Options
Whatzit #9, or, In Defense of the Bowie $5
Regulated
Posts: 2,992 ✭✭✭✭✭
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
0
Regulated
Posts: 2,992 ✭✭✭✭✭
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Comments
Photo-Shopped?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Congrats!
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
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 believe the jury is still out.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The article appears in italics below - my commentary will be in bold, non-italicized type.
The False Bowie $5 Coin.
1. Who was J. H. Bowie?
Those who argue the case for the genuineness of the Bowie $5 coin rely on what has been discovered about Bowie's biographical history. But just because a Joseph Haskins Bowie existed, that does not mean that he made the $5 Bowie piece - or the $1 copper pattern for that matter. Queen Victoria existed; we can prove she was a real person; that does not mean that every coin that depicts Queen Victoria is genuine.
It is useful to review what we know about the biographies of the historical Bowies before we approach the question of the genuineness of the Bowie $5 gold piece, partly because previous accounts have many mistakes (Kagin 1981, 65-67; Stack's 1/2001:1608).
There are at least two Bowies who could be likely candidates for the J. H. Bowie who issued the $1 pattern: Joseph Haskins Bowie of Baltimore and John H. Bowie of New York City. We begin with the Maryland Bowie, to whom Kagin ascribed the piece.
a. Joseph Haskins Bowie of Maryland.
Joseph Haskins Bowie, the eldest child of James Bowie and his wife, Anna Maria Barclay Haskins, was born in Georgetown, D.C., on January 5, 1816. He grew up in Montgomery County, Maryland, and then went to Baltimore. In the 1840 Federal census his household includes himself, his first wife, and a maidservant (Federal Census 1840, M653, roll 160). His first wife was Catherine Elizabeth Ran, by whom he would have one child. The Baltimore city directories from 1840 until 1845 show him working as a gold and silversmith (Matchett 1840-5). In the mid-1840s he moved to Illinois. On March 12, 1849 he left Baltimore on the St. Andrew, bound for Panama, with his cousins Hyde Raye and Hamilton Bowie (Haskins 1890). On the Pacific side the Bowies obtained passage from a whaler, the Sylph, which arrived in San Francisco on July 27, 1849 (Gardiner 1970, 61, 299). At the time of the 1860 Federal census Bowie was living in Edensburg, Hidalgo County, Texas. He was married to his second wife, Harriet Godfrey; they had two girls, Lilly and Ann, and one boy, Joseph (Federal census 1860, M653, roll 1297). Bowie returned to Monticello, Illinois, and died on a visit to St. Louis, Missouri, on January 5, 1879, aged exactly 63 (Bowie 1899, 153-54).
The other material published in numismatic books and auction catalogs about Bowie is imaginative fiction: whether Bowie as a child played beneath pine trees on a plantation in Montgomery county, childhood trips to North Carolina, by what means he crossed the Isthmus, where Bowie stayed when he arrived in San Francisco, and what he did after he arrived.
b. John H. Bowie of New York.
An alternative candidate to Joseph Haskins Bowie is John H. Bowie. He traded as John H. Bowie & Co. of 30 Ferry Street, New York City. In Wilson's 1849 city directory of New York, he advertises that he makes Hose for Croton water for fire engines, steamboats etc. etc., manufactured from the best oak tanned leather, with wrought copper rivets on hand and for sale at the lowest prices.
In the same directory for 1850-51, his advertisement reads, Awarded a gold medal at the late fair of the American Institute for the best leather hose and pipes. They have always on hand hose for Croton water, engines, steamboats etc., manufactured of the best materials, and for sale at the lowest prices.
Many California coiners came from New York City - Dan H. Moran, John Little Moffat, David Broderick, Frederick D. Kohler, Norris Gregg & Norris (Adams 1913, 61, 89-90, 101). Broderick and Kohler were firemen, so they would know Bowie's hoses. Norris Gregg & Norris were in a similar line of business; Bowie made copper rivets for hoses to run Croton water, Norris Gregg & Norris made fittings for steam, water, and gas pipes. These similar backgrounds suggest that John H. Bowie was the Bowie who made the $1 pattern.
It is possible that a third man - other than Joseph Haskins Bowie of Maryland or John H. Bowie of New York - struck the pattern with the name “J. H. Bowie.” The directories of the period are filled with James, John, and Joseph Bowies, and any of them could be our coiner. But given what we know of the backgrounds of the other coiners - Moran, Norris Gregg & Norris, Moffat, Kohler, and Broderick - John H. Bowie of New York is the likeliest possibility.
a) Not knowing who made a coin is not an argument against that coin's authenticity - take the Bar Cent, for example. b) The assertion that the John H. Bowie is a more likely manufacturer of the pattern due to his history in New York doesn't make him seem a more likely candidate than a goldsmith who migrated to California in 1849.
The lettering on the Bowie $5 is distinct from that on the well-pedigreed Bowie $1 copper pattern.
The J. H. Bowie $5 is modeled on a coin for which there is a good pedigree - the J. H. Bowie $1 pattern. But when we compare the Bowie $5 to the Bowie $1, the differences are distinct. The punches are from a different font. Hodder has misunderstood this argument, purporting to think that it is an argument based on punch linkage (Hodder 1999, 106). This is incorrect; the argument points to the different type fonts, which apply without regard to size. The letters on the Bowie $1 are much cruder. The G has an additional hook on the bottom right; it does not have this on the Bowie $5. The bars of the W cross each other; they do not do so on the Bowie $5.
The same could be said of Bechtler Coins or 1852-dated Moffat pieces, The existence of two different styles of punches on one company's coinage is not really all that unusual
The Bowie $5 coins differ in several important respects from the well-pedigreed Bowie $1 copper pattern.
The fineness is indicated in carats on the Bowie $1 pattern; it is indicated in thousandths on the questionable Bowie $5.
If the Bowie $1 pattern were produced on the East Coast, where fineness was often expressed in carats (think about Bechtlers), and the $5 were made in California, where fineness was usually expressed in thousandths, this inconsistency is hardly surprising.
The word dollars is abbreviated “DOL.” on the Bowie $1; it is spelt out “DOLLARS” on the Bowie $5. The term “Grains” is abbreviated “G.” on the Bowie $1; it is abbreviated “GRS.” on the Bowie $5. The numeral 1 is large enough to dominate the field on the Bowie $1; the numeral 5 is reduced in size so that it takes up less than half the field on the Bowie $5. The Bowie $1 puts “CAL.” above the tree and “GOLD” below; on the Bowie $5, “CAL. GOLD” both appear above the tree. The Bowie $5 has the date “1849” below the tree, the Bowie $1 has no date at all.
These would all appear to be functions of the relative size of these coins. Just examine a Bechtler Dollar and a Bechtler $5 to see examples of these supposedly damning inconsistencies.
The Bowie $1 has a broad, flat rim surrounding the field on the face that bears the numeral; the Bowie $5 has no such broad, flat rim.
Using this logic, one could argue that the obverse and reverse of the Bowie Dollar were made by different hands (after all, the obverse of the Dollar pattern has no such wide rim). The existence of a wide rim on one side of one coin by a maker does not mean that every coin by that maker should have a wide rim. Similar stylistic inconsistencies exist througout the Bechtler series - compare a beaded border $5 to an N-Reversed Dollar.
Like the questionable western gold bars, the Bowie $5 gives us much information we do not need: the fineness to the nearest thousandth (879 grains), and a date. This information is useless if the piece were going to circulate in San Francisco in 1849: there were not enough parting acids available for someone to check if the coin really contained 879 thousandths. But this information, especially the date, is useful if one is passing a forgery as one of the earliest coins of the California Gold Rush.
Again, a cursory study of the Bechtler Coinage (with which a Maryland Native like Joseph Bowie would have been familiar) shows exactly this sort of information: weight, fineness, date, and even the putative locale where the gold was mined. This constitutes no sort of argument at all against the authenticity of Bowie's $5s.
It would have been impossible for these Bowie $1s and $5s to circulate together. They were struck to different finenesses and different weight standards. Coiners tried to produce coins where the denominations were related - so if you had five Bowie $1 coins, they would weigh as much as one Bowie $5. In order to accept the Bowie $5 as genuine, we must believe that Bowie rejected his entire original coinage idea (as expressed in the $1 pattern), and then created a totally different issue. This is not credible. Norris, Gregg & Norris had no trouble circulating coins that were stamped “without alloy;” so why did not Bowie just stick with his original plan, instead of preparing dies for coins that are 879 thousandths fine?
Just another example of the author's ignorance of Pioneer Gold Coins. Bechtler Gold came in 20, 21 and 22-carats, with corresponding differences in weight. Why should we hold Bowie to a different standard?
It has been suggested that Bowie made his dies in Baltimore and brought them to California (Stack's 1/2001:1608). This cannot be the case for the Bowie $5 coins - Bowie had no way of knowing that California gold would be 879 thousandths fine in Baltimore. Let us suppose that Bowie made both the $1 and $5 dies in California. Why, since he was on the spot and knew the fineness of California gold, did he first make the $1 dies with a 24 carat fineness, and then switch to the 879 thousandths? He would have put himself to much unnecessary work. The third hypothesis, that Bowie made the $1 dies in Baltimore, brought them to California, and then made the $5 dies, is no more satisfactory. Why, having gone to the trouble of bringing coining equipment across the Isthmus of Panama, did he abandon his original plan and start again from scratch in the difficult circumstances of San Francisco in 1849? Transporting coining equipment to the west coast was not easy (Adams 1913, 92). None of these hypotheses is believable. The explanation that fits the facts best is that the Bowie $1 was a genuine pattern made on the east coast, and the Bowie $5 a modern forgery.
I must concede that Mr. Kleeburg makes a decent point here. The dies for the $5 probably were not made on the East Coast (even in Massapequa); however, it seems to me that another possible explanation of the differences between the two pieces is that the Dollar pattern was made on the East Coast, conforming to certain standards established by the Bechtlers, while the $5 was made in the West, slightly altering the Bechtler formula to fit the way things were being done in the gold fields of California.
4. The skewed pattern of discovery of new Bowie $5s shows that a forger is at work.
Although the Bowie $1 copper pattern, which is unique, has a pedigree back to the Stickney sale in 1907, the Bowie $5's pedigree is much shorter. It was first published in 1961 in Henry Clifford's article on pioneer gold, and Clifford only came across it after he had prepared the main body of the article (Clifford 1961, 27). John Ford then owned the coin; a photograph was published in a New Netherlands advertisement of 1963 (see New Netherlands Auction 57, 12/1963). The second example turned up in 1982 (Hodder 1999, 106). The third example turned up in August 2000. Until recently, no source has been published for these three pieces, except vague remarks of “discovered in a western collection.” “A western collection” is probably a euphemism for Paul Franklin, the “discoverer” of the “Franklin Hoard,” for the Bowie $5 was consigned to an auction with other pieces we know to have been in his estate - see Stack's 1/2001:1608. For over sixty years only one Bowie $1 piece - and that a pattern in copper - was known to collectors. In half that time not one, but three gold examples of the Bowie $5 have turned up. This contradicts what we know about the relative survival rates of gold and copper.
What he is referring to here is a situation where large numbers of copper coins were struck to circulate - if the copper piece is a pattern, which it clearly must be, the "survival rates" he is talking about do not really apply.
Dave Bowers has interviewed John Ford, who says that all three of these coins trace back to Paul Franklin, who got them from a family in Massachusetts in the 1950s (Bowers 2002, 350 note 2). This pedigree blatantly contradicts the Stack's catalog of 2001, which stated that the 1983 Bowie $5 and the 2001 Bowie $5 both “came previously unheralded from a collection out west” (Stack's 2001:1608). In 1961, when the first Bowie $5 was leaked onto the market, Henry Clifford acclaimed it as “unique” (Clifford 1961). In 1983 Donald Kagin believed he had made a major discovery when he found the second Bowie $5 (Kagin 1983). In 1999, Hodder claimed that each of the two Bowie coins he knew of then (although Franklin and Ford knew of three) had an independent pedigree (Hodder 1999, 106 n. 44); yet in 2002 we learn that the pedigrees of the three coins are by no means independent, in fact they all lead back to Paul Franklin. Hodder, likewise, published the finding of the third Bowie $5 as yet another great discovery in 2000 (Hodder 2000). And John Ford and Paul Franklin sat back and knew that Clifford was wrong and Kagin was wrong and Hodder was wrong; for Paul Franklin had acquired all three at once. Yet Ford and Franklin said nothing to clear up the confusion until January 2001 (Bowers 2002, 350 note 2).
I do not have the original documents on hand for comparison, and cannot comment with any level of accuracy as to the veracity of these statements. It is, of course, possible that Ford was mistaken when he related this story to Bowers.
Hodder claims that the ANA authenticated this coin in 1982, and then published it on the cover of the September 1983 Numismatist (Hodder 1999, 106 n. 44). The coin does appear there, but the magazine has no discussion about the authenticity or provenance of the piece. Instead it has an article by Donald Kagin about Bowie's family background that is identical to his 1981 book. If the case for the authenticity of the Bowie coin is so strong, why was it not made in September 1983 instead of irrelevant genealogical digressions that were already published elsewhere?
If the piece was not deemed controversial, it would be highly unlikely that the magazine would go to any great lengths to confirm its authenticity (something which wasn't being called into question at the time).
5. Technological reasons prove the Bowie $5 is a forgery.
a. Problems with the fineness and non-destructive analysis prove the coin is a forgery.
The Bowie $5, which purports to be issued at the same time as the Bowie $1...
The Bowie $5 purports to be from 1849. The Dollar is undated. While we can deduce that the Dollar must have been made in 1849 (the discovery of gold in California did not become widely known in the East until December of 1848), the above statement is misleading.
...uses a different gold standard. It says that it is struck from 879 fine gold. The Bowie $1 says that it was struck from 24-carat gold. This is analogous to the early private gold issues: Norris, Gregg & Norris were “without alloy” and the Mormon coins were “pure gold.” The questionable Bowie $5 piece uses a fineness in thousandths, rather than carats.
Reported assays during the era generally expressed fineness in thousandths. Bowie's claim that his coins were 879 fine were consistent with the method in use at the time they were made.
It is improbable that California assayers were able to determine the fineness to that degree in 1849. In order to do so, one needed nitric acid, which was scarcer than gold. Moffat issued his bars in carats and fractions of the carat - his smallest fraction is thirty-seconds. Moffat could distinguish fineness only as far as one 768th. Yet if we are to credit the Bowie coin, Bowie could distinguish fineness to the nearest thousandth.
While nitric acid was certainly rare in California at the time the coin was struck, assays were undoubtedly conducted in California during 1849. Furthermore, assay results conducted in the East were published in California in 1849. While Bowie may not have been able to determine the fineness of gold on his own, it seems likely that he would have access to these results. The assertion that Moffat COULD NOT distinguish fineness past 1/768th is supposition, not fact, and even if this were true, there may have been others in the area who could determine fineness to the thousandth.
Non-destructive analysis has shown that the Bowie coins do not contain the amount of metal they purport to have. One tests at 860 fine; another at 884 (Stack's 1/2001:1608). 860 fine is over 2% debased. Given that Baldwin, considered the most notorious of the issuers of debased coins, debased his coins by only 3%, it seems surprising that Bowie should promise coins 879 fine, when he could not deliver this degree of fineness. Non-destructive testing shows that his coins could vary nearly 3% in fineness. Why promise fineness to the accuracy of one-thousandth, when Bowie could not deliver fineness to the accuracy of one hundredth - and, it was, moreover, a degree of accuracy that none of his competitors was promising?
Bowie's inability to produce coins of a given fineness would not necessarily preclude him from stating a fineness on his dies. .879-fine would have been on the very low end of the reported assays of California gold in 1849. Perhaps Bowie considered this a safe claim to make, and then went about coining gold without carefully checking its fineness?
b. The oddly high rim is not typical of the early California issues.
The Bowie $5 also has an oddly high rim, as if it were struck under tremendous pressure, yet we know that the early California issues were struck with sledgehammers, not with steam presses (Adams 1913, 61). All the fake Western coins have problems with their edges. The forgers never solved the problem of making a good collar.
Somewhat high rims, as described here, are known on some early California issues (the crimped edge Miner's Bank $10 jumps to mind). The rims of these coins appear to be the result not of modern, high pressure striking, but of sunken dies - a situation that occurs when the steel of a die is improperly hardened. The Bowie pieces would have knife (wire) rims if Kleeburg's assertion were true (a wire rim is not present on either of the Bowie pieces that I have seen). Furthermore, it is quite apparent that the coin pictured in this thread received at least two blows from the dies (substantial portions of the design appear doubled) - this is much more consistent with a method of manufacture involving a sledgehammer rather than a modern press.
When we look at the fake Bowie $5 and the copper $1 pattern it imitates, we can understand why this coin was forged. It has one of the simplest designs of any California coin: a stylistic pine tree that a child could draw. When the forgers tried more ambitious designs (such as the eagles for the Baldwin fake and the Southern Branch Mint proof piece), they made errors: the arrows were in the wrong claw or the wrong number of arrows. The Bowie coin was simple enough for the forgers to handle.
I suspect that the simplicity of the Bowie piece would make significant stylistic or manufacturing blunders obvious. To my eye, the Bowie $5 is of the right fabric, was made using historically appropriate punches and has the feel of a mid-19th century product.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
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.
Here's the whole pic:
Congrats!
Beautiful piece! Love the design and great condition