The Eliasberg 1878-S Morgan

MrEureka

The Eliasberg 1878-S Morgan was cataloged as a Branch Mint proof and was engraved as being one of the first ten struck.

Two questions:

What is the VAM number of this coin?

There's mention in the catalog of a "first strike" ceremony that took place at 3:30 in the afternoon of April 17, 1878. It mentions that "in attendance were representatives of the press, former governor F.F. Low, mint officers and others." Where does that info come from and is there more info on who else might have been there?

Coxe

If memory serves me well, it was a VAM-58 (long nock B1 reverse).

edited to add >> What is interesting about this is that VAM-58 are often not found in mint state nor even higher circulated grades. Last I checked there was only a single XF around and none higher, but that could have changed. The VAM-56 and VAM-57 make up the lion's share of B1 reverse higher graded 1878-S Morgans. All three are likely the original dies used but for some reason VAM-58 is not represented like the others with the Eliasberg specimen being an exception.

morgannut2

I heard something about hi-grade another "long nock" out of Helena Montana and Wayne Millers Collection. In fact he only engraved ones I've heard of were the 12 (minus 2) 1921D's---I thought all the 1878's were given as presentation pieces--but not engraved. What's the story????

DennisH

"What is interesting about this is that VAM-58 are often not found in mint state nor even higher circulated grades. Last I checked there was only a single XF around and none higher, but that could have changed. "

I own that one!

MrEureka

I own that one!

How about posting an image for us? I'd like to compare it to the picture of the Eliasberg coin.

DennisH

Andy:

Both sides or just the reverse?

MrEureka

Dennis - Both sides. A close-up on the eye would also be a great help. Thanks!

MrEureka

If memory serves me well, it was a VAM-58

John - Looking at the picture in the catalog, the spike on the eye seems too high. What do you think?

DennisH

My apologies to the dialup folks... but Andy made me do it!

Connecticoin

Wow, don't need a close-up to see that!

Coxe

Heree is the ELiasberg one from the sale catalogue, reproduced per fair use. Sorry the scan sucks.


I am thinking it might be a VAM-56 as the mint mark position suggests that too.

coindeuce

Andy, I'm glad you're thorough enough to corroborate what I've already reported to you, er...I hope that's what I'm reading here
To answer your second question, of a historical nature, which seems to have been ignored by everyone here so far: the clue to your answer is in the statement made in the Eliasberg coin description:
There's mention in the catalog of a "first strike" ceremony that took place at 3:30 in the afternoon of April 17, 1878. It mentions that "in attendance were representatives of the press, former governor F.F. Low, mint officers and others." Where does that info come from and is there more info on who else might have been
there?
The remark about those in attendance is likely an excerpt from a contemporary newspaper article, which may or may not have been authored by representatives of the press, and was viewed and quoted in its proper context by the B&M cataloger, or it may have been part of the meticulous records that L.E. kept himself. It may necessitate your diligence in tracing the cataloger of this lot and/or researching newspaper articles from San Francisco newspaper archives from that time period to find the complete article or articles of similar wording. Perhap detailed information about the so-called April 17, 1878 first strike ceremony in San Francisco may even be contained in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Wish I had the time to do this kind of research in an attempt to unlock these mysteries of history, which to me are just as significant as the resulting coinage

Coxe

Here are a couple VAM-56 (separate coins and different grades) details.

MrEureka

Andy, I'm glad you're thorough enough to corroborate what I've already reported to you, er...I hope that's what I'm reading here

Dan - Think you can convince this crowd that the Eliasberg coin is a VAM 58? Go ahead, give it a try!

And don't forget, there's a second question in my original post...

coindeuce

Take two post steps back my friend...edited to be more thorough How about an A.P.B. for the current owner of the Eliasberg specimen? A first hand examination would remove any and all doubt, which I have none of. IT IS a VAM 58.

jdsinva

Is this the coin you had a while back that you had raw?

Wolf359

<< <i>"What is interesting about this is that VAM-58 are often not found in mint state nor even higher circulated grades. Last I checked there was only a single XF around and none higher, but that could have changed. "

I own that one! >>



Yeah I traded you that coin...Is somebody saying I traded a branch mint proof to Dennis?

DennisH

But it has a good home now!

CalGold

Does that obverse detail of the Eliasberg coin show clash marks by Liberty's mouth and nose? You would think the mint could strike 10 presentation coins without messing up their dies.


CG

messydesk

The rest of the Eliasberg listing says that after fewer than 1000 coins were made, one of the dies (doesn't say which one) broke, and coinage was stopped for the day. It's possible, though unlikely, that other than the presentation coins, the rest were unsightly enough due to die breakage that they were melted, and the mint started over the next day. It looks like there are die chips and pitting around the eye and temple as well (VAM 60?)

Logically, however, it cannot be VAM 56, since both II 24 and B1c were used in other die marriages (62 and 58), implying that 56 was struck between them. The first die marriage must have at least one die that was used in no other marriage, due to the breakage. Looking at the listings, no other VAM is eliminated this way. Someone FIND THAT COIN!

Shamika

<< <i>You would think the mint could strike 10 presentation coins without messing up their dies. >>


I was wondering the same thing!

I think the problem was in the engraving as opposed to clash. Perhaps somebody can confirm this.

Coxe

<< <i>Looking at the listings, no other VAM is eliminated this way. Someone FIND THAT COIN! >>



John B -- I should have bid stronger on that lot!

CalGold

Bowers says that ten die pairs were shipped to the SF and CC branch mints from Philly on April 8 and a press report says that they arrived in CC on April 16, with coinage scheduled to begin the next day.

There is no discussion in Bowers book of a first strike ceremony in SF, or any report on the date that the dies arrived, but if the dies came by train they should have arrived either the same day as the dies arrived in CC, or the next day at the latest.

However, Bowers says that three of the obverse dies and eight of the reverses were consider “unfit for use” by the SF Mint. There is no explanation of why they were “unfit for use.”

Were the “first strike” dies used for the Eliasberg coin really pitted and clashed? If so, how did they get that way on day one? Did Philly send SF used, damaged dies? Is that why some of the dies were “unfit for use”? One would think that SF would have used the best dies available for the presentation strikes, so if a clashed and pitted die was the best they had, what were the others like?

And if the dies were pitted, how did they get that way so quickly? It was only April. The seven feather reverse had just been put into production, so all of the dies were pretty new.

It is also interesting that the Eliasberg coin is a long nock. If the first coins struck in SF were the long nocks it would help explain why they are almost always found in lower grade. The SF mint had not struck any dollars for several years and had never struck them in commercial quantities. So they would not have had a backlog sitting in their vault. Most likely the first coins were immediately released to the banks, which would also not have had large supplies of dollar coins on hand. Later, as the quantity minted built up, the surplus coins would have been retained by the Mint or the banks. Bowers reports that the SF Mint probably wound up holding most of the 78-s mintage along with the 80-s, and 81-s coins for decades.

The CC long nocks probably would have been struck at the same time. Why those are more plentiful may be explained by Bowers comment that eight of the ten reverses sent ot SF were no good.

That raises the question of why Philly sent long nock dies to the branch mints. Why weren’t long nocks struck in Philly too? Why did they change the hub so soon?


CG

Coxe

I suspect the folks in CC cherried the best dies and passed along the dogs to SF, at least the obverses. I think the reverse mintmarks were prepunched in Philadelphia.

MrEureka

Meant to post this to the other thread. Accidental TTT, I guess.

Found these images on VAMworld.com

ricko

Nice images Andy... thanks... I think that coin was imaged in another recent thread ... that must be the one you were looking for... Cheers, RickO

CaptHenway

Nice! Thanks.