Guess this belongs here. "E" or "L" on bust quarters.
topstuf
Posts: 14,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
topstuf
Posts: 14,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
why does ngc and not pcgs certtify them as such??
are they mint made?
what was the first reference to them made? waht year?
why are they so advidly collected by decades of bust quarter fans??
and hwo did these counterstamps??
are they mint made??
waht dates was this done to?
Of course that's only just another random theory, of which there are plenty. I don't think we'll ever know for sure.
Source for next paragraph is "E and L Counterstamps; The Questions Continue" by Bradley S. Karoleff, in the John Reich Journal, August 2006.
The counterstamped quarters were discovered late in the 19th century. Q. David Bowers' theory was that the initials stood for Excess and Light (weight), but weighings confirmed there was no difference in weight. Breen theorized they were school prizes for English and Latin. Bill Subjack theorized that the letters referred to reeding types of Edge and Lathe. Mark Hotz noted that Bowers mentioned that the counterstamps might have something to do with Lafayette's visit to the U. S. in 1825. Ted McAuley theorized that the counterstamps were voting tokens for members of the Economites and their Society in Harmony, PA, and the E stood for Economy and the L stood for Leonite for members of the Society that seceded from the colony. Brad Karoleff theorized that the counterstamped quarters were counters for Theodore Eckfeldt and Henry Linderman.
Now as to why the Bust Quarter collectors go nuts over these counterstamped quarters, I believe some classify them as varieties within the Bust Quarter series. Some probably are intrigued by the various theories and the fact that the reasoning behind their creation is still unknown. Some who collect the die varieties including the various die cracks and cuds known, probably collect them out of a desire to have a complete set. It's interesting to note that up until recently, the counterstamps were considered damage and their presence reduced the value of the coin. It's turned around recently so that the countrstamps now draw a small premium.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
They certainly are interesting, though.
See above for detailed info.
I think that the forum's own coinkat presented a detailed theory as well. There are many conflicting opinions. Personally, I think that Ted McAuley's Economite theory is the most solid. Many of the E and L quarters were present in the hoard. Ted presented a fantastic write-up in the JRCS Journal a few years ago. I had the pleasure to meet him at a Baltimore show last year.
I love E & L quarters. They once traded at a discount, but now they sell for the same as non-stamped quarters of the same grade, and even much more in certain cases.
<< <i>Good questions, Michael. Since I posted the want ad for the 1825/3 quarter with "E" counterstamp, let me try to answer your questions. No one is certain why the counterstamps were done or what they mean or who did them. The only dates known that are counterstamped are 1815 and 1825/3. Most of the coins are EF to Unc. with many being AU. All the punches are the same and the L's are over the L in LIBERTY and the E's are over the E in LIBERTY. NGC slabs them but to my knowledge PCGS does not. There is confusion as to whether thse were mint made or not. Some, but not many, of them have a flat spot on the reverse opposite the counterstamp; most do not. Source for next paragraph is "E and L Counterstamps; The Questions Continue" by Bradley S. Karoleff, in the John Reich Journal, August 2006. The counterstamped quarters were discovered late in the 19th century. Q. David Bowers' theory was that the initials stood for Excess and Light (weight), but weighings confirmed there was no difference in weight. Breen theorized they were school prizes for English and Latin. Bill Subjack theorized that the letters referred to reeding types of Edge and Lathe. Mark Hotz noted that Bowers mentioned that the counterstamps might have something to do with Lafayette's visit to the U. S. in 1825. Ted McAuley theorized that the counterstamps were voting tokens for members of the Economites and their Society in Harmony, PA, and the E stood for Economy and the L stood for Leonite for members of the Society that seceded from the colony. Brad Karoleff theorized that the counterstamped quarters were counters for Theodore Eckfeldt and Henry Linderman. Now as to why the Bust Quarter collectors go nuts over these counterstamped quarters, I believe some classify them as varieties within the Bust Quarter series. Some probably are intrigued by the various theories and the fact that the reasoning behind their creation is still unknown. Some who collect the die varieties including the various die cracks and cuds known, probably collect them out of a desire to have a complete set. It's interesting to note that up until recently, the counterstamps were considered damage and their presence reduced the value of the coin. It's turned around recently so that the countrstamps now draw a small premium. >>
This is the best summary I have ever read of these mysterious pieces.
Nice job, Rich!
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>This is the best summary I have ever read of these mysterious pieces.
Nice job, Rich! >>
Thanks, Dave but we should also thank Brad Karoleff, who wrote such a good summary to start with. Thanks, Brad!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
42/92
Karl Moulton's theory is not mentioned in Brad's summary, but I think it deserves some consideration. Karl (coinkat on this forum) pieced together an interesting theory that the coins were counterstamped in 1881 following the death of William DuBois, who was assayer at the Mint and curator the Mint's coin cabinet. You have to look at all of Karl's research to fully understand this, but it has some credibility. Maybe coinkat will post to this thread!
Personally, I still think that the Economite theory holds the most water. One thing that ANY researcher has failed to explain to me is this:
Why are the counterstamps found only on 2 varieties; 1815 and 1825 B-2?
My point is that if this were done outside of the Mint, then you would assume a wider array of dates and especially die varieties. I asked Ted this question, as well as Brad, and just got a shoulder shrug. Ted said, "hey, this is just a theory. I never said it was perfect."
In other words, all of the theories to date have some missing links. This may be a mystery forever, unless someone turns up an old newspaper article or other contemporary document explaining this phenomenon. I think that an explanation is out there.......somewhere.
<< <i>Why are the counterstamps found only on 2 varieties; 1815 and 1825 B-2? >>
I hadn't made that observation..thanks Dennis.
Another interesting fact: The 1815 with the "L" counterstamp is much rarer than the 1815 "E" counterstamp. The 1825's, in my opinion are about 50/50 on the marks.
<< <i>I believe the countermarks were NOT done at the US mint. I don't think the grading services should be encapsulating damaged coins. Until someone proves they were mint made, they are simply damaged. >>
So you don't think chopmarked Trade dollars should be graded either?
I think it a little contradictory that PCGS will slab chopmarked Trade dollars, but not the E and L Quarters
42/92
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
i see now they are they are popular and popularized and now after reading all of this clearly NOT OF MINT ORIGIN
<< <i>If these were made outside of the mint, why do so many show no trace of the stamp/ damage on the reverse? K >>
That is part of the mystery.
<< <i>I believe the countermarks were NOT done at the US mint. I don't think the grading services should be encapsulating damaged coins. Until someone proves they were mint made, they are simply damaged. >>
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
some have speculated that the coins were resting in a reverse die (!?!) when the countermarks were made
Alternatively, could a coushion of some sort have been employed, as of leather or some other softish material?
Some of these counterstamped coins display NO distortion of the reverse.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
some have speculated that the coins were resting in a reverse die (!?!) when the countermarks were made
Exactly. Those who support the "mint made" theory use this as a strong point.
Others who support the "post-mint" theory use the argument that it has been proven that a counterstamp can be imparted on a coin without affecting the opposite side. I could show you images of at least 20 counterstamped coins on my desk right now that support this fact.
I think they are post mint made counterstamps (Economite).
Are those counterstamps high grade mint state? K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>(Economite). >>
Dennis,
What makes you think these have anything to do with the Harmony Soc.?
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>If these were made outside of the mint, why do so many show no trace of the stamp/ damage on the reverse? K >>
To whit:
<< <i>
<< <i>If these were made outside of the mint, why do so many show no trace of the stamp/ damage on the reverse? K >>
To whit:
Don't we clearly see the flattening/bulging on the obverse between the elbow and the thigh?
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>Don't we clearly see the flattening/bulging on the obverse between the elbow and the thigh? >>
Yes we do TDN. The chopmarked Trade Dollars invariably show distortion opposite the point of each chopmark, just as the 1815 and 1825/3 countermarked bust quarter dollars invariably show NO distortion opposite the point of the countermarks, wether they are the E or the L. That is part of the mystery and intrigue among other aspects of similarity regarding the countermarked quarters. I own a mint state example of the 1825/3 which I have compared to many other examples, all of which are very uniform in appearance, leading me to at very least believe that the countermarking was done by someone with more than just a casual knowledge of the effects of using a letter punch on a coin...presumably a mint employee.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
Karl Moulton's theory is not mentioned in Brad's summary, but I think it deserves some consideration. Karl (coinkat on this forum) pieced together an interesting theory that the coins were counterstamped in 1881 following the death of William DuBois, who was assayer at the Mint and curator the Mint's coin cabinet. You have to look at all of Karl's research to fully understand this, but it has some credibility. Maybe coinkat will post to this thread!
Personally, I still think that the Economite theory holds the most water. One thing that ANY researcher has failed to explain to me is this: Why are the counterstamps found only on 2 varieties; 1815 and 1825 B-2?
My point is that if this were done outside of the Mint, then you would assume a wider array of dates and especially die varieties. I asked Ted this question, as well as Brad, and just got a shoulder shrug. Ted said, "hey, this is just a theory. I never said it was perfect."
In other words, all of the theories to date have some missing links. This may be a mystery forever, unless someone turns up an old newspaper article or other contemporary document explaining this phenomenon. I think that an explanation is out there.......somewhere.
**************
The fact that only two dates are involved is easily explained. Those who gave these pieces out as school prizes got a supply of new coins at a bank in 1816 and when that supply was exhausted went to a bank in 1825 for a fresh supply. In those days banks sent foreign coins in for recoinage (to be made into quarters, half dollars, &&) and would have received back their new coins all made at the same time, normally being from the same die pair.
School prizes for academic achievement were very common in the 19th century and Breen's theory about English and Latin is almost certainly correct although the Economite theory has a degree of merit. English and Latin were the two key subjects for academies in particular.
Mint records are totally silent on the counterstamping, indicating that the work was done elsewhere, probably by a jeweler.
Denga
<< <i>Numisma,
Are those counterstamps high grade mint state? K >>
Nic, some are high grade, some are not. The grade is not relevant regarding opposite side distortion. Take, for example, a French Colonies Sou with the ubiquitous "RF" stamp. They often show massive distortion, from Unc to Good.
<< <i>
<< <i>(Economite). >>
Dennis,
What makes you think these have anything to do with the Harmony Soc.? >>
Actually, I think that these were done prior to the Harmony Society, which is post Economite and Leonite struggles. But I think you are asking why I favor this theory over the others. I will post details in a subsequent post.
The fact that only two dates are involved is easily explained. Those who gave these pieces out as school prizes got a supply of new coins at a bank in 1816 and when that supply was exhausted went to a bank in 1825 for a fresh supply. In those days banks sent foreign coins in for recoinage (to be made into quarters, half dollars, &&) and would have received back their new coins all made at the same time, normally being from the same die pair.
School prizes for academic achievement were very common in the 19th century and Breen's theory about English and Latin is almost certainly correct although the Economite theory has a degree of merit. English and Latin were the two key subjects for academies in particular.
Mint records are totally silent on the counterstamping, indicating that the work was done elsewhere, probably by a jeweler.
Denga
Denga, I am not sure who you are, but in your scant 16 posts on this forum ALL of your posts have been very insightful and educational. You are clearly a true numismatist. Please post more!
Regarding your post as quoted above, I must first say that you raise some good points. Prior to 2004, I always believed in Breen's school theory. Heck, that's all we had. However, there are holes in the theory. I have actually made the same point that you made regarding the fact that the coins were probably acquired all at one time from a bank or, more likely, directly from the Mint. This would explain the fact that they are all of the same die marriage. I just don't buy the fact that the coins jump from 1815 to 1825; a ten year gap. IF the school had returned to the source to acquire more host coins ten years later, wouldn't one expect the 1815 coins to show more signs of wear than the 1825 coins? That is not the case. The fact that all of the known specimens (1815 and 1825) show comparable wear (EF to Unc) suggests that they were all counterstamped at about the same time.
For slumlord: One of the main reasons why I like the Economite/Leonite theory is that many of these coins were found in the 1960's in the area of Pennsylvania where the 2 groups habitated. We know that the massive Economite hoard contained many coins from this time period. Coincidence? Maybe, but I don't think so. These coins were used briefly and then retired to the hoard. To me that clearly explains why no examples in well circulated grades exist. I have handled hundreds upon hundreds of large size bust quarters and they are very plentiful in Fair, AG and Good. Bust quarters circulated heavily through the 19th century.
Another BIG hole in the Breen theory of Latin/English: If a student in.....let's say 1822....received an 1815 "L" quarter as a reward for scholastic accomplishment, what are the odds that the student would have saved the quarter for future generations? In 1822? I don't think so. Now, consider the odds that EVERY student who received the quarter reward would have saved the quarter as opposed to spending it. Extremely unlikely. Large sized bust quarters wore quickly, based on the metal and, more importantly, the thickness and corresponding shallow details.
Whatever the theory, these coins were made at the same time and saw limited (if any) circulation. My guess is that the coins were acquired by the Economites in 1815 from the Mint (or a bank close to the Mint), and then again in 1825. All of the coins at this point were in Uncirculated condition. The coins would have been added to their collosal hoard in individual bags. When it came time to counterstamp the coins for voting purposes, a couple of bags were taken from the hoard at random, hence the 10 year gap. It could have been 1820 quarters and 1828 quarters, for example.
To address the point regarding the lack of deformation on the reverse opposite the counterstamp, I would point out that some of the known examples do show deformation. Most do not. Again, I can show you many coins that are counterstamped that lack deformation on the opposite side. Some have argued that the Mint stamped the coins while still in the die. That just seems silly to me. If they were really marking these coins at the Mint for machine calibration purposes (or whatever), why would they care if deformatoin on the reverse occurred? Furthermore, why would the Mint have engaged in such a test in 1815, then wait until 1825 to test more coins?
I will post more later.
Regarding your post ..., I must first say that you raise some good points. Prior to 2004, I always believed in Breen's school theory. Heck, that's all we had. However, there are holes in the theory. I have actually made the same point that you made regarding the fact that the coins were probably acquired all at one time from a bank or, more likely, directly from the Mint. This would explain the fact that they are all of the same die marriage. I just don't buy the fact that the coins jump from 1815 to 1825; a ten year gap. IF the school had returned to the source to acquire more host coins ten years later, wouldn't one expect the 1815 coins to show more signs of wear than the 1825 coins? That is not the case. The fact that all of the known specimens (1815 and 1825) show comparable wear (EF to Unc) suggests that they were all counterstamped at about the same time.
Whatever the theory, these coins were made at the same time and saw limited (if any) circulation. My guess is that the coins were acquired by the Economites in 1815 from the Mint (or a bank close to the Mint), and then again in 1825. All of the coins at this point were in Uncirculated condition. The coins would have been added to their collosal hoard in individual bags. When it came time to counterstamp the coins for voting purposes, a couple of bags were taken from the hoard at random, hence the 10 year gap. It could have been 1820 quarters and 1828 quarters, for example.
******************
The amount of wear on the 1815 and 1825 issues is not exactly relevant. These pieces were probably awards at an academy and students attending this kind of school came from a better economic background; the parents had to pay for the schooling. This in turn means that such pieces would have been more likely to have been saved rather than spent as would true under other circumstances.
I have seen, and I suspect others have as well, family mementos where a relative won a prize of some sort and it was handed down in the family. I have no doubt that the E and L pieces were also handed down but there is of course a time in some families that someone spends or sells an heirloom. If they were spent within a few years of the prize being awarded the chances are that they were lost to the numismatic world simply because of wear and later being melted. On the other hand those pieces which were held until, say, the 1870s before being spent had a good chance of being laid aside by a collector and thus surviving in high grade.
Denga
So I guess my question is, if these were school prizes as Breen indicates, how did so many of them end up buried in the woods of Pennsylvania?
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>The amount of wear on the 1815 and 1825 issues is not exactly relevant. >>
I agree that wear is not an issue in answering the question about the coins. 10 years seperation is nothing in the life of a coin.
I do have one question. If they were given out as awards for achievement i'm suprised that none have names or dates engraved on them honoring the individual who recieved them.
Similar to Love Tokens which were popular.
Does anyone know if or has seen one that has been engraved?
<< <i>
<< <i>The amount of wear on the 1815 and 1825 issues is not exactly relevant. >>
I agree that wear is not an issue in answering the question about the coins. 10 years seperation is nothing in the life of a coin.
I do have one question. If they were given out as awards for achievement i'm suprised that none have names or dates engraved on them honoring the individual who recieved them.
Similar to Love Tokens which were popular.
Does anyone know if or has seen one that has been engraved? >>
Good point about engraving. A classic example of engraving the student's name and date recieved can be found with the Franklin School Medals. These were awarded to students who excelled in the Boston public school system. I think they issued about 10 per year and they were actually struck at the Philadelphia Mint. These were awarded to students from his death in 1790 (I think) all the way into the early 1930's (I think). I have handled 5 of these medals so far, but I have seen several others. They usually come to the market through an estate liquidation and I am sure many more remain as heirlooms within the original families.
BTW, I think that 10 years of circulation for a lg. size bust qtr. would indeed show substantial wear. These coins were thin from the start, with shallow details. Small change was in short supply and they babies were used. We know this for a fact. Just check the pop reports on lg. size bust quarters.
The amount of wear on the 1815 and 1825 issues is not exactly relevant. These pieces were probably awards at an academy and students attending this kind of school came from a better economic background; the parents had to pay for the schooling. This in turn means that such pieces would have been more likely to have been saved rather than spent as would true under other circumstances.
I don't buy it. It's not like these were some grandiose medals. They are unassuming and imparted in a fairly crude manner. If you think about it, the "E" and "L" counterstamps are borderline inconspicuous. What kind of an award is that? Why not stamp the coin with "English" or "Latin" completely? As they are now, they don't seem worthy of saving as a family heirloom. Regarding Breen's theory, I would have expected at least a few of the recipients to spend there quarter for some candy. If Breen is correct, then these would have been used in elementary schools, not higher education. And a quarter was a lot money to an elementary student back then. I just don't buy it.
So I guess my question is, if these were school prizes as Breen indicates, how did so many of them end up buried in the woods of Pennsylvania? -Amanda
Exactly.
because, soon, someone ELSE would notice the counterstamp, and save it as a curiosity.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
how many think it is post mint??
how many think it is at the miunt befroe the release?
how many think post mint ecomite?
how many think post mint 1881 special event??
for me definately post mint and economite wohde
<< <i>Well, the general lack of circulation wear on these can be explained, even if the original recipient spent it.
because, soon, someone ELSE would notice the counterstamp, and save it as a curiosity. >>
That logic can be refuted by the simple fact that many, many, many counterstamped coins of this period exist....in all denominations. They are almost always well circulated AND they can come with elaborate counterstamps, which would be much more interesting than a small "E".
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Ahhh, but were these other coins counterstamped when brand new, or were they oftentimes counterstamped after already having been quite worn? >>
The answer in that they ranged in condition from medium wear and upwards, but your point is valid.
[from denga] The amount of wear on the 1815 and 1825 issues is not exactly relevant. These pieces were probably awards at an academy and students attending this kind of school came from a better economic background; the parents had to pay for the schooling. This in turn means that such pieces would have been more likely to have been saved rather than spent as would be true under other circumstances.
I don't buy it. It's not like these were some grandiose medals. They are unassuming and imparted in a fairly crude manner. If you think about it, the "E" and "L" counterstamps are borderline inconspicuous. What kind of an award is that? Why not stamp the coin with "English" or "Latin" completely? As they are now, they don't seem worthy of saving as a family heirloom. Regarding Breen's theory, I would have expected at least a few of the recipients to spend there quarter for some candy. If Breen is correct, then these would have been used in elementary schools, not higher education. And a quarter was a lot money to an elementary student back then. I just don't buy it.
******************
Academies were higher education only in the sense that they were the high schools of today. Publicly-funded education in 1815 Pennsylvania would not have been widespread above the first few grades. It is quite true that elementary students (using modern terminology) would have quickly spent these coins but that would not have been true with the better-off. Had prizes been awarded in an elementary school the award would been more on the order of a half cent or cent, a significant sum to a child in those days.
In addition, the style of marking - whether simple or ornate - has no bearing on the value to the recipient or later family members. One cannot apply modern standards to 1815. The family would have known what the prize meant even if others did not. The simplicity of the marking, however, did mean that after a generation or two it would have been spent if the meaning had been lost.
Denga
These counterstamps appear to have been very carefully applied.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Is it significant that the L is over the L in Liberty, while the E is over the E?
These counterstamps appear to have been very carefully applied. >>
I never noticed that. Very interesting. Maybe your point will spawn a new theory! There are other theories regarding the E & L counterstamps than what was posted here. I think that all of the theories have some validity, but they all seem to have a flaw or two. I would love to know the truth, but if the leading numismatic researchers of our time cannot prove a theory definitively, then it probably always be a mystery. All it would take is one newspaper article or contemporary letter to learn the truth!
Someone please explain to me how these could have been made outside of the mint? The letters are in the field, the dense part of a struck coin. NO deformity on the reverse of most; many high grade specimens remain to be examined. The letters are deep and not engraved.
? K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>
<< <i>Is it significant that the L is over the L in Liberty, while the E is over the E?
These counterstamps appear to have been very carefully applied. >>
I never noticed that. Very interesting. Maybe your point will spawn a new theory! There are other theories regarding the E & L counterstamps than what was posted here. I think that all of the theories have some validity, but they all seem to have a flaw or two. I would love to know the truth, but if the leading numismatic researchers of our time cannot prove a theory definitively, then it probably always be a mystery. All it would take is one newspaper article or contemporary letter to learn the truth! >>
One idea I have always held regard for is the following: It is apparent that only one die marriage appears for each of the years observed with the counterstamps. It is theoretically posssible that the consistency of the countermarks to a particular die marriage could indicate a study by mint workers of the cant of the hammer die: E for even, L for left. A careful study of the obverse strike for all surviving examples would be a simple test of this theory.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
Here's some E's and L's. Anything ring a historic bell?
Early/Late
Excess/Light
Earth/Luna
Lunar Eclipse
???????????????????
<< <i>
<< <i>Is it significant that the L is over the L in Liberty, while the E is over the E?
These counterstamps appear to have been very carefully applied. >>
I never noticed that. Very interesting. Maybe your point will spawn a new theory! There are other theories regarding the E & L counterstamps than what was posted here. I think that all of the theories have some validity, but they all seem to have a flaw or two. I would love to know the truth, but if the leading numismatic researchers of our time cannot prove a theory definitively, then it probably always be a mystery. All it would take is one newspaper article or contemporary letter to learn the truth! >>
-----------
----------
No one will find out except through doing exhaustive research into contemporary literature.
Alll theories are fun, but you need evidence.
I could suggest/guess/joke the "E" was applied by John Reich, the designer and a mint engraver, to celebrate his
"E"mancipation and release after being freed from his bond of servitude. Next anniversery--it was
a clandestine "L" for his liberty. Theory is easy--this is a job for thr History Dectectives TV Show!
My daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 2 (2003). My son was diagnosed with Type 1 when he was 17 on December 31, 2009. We were stunned that another child of ours had been diagnosed. Please, if you don't have a favorite charity, consider giving to the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
JDRF Donation