Options
1827 Quarters - Originals vs. Restrikes
MrEureka
Posts: 23,947 ✭✭✭✭✭
Conventional wisdom has long been that the 1827/3/2 quarters with a curled base 2 on the reverse are the originals and the ones with the square base 2 are restrikes. This made sense, since the square base 2 coins were thought to all come from heavily rusted dies, unlike the curled base 2 coins. The thinking was that, obviously, when it was time to restrike the coin, the rusted obverse was paired with a randomly selected rusted reverse.
Here's an example of the rusted dies restrike.
Now that two square-base 2 examples from completely unrusted dies have come to light (Somerset and Eliasberg), there has been an effort to reclassify the coins. Most notably, see this article by Karl Moulton, in which he argues that the unrusted square-base 2 coins were the first two struck in 1827, the so-called "originals" followed later in the year, and the rusted dies pieces were (obviously) struck much later.
Moulton's argument as to which coins were struck first is controversial, although I tend to think he is correct. However, what is certain (IMHO) is that the square-base 2 coins can no longer be (edited to add "AUTOMATICALLY") classified as restrikes. My suggestion is that the coins be reclassified as follows:
1827/3/2 Curled Base Original
1827/3/2 Square Base Original
1827/3/2 Square Base Restrike
What do you think?
Here's an example of the rusted dies restrike.
Now that two square-base 2 examples from completely unrusted dies have come to light (Somerset and Eliasberg), there has been an effort to reclassify the coins. Most notably, see this article by Karl Moulton, in which he argues that the unrusted square-base 2 coins were the first two struck in 1827, the so-called "originals" followed later in the year, and the rusted dies pieces were (obviously) struck much later.
Moulton's argument as to which coins were struck first is controversial, although I tend to think he is correct. However, what is certain (IMHO) is that the square-base 2 coins can no longer be (edited to add "AUTOMATICALLY") classified as restrikes. My suggestion is that the coins be reclassified as follows:
1827/3/2 Curled Base Original
1827/3/2 Square Base Original
1827/3/2 Square Base Restrike
What do you think?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Karl Moulton did a fantastic write-up on this subject. He is amazing.
My opinion? Karl makes a great case and I think he is correct. For the purpose of your line up, the 1827 Square Base 2 "original", should be "essay piece", per Karl's research paper.
Thanks for starting this thread.
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
I have a funny feeling I read it before, but I'm sure I better understood it this time.
-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
When I hear "original" I think of coins that were produced in the dated year for circulation. When I hear "restrike" I think of coins that were produced at a later date, with the old dies, for purposes other than circulation.
-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
Karl states that the 2 essay pieces were struck on cut down (to remove reeding), worn draped bust quarters. Has anyone checked the weight of the 2 essay coins? Should be under spec if this fact is accurate.
Tom
<< <i>I'm curious on how he came out with knowing which dies came first. It does seem reasonable assumption.
Tom >>
I believe it is the style of Twos used on the reverse. The obverse dies were the same for all issues.
-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
Bowers states in the Eliasberg catalog: Die Notes - Early die state with very light die rust. A short die crack from the reverse rim bisects the U and extends to the eagle's wing.
Light die rust? Any of this on the 'originals'? A die crack on the reverse? From striking two coins? Hmmmm.
Coin Rarities Online
A die crack on the reverse? From striking two coins? Hmmmm.
It was an 1819 B-2 reverse that had already been used in production.
<< <i>A die crack on the reverse? From striking two coins? Hmmmm.
It was an 1819 B-2 reverse that had already been used in production. >>
Ok - but why go to the trouble of cutting down early quarters for planchet stock? That makes zero sense to me when the mint was currently producing the proper planchets. And how about the light die rust on the obverse?
Show me the obverse die was lapped between striking the first two 'restrikes' and the 'originals' and then you'll make a believer out of me.
Ok - but why go to the trouble of cutting down early quarters for planchet stock? That makes zero sense to me when the mint was currently producing the proper planchets. And how about the light die rust on the obverse?
Karl's theory is that they needed to modify a planchet to test the new closed collar device. I can't say regarding your question on the light die rust. That is a very good point and I would like to hear Karl's response.
I didn't see any evidence of die rust on the Eliasberg coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Now THIS is the kind of thread I come to these boards for! >>
-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> I can't say regarding your question on the light die rust.
I didn't see any evidence of die rust on the Eliasberg coin. >>
The Eliasberg 1827 quarter is the Original that circulated. It was sold by Superior in January 2004 and it is in a Proof-20 NGC holder. It's possible that any light die rust on this specific coin was removed as the coin circulated.
Therefore, we need to have someone examine one of the 8 Originals that is still in Proof condition. I know that Legend had one of these I think a year or so ago, I don't know where any of the others might be.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i> I can't say regarding your question on the light die rust.
I didn't see any evidence of die rust on the Eliasberg coin. >>
The Eliasberg 1827 quarter is the Original that circulated. It was sold by Superior in January 2004 and it is in a Proof-20 NGC holder. It's possible that any light die rust on this specific coin was removed as the coin circulated.
Therefore, we need to have someone examine one of the 8 Originals that is still in Proof condition. I know that Legend had one of these I think a year or so ago, I don't know where any of the others might be. >>
No, that quote was from the next lot - Eliasberg's so called restrike ... one of the two supposed Essay pieces.
It is conceivable that die cracks COULD happen EARLY after using already-used reverse dies or even more convincingly, different obverse date dies (overdates). Take a look at the 1817/4 half dollar story, and why they stopped short of "semi-mass" producing more than a dozen or so.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
One point in his article needs to be fixed, though. The apparent "faint digit" to the left of the 1 in the date turned out to be a lint mark.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Now THIS is the kind of thread I come to these boards for! >>
Damp Right!!!!
Since I was not a member of the boards when the earlier threads were posted, I would like to make mention that there is no die rust on the two overstruck pieces (as written in the 1997 Eliasberg catalogue).
You can't believe everything you read, especially in an auction catalogue. That's how I got involved in doing research on these pieces in the first place (after reading Breen's rhetoric). The fact that the two Essays did not have any visible surface rust has been confirmed by Tompkins, Dannruether, and several others when both coins were taken out of their original holders to make critical examinations in 2007-2008.
TTT
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I'll bet that if we put the Garrett-Pogue B-1, the TDN B-1 and B-2, and the Eliasberg B-2 side by side in front of a group of qualified numismatists, we could settle this debate once and for all.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I'm stuck on "essay piece". I've heard of "assay piece" (although why one would use a cut-down planchet for an assay piece eludes me).
Can anyone clarify?
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
"Essay piece" means "Trial piece". It's not my preferred terminology, but it is correct. Anyway, Karl's point is that the two overstruck pieces were created in testing the new close collar press known to have been acquired by the Mint in late 1827.
Karl argues that slightly narrower planchets were required for the close collar set-up. I suppose that the old-style blanks could have been cut down for the purpose, but cutting down old coins would have been just as easy. Perhaps no old blanks were available?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Cool. If no die rust then it certainly makes more sense as a theory
I’ll have the Eliasberg 1827 B-2 at ANA this year. Everyone bring your B-1’s for comparison!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The B-2 "Essay" is lapped and semi-PL. The B-1 is fully mirrored.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This just might get me to make the trip this year. I've been on the fence for a while now.
I’ll come by to see this coin for sure. The last 1827 I held was the VF piece. Sure wish I could’ve found a way to buy that one...
Great topic for discussion. One which has been debated for years and will continue for as many. Using an 1804 Large Cent as an example, lets step back in time to say, 1817. When dies from the Philadelphia mint served their purpose, or in some cases discovered in a following year, the mint would sell them as scrap. It did not take mint officials long to determine that these very dies could be used for counterfeiting purposes, ending the practice I believe early 1820's.
Back to the 1804 cent. A reputable dealer has an ad for one graded PCGS MS-67 RB, Private Re-strike. stated on the label. Having been struck with rusted dies and from a "private" entity, would this not be considered a counterfeit? By definition, it is. I would surmise that around the time of these restrikes the mint declined to proceed with criminal charges since the dies were sold, by them. Again, only a theory. Plausible considering if it somehow occurred today you would most definitely be doing jail time.
Personally, I consider any coin not struck in or on the following year, by the United States Mint or by their authority to be counterfeit. Would I by a re-strike? Most definitely. But I would not consider it to be original or genuine.
I understand and (with the exception of a few things like 1795 Heraldic Eagle $5's, which were struck a few years later) wouldn't argue with your point, but you've got the terminology wrong. Think about the various classes of 1804 Dollars, for example. Bottom line is that it's best to use accepted numismatic terminology so that people know what you actually mean.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Is it presumed that 4,000 1827 quarters were made in the 4th quarter of that year, per the Annual Report for 1827?
4000 pieces reported coined in December 1827. Probably all dated 1828, and maybe all B-1. (1827 B-1 and 1828 B-1 share the same reverse.) The 1827 Obverse die and the 1827 B-2 Reverse die would have been retired, unrusted, not to see use again (in a heavily rusted state) until probably 1869 or so.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Other than the Bicentennial coins, how many coins were issued before the year shown on them?
Weren’t the Lafayette dollars struck in 1899? I don’t know when they were distributed, though.
witty quote goes here
Nowadays lots of bullion coins are pre-struck to be ready to ship right after the new year. I’m curious about normal business strikes struck and released before the date shown on them
In his article on 1827 Quarters, Karl Moulton suggests that dies of the new year were put into use after Christmas, not January 1. He argues that the 16000 quarters delivered on 12/31/23 were actually dated 1824/22, and the 4000 quarters delivered 12/29/27 were dated 1828. Based on the rarity of 1823 and 1827 quarters, it makes sense, but I don’t know that anyone had been able to prove it.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
That would make sense. As I basically said in my July Numismatist article with Dan Owens on the non-existent 1873-S Seated Dollars, the Mint would issue coins that were out of year if they had good reason to.
The 1827 report only shows a 4th quarter production - not the date of manufacture of delivery. If the die delivery records could be found, that would help a lot.....Maybe they are in one of RW Julian's old articles...?