Originals have the eagle flying "onwards and upwards" when turned on a vertical axis (medal turn) while the restrikes have the eagle flying flat. ... The grading services have been slabbing restrike 1839 dollars (eagle flying flat or nearly so when turned on a horizontal axis) as originals, a disservice to collectors.

    These two assertions are absolutely incorrect. Originals of the '1837' and 1839 issues were in fact produced in the Type IV alignment [medal turn, eagle flying flat].

    *********

    I am well aware of the modern revisionist theories.

    Just to make the matter a little clearer, we can discuss the 1837 issue using dies of 1836. The following points directly apply:

    1) Director Patterson, who was noted for his artistic interests and desire to improve the looks of the coinage, went to great lengths to prod famed naturalist and artist Titian Peale into creating a dramatic view of an eagle soaring "onward and upward," to represent the United States as it rose in importance in world affairs. More than 30 drawings, and several months, were involved in this work. But now we are told that Dr. Patterson no longer cared about any of this and very carelessly allowed the eagle to lie flat in 1837, an insult to the United States with respect to his views in 1836. That might make sense to some people, but not to the undersigned.

    2) Adam Eckfeldt took great pride in his work as Chief Coiner but he too seems not to have cared about the orientation of the 1837 issue. Again, this flies in the face of common sense.

    3) Franklin Peale, the brother of artist Titian Peale, was already closely involved in the coinage and in fact became chief coiner in 1839 – and was directly responsbile for the 1839 Gobrechts, for example. According to the revisionist theories (and that is all they are, theories) Franklin Peale did not care either. I find that very hard to believe, especially considering that the brothers were very close all of their lives.

    4) It has been estimated that from 1 to 3 percent of large cents from the 1830s are presently in existence. Of course, collectors and ordinary people in the 1850s could easily afford to save a few cent pieces as the cost was not all that great even with the wages of that time and, furthermore, the coins were in daily use. On the other hand a dollar was a good bit of money in the 1830s and how many people could afford to lay aside a Gobrecht dollar from the new issue? Those who were interested could have gone to the Mint and obtained one of the December 1836 issues for face value and in perfect condition. If we take the upper figure, 3 percent, then 18 specimens (3 percent of 600) on average might have been preserved but probably less because silver dollars did not generally circulate among the public in the 1850s.

    5) From mid-1849 through early 1853 a large number of silver dollars were taken from banks and business holdings to be melted and the resulting bars shipped to Europe. The number so treated is unknown but can be safely estimated as exceeding 50,000 pieces but perhaps much higher. In addition it is known that the Philadelphia Mint itself melted more than 350,000 Seated Liberty dollars, mostly during the early 1860s. These mass melting could easily have wiped out the 1839 issue, for example.

    Denga
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have in my collection three coins dated 1837, each of which has the reverse rotated 20 degrees. There's no doubt in my mind that the 1837 issue of the Gobrecht dollar could have such a rotated reverse .... just as the 'revisionist theories' assert.
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Sunday March 25, 2007

    [i[I have in my collection three coins dated 1837, each of which has the reverse rotated 20 degrees. There's no doubt in my mind that the 1837 issue of the Gobrecht dollar could have such a rotated reverse .... just as the 'revisionist theories' assert.

    *************
    The restriking of the late 1850s need not have all been done on one day and almost certainly was not; it is also quite possible that restrikes were made on occasion under Chief Coiner Franklin Peale in the 1840s. Peale is known to have restruck medals from the old dies on hand and he did have control of the old coinage dies and hubs until he left the Mint in December 1854. All that the above statement by tradedollarnut proves is that the dies were not put back in the same exact place each time. I am also still waiting on a rational explanation as to why the three key officials noted in my earlier message failed to do their job; perhaps the revisionist theory also classifies them as the Three Stooges, incapable of doing anything right.

    It should also be remembered that the Gobrecht coinages were meant as showpieces for what the Mint was capable of doing yet the revisionists would have us believe that bumbling idiots ran the coining room and directorship. Others may well think this is true but I do not.

    Dr. Robert Maskell Patterson was one of the most brilliant and well-educated men to occupy the post of director but he was also of a stern mode and made certain that all mint operations were done strictly according to the rules. He was especially adamant that U.S. coins be the equal, in both artwork and execution, of any then made in Europe and the supposedly incompetent die-work of March 1837 hardly fits this mold.

    Denga
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    And yet lots of other denominations produced that same year were allowed out of the mint with a 20 degree rotation of the reverse ... why not the Gobrecht? The other denominations PROVE the mint at that time was having trouble keeping the dies from rotating. The 'revisionist theory' shows conclusively that the dies on the '1837' Gobrechts did in fact come loose and rotate during use - there are examples in existance that show the progression of rotation.

  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Sunday March 25, 2007 5:29 PM
    And yet lots of other denominations produced that same year were allowed out of the mint with a 20 degree rotation of the reverse ... why not the Gobrecht? The other denominations PROVE the mint at that time was having trouble keeping the dies from rotating. The 'revisionist theory' shows conclusively that the dies on the '1837' Gobrechts did in fact come loose and rotate during use - there are examples in existance that show the progression of rotation.
    There's nothing but conjecture in your assertions... where's your proof?
    ****************
    Circular reasoning. There is no proof whatsoever that the Gobrecht dies came loose in 1837 rather the 1850s when restriking is known to have been done. The Gobrecht dollar was a showpiece coinage, the others were not. What might have happened certainly does not prove what did happen. The 600 pieces struck in 1837 were all done at one time under close supervision because it it known that the order was for an important bank. We do not, in fact, even know if this bank actually distributed the coins outside of a mere handful. On the other hand perhaps tradedollarnut has proof they they were actually put into the marketplace rather than being melted.

    I also note the usual reluctance on the part of those promoting the revisionist theory to discuss the roles of the three key officers and the massive melting of Seated Liberty dollars in the 19th century. In particular I would be interested in tradedollarnut's view of why Dr. Patterson suddenly no longer cared about his view of America rising in the world and being shown on the coinage by the eagle rising in the sky. Patterson is known to have been intensely interested in the quality of our coinage yet, apparently, suddenly lost interest?

    As to proof of my statements I am merely reporting what was supposed to happen by order of Dr. Patterson, who ran the Mint on very strict terms. It is incumbent on the revisionist supporters to prove that the Mint failed not only once (1837) but inexplicably for a second time in 1839 to correctly position the dies. I have seen nothing but circular reasoning and unproven assertions to date.

    Denga


  • ziggy29ziggy29 Posts: 18,668 ✭✭✭
    If you can afford it for your type set, it's a regular issue. If you can't, it's a pattern.

    Therefore, for me it's a pattern. image
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, I see - it's so much more important to get that reverse correctly aligned on the second issuance of a coin for general circulation than it is to get it just right when you're selling the restrikes to picky collectors. And in the 1850's there were how many numismatists in this country collecting silver dollars? A dozen? Two dozen? Why make hundreds of restrikes to satisfy a few handfuls of demand?
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Sunday March 25, 2007

    Yes, I see - it's so much more important to get that reverse correctly aligned on the second issuance of a coin for general circulation than it is to get it just right when you're selling the restrikes to picky collectors. And in the 1850's there were how many numismatists in this country collecting silver dollars? A dozen? Two dozen? Why make hundreds of restrikes to satisfy a few handfuls of demand?
    Sorry, but you've nothing to back up your assertions but supposition.


    ******************

    More circular reasoning. In the first place tradedollarnut does not have the slightest idea of the actual demand from collectors in the late 1850s for Gobrecht dollars. However, common sense says that any collector of more than modest means would have been interested in obtaining rare or valuable coins of great artisty, such as the Gobrecht dollar. That they might not collect silver dollars per se is irrelevant. The amount of coins sold or traded by Mint Director Snowden in the late 1850s was estimated at the time to be worth at least $50,000 and there seems little doubt that Gobrecht dollars would be have been a strong part of this sum.

    That "hundreds" of original Gobrecht dollars still exist, as claimed by tradedollarnut, flies in the face of strong statistical evidence to the contrary.

    Having said the above, however, perhaps it would be proper to proceed to another of tradedollarnut's arguments. He claims, without a shred of evidence, that the fact that other coins of 1837 show rotated dies proves that the 1837 Gobrechts with rotated dies were made in 1837. This is bad circular reasoning but even worse when other facts are considered. The other coins of 1837 noted by tradedollarnut were struck on steam presses but the Gobrecht dollars of 1836 and 1837 were made on the large screw press. In other words the critical rotation argument produced by revisionists merely indicates that they do not understand the mint technology of 1836–1837. All proof coins prior to 1894 were struck on screw presses, without exception.

    It gets more interesting when we get to 1839 and the 300 pieces of that year. These are reeded are there are reasons to believe that they were in fact struck on a steam press, meaning that they were not proofs. Director Patterson was, in late 1839, putting the finishing touches on his plans to begin full-scale silver dollar coinage in 1840, a plan delayed somewhat by the artistic revisions carried out by Robert Ball Hughes. The fact that the 1839s have a reeded edge is clear evidence of having been made on a steam press as otherwise the old plain edge collar and the screw press would have been used; the point of using a steam press, in Patterson's mind, would have been a test run as the full-scale dollar coinage scheduled for 1840 would of necessity use the steam presses. If this is correct, and the preponderance of evidence says that it is, then any 1839 Gobrecht dollar in proof with the eagle flying flat is a restrike, period, despite pronouncements to the contrary from TPGs.

    Were proofs then made in 1839? Almost certainly but only in miniscule numbers for a handful of people.

    As far as I am concerned the original statement that TPGs are doing a disservice to collectors – by slabbing Gobrecht restrikes as originals – still stands. Just to go on record, however, I will note that I do not own a Gobrecht dollar, nor have I ever.

    Denga
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭


    The large screw press was used for both medals and proof coins. The proof coins could be struck immediately with the necessary two or three blows but the medals required that the dies be fixed in position with no possibilty of rotation, due to the special annealing process used between strikes. In other words the coinage dies could be secured with absolute precision. This puts an end to any legitimate arguments from revisionists about die rotation in 1837.

    Denga
  • EagleEyeEagleEye Posts: 7,676 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I believe the original 1000 pieces from 1836 were struck with the eagle flying upwards in a coin turn (in proof format) but at the old standard of .8924 silver. Then the 600 pieces struck with the same dies (also proofs ) were struck in the .900 silver and given a medalic turn to identify them. All were realeased into circulation (to the Bank of the United States)

    A quick glance at the red book will fill in the information, I would bet Mr. Eureka wrote that section. image
    Rick Snow, Eagle Eye Rare Coins, Inc.Check out my new web site:
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    All proof coins prior to 1894 were struck on screw presses, without exception.

    Who says they are proofs? Or more appropriately - how do we know they were considered proofs at the time? They were released to circulation - this would seem to indicate that they were NOT considered proof coinage.
  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 23,892 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A quick glance at the red book will fill in the information, I would bet Mr. Eureka wrote that section.

    Name the amount of the bet and write the check!
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Sunday March 25, 2007

    All proof coins prior to 1894 were struck on screw presses, without exception.

    Who says they are proofs?

    ***********

    And your point, if there is one?

    Is this a new revisionist theory in place of the recently discredited one?

    Denga

  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Sunday March 25, 2007

    I hardly think you've managed to discredit anything, let alone a well thought out theory that prominent numismatists such as John Danreuther subscribe to...
    *My* revisionist theory? Hardly... though I happen to agree with it. My question stands: how do you know the mint at the time considered the coins to be proofs?


    ******************

    In the first place not all "prominent numismatists" subscribe to the revisionist theory; some think otherwise. As to being "well thought out" I will leave that for others to decide.

    As to whether the Mint considered the coins to be proofs, this is irrelevant, as is much of your discussion. Breen and others consider the 1836 Gobrecht dollars as being proofs though Breen does note in his proof book that the 1836s have rounded edges rather than knife rims. I am aware that there is a school of thought that the 1836-1837 Gobrecht are Proof-Like but this alters nothing. The fact remains that one of the main pillars of the revisionist argument, that other coins of 1837 show die rotation, is now shown to be meaningless because different kinds of presses were used. I have to thank tradedollarnut for raising this point as otherwise it might have passed unnoticed.

    I will say it again: TPGs who slab restrike Gobrecht dollars as originals are doing a disservice to collectors. Why? Because those who have genuine originals have seen the value of their coins cheapened in the process.

    Denga

  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Monday March 26, 2007

    The fact remains that one of the main pillars of the revisionist argument, that other coins of 1837 show die rotation, is now shown to be meaningless because different kinds of presses were used
    Now who is using circular logic? You state the coins cannot have rotated dies because they were proofs and all proofs were struck on the screw press until 1894. Then, when faced with the question of whether or not the mint considered them to be proofs, you sidestep the issue and state that it's irrelevant - the issue is already decided. Yet the cornerstone of your revisionist revisionist theory is that they were proofs and thus struck on the screw press.
    Obviously the question is not irrelevant, you just don't like the answer.

    ******************
    Wrong again. The question of proof status really is irrelevant. Gobrecht dollars were struck on a screw press in 1836 and 1837 because the new steam press was not ready for a coin of this size. It is true that proofs were struck on a large screw press until an hydraulic press was installed in 1894 but being struck on a screw press does not automatically mean that a coin is a proof.

    My personal view is that the 1836–1837 Gobrecht dollars were intended as proofs by the Mint but whether they meet present-day standards I will leave to others to decide.

    In case tradedollarnut missed this comment last time I will state it again: TPGs that slab restrike Gobrecht dollars as originals are doing a disservice to collectors.

    Denga
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
    And we haven't even gotten to the die rust and cracks about the reverse legend yet... image
  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 33,811 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I will state it again: TPGs that slab restrike Gobrecht dollars as originals are doing a disservice to collectors. >>

    Is this being debated or just whether some are regular circulation issues?
  • dengadenga Posts: 903 ✭✭✭
    tradedollarnut Monday March 26, 2007

    And we haven't even gotten to the die rust and cracks about the reverse legend yet...

    *****************

    Another argument equally irrelevant. If a restrike of the 1850s happened to get the orientation correct by
    accident this would negate any remarks about die rust or cracks. However, the defects noted might prove
    of value in separating the possible later strikes in correct orientation from the true originals.

    Denga
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,146 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Denga - you are completely incorrect. Pardon for asking - are you using the tinfoil for something else???
    The Accumulator - Dark Lloyd of the Sith

    image

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file