Somewhat edgy DW blog on the 1841 quarter eagle ("Little Princess")
RYK
Posts: 35,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
The 1841 quarter eagle is a classic US gold rarity, generally thought to be a proof-only issue. In today's blog installment, DW debunks the myth that this is indeed a proof-only issue.
Link to blog
Link to recently sold 1841 QE at Heritage
Background information on the 1841 QE from Heritage's recent offering:
<<1841 $2 1/2 PR53 PCGS. The existence and rarity of the proof-only 1841 quarter eagle was known almost since the day it was made. The first illustration of such a coin appeared in A Manual of Gold and Silver Coins of All Nations by Jacob Reese Eckfeldt and William E. Dubois, published the following year. While illustrations in a numismatic reference from 1842 have a much different appearance than they do today, being created in this case by a medal-ruling machine and appearing as a line engraving, the point is that the piece was actually illustrated. The medal-ruling machine was an innovation that made a two-dimensional engraving from a three-dimensional object.
An existing unanswered question regarding this issue surrounds the possible existence of business strikes. There is no Mint record of any pieces struck, as proofs of the time were not including in Mint accounts. However, the number of existing pieces is substantially greater than proofs of nearby years. Perhaps as many as 20 quarter eagles of 1841 are known today, while only about 20 proof quarter eagles are known for all other years from 1840 to 1849 combined. It is possibly the case that many additional proofs were struck for the other years, but eventually found their way into circulation, with wear or attrition being the reason they are not know identified. For the proof-only 1841, every piece that exists, regardless of grade, is considered a proof.
While this issue maintained a regular appearance in numismatic literature and also in established collections throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century. Most discussions surrounding this issue have taken place in the last 40 years, a time of substantial numismatic scholarship. This discussion usually surrounds the status of these coins as proofs or business strikes.
In his 1975 Analysis of Auction Records, David Akers wrote(Registry values: P10): "The 1841 is generally considered to be the most desirable of all Liberty Head quarter eagles. There is no official record of this date having been struck, but obviously a small number were minted. Most numismatists and cataloguers feel that this is a proof-only date and that all known specimens were originally struck in proof for inclusion in presentation sets. This seems unlikely to me and I am not convinced that the 1841 is a proof-only date. First of all, there are far too many specimens known when compared to other proof quarter eagles (or proof gold of any other denomination) of the same period. Less than five proofs are known of every other quarter eagle from 1840 to 1848, and yet I would estimate that at least 12 and possibly as many as 15 1841s are known. Only a few of them are clearly and unequivocally proofs, such as the coin in the Smithsonian Institution, the piece in Louis Eliasberg's collection, the Davis/Graves coin, and perhaps one or two others. Most of the others are well circulated and, in fact, grade from VG to EF. More importantly, the supposedly 'impaired proofs' just don't look like impaired proofs. Consider for example the Wolfson specimen, which was subsequently in the Shuford Sale and then in the 1974 NASC Sale conducted by the American Auction Association. Although barely circulated, it has almost no trace of a proof surface and few of the other characteristics of a genuine proof (such as a square edge), although it does appear to have been struck from the same dies as the proofs."
Researcher John Dannreuther has noted that the reverse die used to strike 1841 quarter eagles was also used to coin proofs of later dates through 1846. This fact, alone, suggests the status of these pieces as proofs. In contrast to the earlier comments of David Akers, Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth wrote in their Encyclopedia of U.S. Gold Coins: "Only proof quart(Registry values: P10)er eagles were produced in 1841; circulated examples are said to exist, but these are actually mishandled proofs that entered circulation. Author Jeff Garrett has yet to see an example with any hint of circulation-strike surfaces remaining."
Today, it is our opinion that all 1841 quarter eagles were struck as proofs. The present example is such a coin that retains considerable reflective proof surface, especially in the fields close to the devices. It is sharply struck with nearly full design details on both sides, except where obscured by light wear. The surfaces are light greenish-gold in color with a few minor hairlines and other slight defects, clearly matching the plate of the December 1977 Bowers and Ruddy Sale entitled the Donald F. Herdman Collection. However, according to the catalog, this piece was actually a duplicate in the "Fairfield Collection" consigned earlier to Bowers and Ruddy by Arthur Lamborn. In the May 2000 sale of the Harry W. Bass, Jr. Collection, Dave Bowers gave a brief background of the Fairfield Collection: "The Fairfield Collection was an illustrious gathering primarily of rarities, by a New England collector who enjoyed quality and rarity and liked it even better if two, three, or four pieces could be had rather than a single coin.">>
Link to blog
Link to recently sold 1841 QE at Heritage
Background information on the 1841 QE from Heritage's recent offering:
<<1841 $2 1/2 PR53 PCGS. The existence and rarity of the proof-only 1841 quarter eagle was known almost since the day it was made. The first illustration of such a coin appeared in A Manual of Gold and Silver Coins of All Nations by Jacob Reese Eckfeldt and William E. Dubois, published the following year. While illustrations in a numismatic reference from 1842 have a much different appearance than they do today, being created in this case by a medal-ruling machine and appearing as a line engraving, the point is that the piece was actually illustrated. The medal-ruling machine was an innovation that made a two-dimensional engraving from a three-dimensional object.
An existing unanswered question regarding this issue surrounds the possible existence of business strikes. There is no Mint record of any pieces struck, as proofs of the time were not including in Mint accounts. However, the number of existing pieces is substantially greater than proofs of nearby years. Perhaps as many as 20 quarter eagles of 1841 are known today, while only about 20 proof quarter eagles are known for all other years from 1840 to 1849 combined. It is possibly the case that many additional proofs were struck for the other years, but eventually found their way into circulation, with wear or attrition being the reason they are not know identified. For the proof-only 1841, every piece that exists, regardless of grade, is considered a proof.
While this issue maintained a regular appearance in numismatic literature and also in established collections throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century. Most discussions surrounding this issue have taken place in the last 40 years, a time of substantial numismatic scholarship. This discussion usually surrounds the status of these coins as proofs or business strikes.
In his 1975 Analysis of Auction Records, David Akers wrote(Registry values: P10): "The 1841 is generally considered to be the most desirable of all Liberty Head quarter eagles. There is no official record of this date having been struck, but obviously a small number were minted. Most numismatists and cataloguers feel that this is a proof-only date and that all known specimens were originally struck in proof for inclusion in presentation sets. This seems unlikely to me and I am not convinced that the 1841 is a proof-only date. First of all, there are far too many specimens known when compared to other proof quarter eagles (or proof gold of any other denomination) of the same period. Less than five proofs are known of every other quarter eagle from 1840 to 1848, and yet I would estimate that at least 12 and possibly as many as 15 1841s are known. Only a few of them are clearly and unequivocally proofs, such as the coin in the Smithsonian Institution, the piece in Louis Eliasberg's collection, the Davis/Graves coin, and perhaps one or two others. Most of the others are well circulated and, in fact, grade from VG to EF. More importantly, the supposedly 'impaired proofs' just don't look like impaired proofs. Consider for example the Wolfson specimen, which was subsequently in the Shuford Sale and then in the 1974 NASC Sale conducted by the American Auction Association. Although barely circulated, it has almost no trace of a proof surface and few of the other characteristics of a genuine proof (such as a square edge), although it does appear to have been struck from the same dies as the proofs."
Researcher John Dannreuther has noted that the reverse die used to strike 1841 quarter eagles was also used to coin proofs of later dates through 1846. This fact, alone, suggests the status of these pieces as proofs. In contrast to the earlier comments of David Akers, Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth wrote in their Encyclopedia of U.S. Gold Coins: "Only proof quart(Registry values: P10)er eagles were produced in 1841; circulated examples are said to exist, but these are actually mishandled proofs that entered circulation. Author Jeff Garrett has yet to see an example with any hint of circulation-strike surfaces remaining."
Today, it is our opinion that all 1841 quarter eagles were struck as proofs. The present example is such a coin that retains considerable reflective proof surface, especially in the fields close to the devices. It is sharply struck with nearly full design details on both sides, except where obscured by light wear. The surfaces are light greenish-gold in color with a few minor hairlines and other slight defects, clearly matching the plate of the December 1977 Bowers and Ruddy Sale entitled the Donald F. Herdman Collection. However, according to the catalog, this piece was actually a duplicate in the "Fairfield Collection" consigned earlier to Bowers and Ruddy by Arthur Lamborn. In the May 2000 sale of the Harry W. Bass, Jr. Collection, Dave Bowers gave a brief background of the Fairfield Collection: "The Fairfield Collection was an illustrious gathering primarily of rarities, by a New England collector who enjoyed quality and rarity and liked it even better if two, three, or four pieces could be had rather than a single coin.">>
0
Comments
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
As for it being struck from dies used for proofs, that's not good evidence being that all coins struck from those dies are proof. Look at half cents of the 1850's, especially 1854 and 1855. Or large cents from the 1840s and 1850s. The 1840 N-2 is known in both proof and business strike for example, and that's just one year off here. There are also numerous instances in the classic head gold series where proofs and business strikes were struck from the same die pair. In fact, except for the two varieties listed above, all proof varieties of classic head gold also exist as business strikes (7 or 8 quarter eagle varieties, and 5 to 7 half eagle varieties).
Ed. S.
(EJS)
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Proof 1841 half eagles and eagles are of the typical rarities for proof gold of this era (2 or 3 known for each denomination). The question should not be, I think, whether the reverse dies of these 1841 gold proofs were used for proofs in other years, but instead whether the reverse (or obverse) dies were also used for business strikes for 1841. That someone else will have to answer.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I have been analyzing the controversy and have recently published two parts of a three part series. The debate is far from over. My impression is that most experts continue to regard 1841 Quarter Eagles as a Proof-only issue. I have not yet published a conclusion. Please read:
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
Part 2, Casual Collecting in the 1840s
Well, just Love coins, period.
indicate they can not all be proofs.>>
The argument that “there are too many” does not make sense to me either.
1) When it became clear that there would be no business strike 1841 Quarter Eagles struck in Philadelphia in 1841, or that there were just no plans for them, Mint officials struck more Proofs than usual to accommodate anyone, especially casual collectors, who would come by the mint and ask for a current QE to be obtained at face value. Those casual collectors would typically receive business strikes. If there were no business strikes in 1841, then these casual collectors or tourists would get Proofs or Special Strikings, though most of them probably had never seen a Proof before and would not have known to ask for one.
2) Many 1841 Quarter Eagles did circulate. I explain why the survival rate of circulated 1841 QEs would be much higher than the survival rate for circulated QEs of other dates in the series. Should I have elaborated further on this point?
Part 3 has now been posted, though Jaguar’s point is addressed in part 2.
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
Part 2, Casual Collecting in the 1840s
I know the British series much better and will note that there are huge differences in quality of the Coronation 1839 half crowns in particular, not to mention varieties, and this was at the Royal Mint which was considered to have excellent quality at the time. Also, there is variability in the quality of business/currency strike coins of this era, especially of this same half crown series - all the way from proof like to satin.
Could it be that if there was a short run of business strikes that there were so few made that they would tend to be a bit more proof like, or possess more reflective surfaces due to the short run?
I think that even though these coins may have sold at a small profit for the mint, that in fact there may have not been much profit in them at all once the costs of die prep, labor, bullion and handling might have to be subtracted; not sure how much P.R. value that there may have been in getting proofs or special strikes out to the public.
I do not have a problem with there being a possible run of business strikes, but assessing relative "proofiness" is a difficulty in any case IMO for many of the reasons you have stated. As an aside, there was an essay at the beginning of the Norweb sale of Canadian coins that tried to separate proof from specimen from business/currency which was interesting but somehow found me wanting. I especially liked your point that there was not a lot of technology and a lot of human sourced variability in the production of special issues, all the way from planchet production, to preparedness of dies, strike pressure, quality and number, etc.
I think there may be a compromise argument that you seem to have suggested, and that is that all these 1841s may have been special strikes that received somewhat varied levels of preparation, possibly with some VERY lacking in what should hopefully be good quality proofs with all care taken.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I address this matter in the first and third parts of my series on the controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles. Those who have done archival research conclude that, during the 1840s, no records were kept of Proof strikings, yet relatively precise records were kept of business strikes. Further, Proofs and business strikes were struck in different areas of the Philadelphia Mint. Also, JD contends that, during the 1840s, Proof dies were never used for business strikes. In contrast, David Akers and David Hall argue that 1841 business strikes could have been made in early 1842 and recorded as 1842 business strikes. Roger Burdette’s research suggests, however, that business strike Quarter Eagles were not made in early 1842. In part 1, I discuss views put forth by those on both sides of the debate regarding whether there is any reason to believe that 1841 business strikes were intended.
7Jaguars: << …that there were so few made that they would tend to be a bit more proof like, or possess more reflective surfaces due to the short run?>>
In my view, there is usually a tremendous difference between a Proof and a prooflike business strike. Important differences relate to relationships between the devices and the fields. Furthermore, the surface texture of a prooflike business strike is different from the texture of a Proof. On at least two circulated 1841 Quarter Eagles that I have seen, there seems to be solid evidence of true Proof surface and evidence of special preparation of the planchets. In any event, it is impossible to address this point in one paragraph. Please read part 3.
7Jaguars: <<I think that even though these coins may have sold at a small profit for the mint, that in fact there may have not been much profit in them at all once the costs of die prep, labor, bullion and handling might have to be subtracted; not sure how much P.R. value that there may have been in getting proofs or special strikes out to the public.>>
Agreed, whether Proofs were sold at face value, sold for a small premium, or just given to VIPs is not that important. My theory is that an unusually large number of Proof 1841 Quarter Eagles were planned when it became clear that business strikes would not be or may not be struck. Casual collectors and tourists seeking an 1841 QE at face value probably had never seen a Proof before and were expecting to acquire a business strike.
The Philadelphia Mint had an excellent reputation for accommodating visitors and it was in the interest of Mint officials to stimulate interest in the nation’s current coinage. So, it was their intent to satisfy casual collectors seeking 1841 Quarter Eagles at face value. If these casual collectors received Proofs, that was icing on the cake, which stimulated additional interest in coins. Some people traveling home with Proofs would be likely to voice positive remarks about the Philadelphia Mint to their respective friends and relatives. But, if business strike 1841 Quarter Eagles had been planned, then only two to four Proofs would have been struck.
7Jaguars: <<I think there may be a compromise argument that you seem to have suggested, and that is that all these 1841s may have been special strikes that received somewhat varied levels of preparation, possibly with some VERY lacking in what should hopefully be good quality proofs with all care taken.>>
Unfortunately, most of the evidence has been obliterated. Most of the survivors do not have enough original characteristics, relating to the differences between Proofs and business strikes, to form a clear vision of their respective appearances when they were struck.
As for the likelihood of them all being Proofs, I discuss that topic in part 3. I appreciate 7Jaguar’s interest and I hope that other forum members will read my three part series.
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 1
Part 2, Casual Collecting in the 1840s
Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins