1804 Silver dollar coming up in central states Heritage Auction - UPDATE!!!

Sunshine Rare Coins

NGC PF 62 class 1

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1104&LotIdNo=7001#photo

Being auctioned April 2008

Also, a 1802 PCGS PR65 Silver dollar will be auctioned along with many other coins


Description now availible in last post

Sunshine Rare Coins

ttt - big news!!!

MrEureka

Unless my eyes deceive me, this is the Mickley - Massachusetts Historical Society - Reed Hawn Class I.

MrEureka

TwoSides2aCoin

Byron Reed's can be viewed

tradedollarnut

<< <i>Unless my eyes deceive me, this is the Mickley - Massachusetts Historical Society - Reed Hawn Class I. >>



That's correct.

Michigan

How many 1804 dollars, whatever class have been sold in the past 10 years or so? It seems like a lot of them, for that reason
it doesn't really excite me anymore.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>How many 1804 dollars, whatever class have been sold in the past 10 years or so? It seems like a lot of them, for that reason
it doesn't really excite me anymore. >>



If I recall correctly:

Class I:
Childs
King of Siam [as part of set]
Dexter

Class III:
Amon Carter
Garrett

commoncents05

Very cool, looks like an awesome coin!

-Paul

TwoSides2aCoin

<< <i>How many 1804 dollars, whatever class have been sold in the past 10 years or so? It seems like a lot of them, for that reason
it doesn't really excite me anymore. >>




I don't believe it doesn't excite you. I want to know your logical guess as to what it will sell for , Mich.

droopyd

<< <i> >>



Looks like a BB fer sher.

HeritageGreg

Yep... we have a wonderful 1804 $1 consigned to Central States... but it's uncertified and hasn't been graded yet! In case you are curious, I think it's a LOT nicer than a 55... that grade was entered internally in error (no, it's not a 65 either). Stay tuned.. when it's back from grading we will update you with the grade.

Have a very Happy New Year - we look forward to seeing you at FUN.

Greg Rohan

pontiacinf

can someone please explain the difference between class I&II ?

mrearlygold

Wow !

Michigan

The coin itself is exciting, the fact it is being sold and what it will sell for is ho hum to me, just a bit jaded on that aspect of the
hobby I guess.

MrEureka

I'm excited only because I don't think I've ever seen this coin, and I'm looking forward to that.

I'd be much more excited if the market sucked and I had some chance of buying it. But in the current market, I'm only a spectator.

MrEureka

can someone please explain the difference between class I&II ?

Class I is the original struck in 1834. Class III is the restrike struck in the late 50's, possibly into the 60's. The two varieties are from different reverse dies, the most obvious difference being the position of the letters with respect to the clouds.

The Class II is the same as a Class III, except it's struck over a Swiss shooting thaler.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>can someone please explain the difference between class I&II ? >>



IIRC, Class I are the 'originals' struck in 1834 for presentation sets and a few extras - they have lettered edges. Class II are the initial restrikes struck by the 'midnite minters' but without edge lettering. These were detected and recovered by the mint and mostly destroyed - the Smithsonian has the only known example. Class III are the restrikes done in the early 1870's WITH edge lettering - one would presume the higher ups had a hand in their production.

tradedollarnut

I think it's a LOT nicer than a 55.

When it sold last at auction it was just a 50.

MrEureka

Sounds like either I or TDN is wrong about when the Class III's were struck. My money's on TDN, but I'm going to check it out now...

MrEureka

When it sold last at auction it was just a 50.

Actually, from the picture it looks like it could be made into a 63-64. Fortunately, the fame of the coin may prevent it from realizing that potential.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>Sounds like either I or TDN is wrong about when the Class III's were struck. My money's on TDN, but I'm going to check it out now... >>



Class II were definitely restruck first... then the Class III. Again, IIRC, the way they figured the restrike period is from when the coins started showing up in auction. Haseltine had the Adams specimen & was showing it around at a sale in early 1870s ... that's why I said that date.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>When it sold last at auction it was just a 50.

Actually, from the picture it looks like it could be made into a 63-64. Fortunately, the fame of the coin may prevent it from realizing that potential. >>



No work necessary - 1804's go from XF all the way to PR58 and from PR65 to PR67 like clockwork. What's PR50 to 64 ... nothing but a little imagination.

tightbudget

Uncertified?

vega1

Please forgive my ignorance on this topic, my first thought when I saw the coin pictured by MrEureka was that it looked heavily cleaned. Is that true or am I just showing my lack of grading skills (again)

pontiacinf

<< <i> can someone please explain the difference between class I&II ?

Class I is the original struck in 1834. Class III is the restrike struck in the late 50's, possibly into the 60's. The two varieties are from different reverse dies, the most obvious difference being the position of the letters with respect to the clouds.

The Class II is the same as a Class III, except it's struck over a Swiss shooting thaler. >>



Thank you Andy

Ronyahski

<< <i>

<< <i>Sounds like either I or TDN is wrong about when the Class III's were struck. My money's on TDN, but I'm going to check it out now... >>



Class II were definitely restruck first... then the Class III. Again, IIRC, the way they figured the restrike period is from when the coins started showing up in auction. Haseltine had the Adams specimen & was showing it around at a sale in early 1870s ... that's why I said that date. >>



The Haseltine coin was well circulated, thus it must have been minted at least years before. Class II was struck in 1858. Thus it seems that Class III was struck in early 60's, possibly in 1860 and/or 1867 where, according to Breen, there are documents showing that the dies were unsealed.

MrEureka

Class II was struck in 1858.

Really? How do you know?

Ronyahski

<< <i>Class II was struck in 1858.

Really? How do you know? >>



The Breen proof and the QDB dollar encyclopedias were my vacation reading last week (yes, I am a geek as well) and that's what I recall them both saying. I'll look it up and confirm.

MrEureka

The Breen proof and the QDB dollar encyclopedias were my vacation reading last week (yes, I am a geek as well) and that's what I recall them both saying. I'll look it up and confirm.

OK, but be warned that "that's what they said" is not proof.

We do, however, know that the coin was not struck before 1857 because it's struck on an 1857 Swiss shooting thaler.

Ronyahski

<< <i>The Breen proof and the QDB dollar encyclopedias were my vacation reading last week (yes, I am a geek as well) and that's what I recall them both saying. I'll look it up and confirm.

OK, but be warned that "that's what they said" is not proof.

We do, however, know that the coin was not struck before 1857 because it's struck on an 1857 Swiss shooting thaler. >>



Really? How do you know?

MrEureka

We do, however, know that the coin was not struck before 1857 because it's struck on an 1857 Swiss shooting thaler. >>

Really? How do you know?

Although I'm no expert on Swiss shooting thalers, I know enough about the Swiss and their respect for time and precision to have confidence that they did not strike 1857 shooting thalers before 1857.

But then, how do we really know anything?

Ronyahski

Here is a summary of my read. QDB states that Class II was struck circa 1858, based on research from Newman, Bresset, Breen, Taxay, Julian. Breen states that the only remaining example in the Smithsonian was placed by J.R. Snowden in 1859, after recovery of four specimens, the other three having been destroyed. He also speculates that Class III may have been leftovers from Class II, lettered on the edge to conceal their origin as a Thaler. QDB seems to dispute this, as he states that the Class III planchets were produced at the mint and have a different reverse die from Class II.

Sunnywood

Gradeflation can only get you so far. A coin either exhibits unbroken mint luster, or it exhibits wear on at least the high points. As such, there is a fairly clear distinction between AU and MS (regardless of numerical grades). In the case of proofs this translates to either an "impaired" proof (with a numerical grade of less than PR60), or an unimpaired proof (numerical grade at least 60). For most coins, the practiced eye can discern whether or not the luster is intact on the high points.

In other words, a proof is either impaired, or it is not.

Thus, it strikes me as rather odd to say that a coin is "a LOT nicer than 55." If the coin is impaired/worn, 58 is as high as she goes. If the coin is presented as not being impaired, it's going to take a lot of explaining to excuse the fact that the coin has previously graded less than PR60. In the present case, this coin has never been graded as anything but an impaired proof: Newman and Bresset graded it "very nearly uncirculated;" QDB gave it a Proof-50; and Breen called it "poorly cleaned" (which I certainly do agree with, based on the agglomerations of black grime in and around the devices), and he called it XF/AU.

In fact, when I see a coin like this with the shield lines caked with black dirt, even I would support careful conservation. Certainly, the coin could be ultrasonically cleaned in an aqueous solvent that is designed ONLY to remove adherent grime, and NOT to alter the metal surfaces chemically in any way shape or form.

Of course, no matter what, it's sill an 1804 dollar .... and after I've talked it down, I'll enter a bid !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

roadrunner

Would agree with the earlier statement that the coin appears pretty well scrubbed on the obverse. If not an 1804 would this get by the baggers?

It looks like one of the 1804's that was often seen on the back cover of magazines in the 1960's with a $1000 reward if you had one.

roadrunner

leothelyon

<< <i>Yep... we have a wonderful 1804 $1 consigned to Central States... but it's uncertified and hasn't been graded yet! In case you are curious, I think it's a LOT nicer than a 55... that grade was entered internally in error (no, it's not a 65 either). Stay tuned.. when it's back from grading we will update you with the grade.

Have a very Happy New Year - we look forward to seeing you at FUN.

Greg Rohan >>



You and heritage think alot of coins grade higher than they look.

Does it really matter what this coin grades?

When is Heritage going to change the direction of the lighting used on most of their coin photography? The pictures are just terrible! I can never find anything to bid on SIGHT UNSEEN!

I already know you or anybody else won't address the photography problem and correct it.....so what does this say about Heritage?

They don't care!



Leo

MrEureka

the only remaining example in the Smithsonian was placed by J.R. Snowden in 1859

That would narrow it down to 1857-59, which is close enough.

Coinosaurus

IMHO, the numerical grade of this coin means nothing.

What is more substantial is how it ranks in comparison to the rest of the 1804s.

Sunnywood

I agree that the numerical grade is fairly irrelevant. However, the distinction between an impaired proof and an unimpaired proof is not arguable. And several of the Class I dollars are unambiguously unimpaired, which makes them better than any impaired proof. So this is an important point here. Further, a bad cleaning that leaves the stars and shield lines caked with black gunk is also worthy of note. But nothing can change the fact that this coin is an 1804 dollar, and as such, even the poorest specimens have been thoroughly traced and studied, and are highly sought after.

Even if this were the worst available specimen of this legendary artifact, it would still command great fanfare, a seven figure price, and the attention of numismatic historians.

Best,
Sunnywood

denga

tradedollarnut December 31, 2007

IIRC, Class I are the 'originals' struck in 1834 for presentation sets and a few extras - they have lettered edges. Class II are the initial restrikes struck by the 'midnite minters' but without edge lettering. These were detected and recovered by the mint and mostly destroyed - the Smithsonian has the only known example. Class III are the restrikes done in the early 1870's WITH edge lettering - one would presume the higher ups had a hand in their production.

There is no proof whatsoever that Class III 1804 dollars were struck after 1860. There is considerable speculation
about this, based primarily on the fact that most of these showed up in the 1870s. If that is to be the deciding factor,
then the 1885 Trade dollars were coined in 1907, just before they became public knowledge in 1908.

It is far more likely that these were actually struck in the late 1850s and laid aside when the restrike scandal became
public knowledge. H.R. Linderman had the only perfect specimen (the others were deliberately circulated to give the
appearance of being originals) and he was at the Mint in a key capacity at that time.

Denga

tradedollarnut

The Haseltine coin was well circulated, thus it must have been minted at least years before

Nope - the circulation on this coin was 'created', thus the 58 grade despite the 'wear'.

Ronyahski

<< <i>The Haseltine coin was well circulated, thus it must have been minted at least years before

Nope - the circulation on this coin was 'created', thus the 58 grade despite the 'wear'. >>



Good point. I thought it was catalogued as Extremely Fine back then. It is a 58 now?! Gradeflation!?

Sunnywood

I take it the "Haseltine coin" you guys are referring to is the Adams-Carter specimen. This coin was graded XF45 by PCGS, then AU50 by NGC, nd later AU58 by PCGS. In answer to the criticism immediately arising from the regrade, PCGS claimed the earlier grading had not taken the weak strike into account. If the Mickley coin has less wear and better definition, yet has clear impairments to the mint luster, should it therefore be graded AU59 ?? Things get awful tight when you give the AU58 grade to a coin that is less deserving ...

Sunnywood

Coxe

Not terribly interested as it isn't a real coin IMO. I'd spend the same money on more worthy material.

Torrero

Perhaps I missed this in reading thru this, but can someone tell me the pedigree and selling history on this coin. Is it public knowledge who the owner is?

Jay

MrEureka

From the PCGS website:

the Mickley specimen, started out when a teller supposedly picked the dollar out of a deposit at face value and sold it to Joseph J. Mickley, from whom it gets its name. After the sale of his collection, the coin was eventually given to the Massachusetts Historical Society, who then sold it as a part of their collection to a private Chicago collector. Stack's then bought it for $150,000 in 1974 for Reed Hawn, where it remains today.

From the Stacks website:

Reed Hawn's name would come to be associated with Stack's through a long number of years from 1973 to the present day. The most recent sale from the Reed Hawn collection was held in 1993, highlighted by record-setting rarities such as an 1804 Dollar and 1913 Liberty Nickel.

At the moment, I'm confused by these conflicting statements. Does Reed Hawn still own the coin or not? Or did he have two different coins? I'll figure it out soon enough, but thought I'd get the new year started...

BTW, here's another cool source on 1804's: Link

joecopper

Do you think it will look different when it hits the block?

Sunnywood

Andy, Reed Hawn only owned one 1804 dollar. Might the PCGS text have been lifted from a source written before the Reed Hawn Sale?

I have the provenance in my notes as: Henry Young (A bank teller who claimed to have received it for face value from a depositor in 1850) - Joseph Mickley - William Lillendahl - Edward Cogan - William Appleton - Mass. Historical Society - Reed Hawn - Richard Raneau.

When I was starting out as a collector, this coin was known as the Appleton specimen, and was referred to that way in the Redbook.

Best,
Sunnywood

MrEureka

From bustdollars.com:


7. Teller Henry C. Young (Bank of Pennsylvania, ca. 1850, supposedly retrieved from a deposit at face value), Joseph J. Mickley, William A. Lilliendahl, Edward Cogan, William Sum-ner Appleton, 1905, Mass. Historical Society, MHS 1:625, $77,500 (1970), Chicago pvt. coll., Reed Hawn, Richard E. Raneau. EF-AU, poorly cleaned.

Can we identify the lucky Chicago private collector?

DennisH

In my opinion the coin appears to be an AU; perhaps 53 or perhaps 55, but somewhere in there.
In my opinion the coin's surfaces appear to have been messed with and qualify as being cleaned.
In my opinion the coin will get into a PCGS or NGC holder; my guess is at AU58.

I'm in the camp that believes the grades of all 1804 dollars have nothing to do with accuracy. Instead, I believe they are used to "rank" the known examples. For instance, the finest known example gets an MS67 or 68 grade, the second best gets 66, etc. Where does this one rank in terms of all examples known? That answer will probably predict the TPG's final grade with a high degree of accuracy.

As for final sales price, my WAG is $3.5 million hammer; $4.025 with the juice.

MrEureka

I'll predict a grade of 61. No wear, significant numismatic abuse, but not hideous. In other words, 61.

Of course, that's assuming that the coin does not get "fixed".