Coinage Dies Confiscated ! -- Joseph J. Mickley
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
The following dies were confiscated from the estate auction of collector Joseph J. Mickley, and destroyed on October 21, 1878.
Lot # 909 1806 Dime, obv
Lot # 910 1806 Quarter, obv
Lot # 911 1807 Half eagle, obv
Lot # 912 1811 Half cent, obv & rev
Lot # 913 1816 Cent, obv & rev
Lot # 914 1817 Cent, obv & rev
Lot # 915 1820 Half eagle, obv
Lot # 917 Misc broken obv & rev dies – 8 pieces.
[NARA-P, entry 17, box 1]
(OK - I changed the title to "sensationalize" it.)
Lot # 909 1806 Dime, obv
Lot # 910 1806 Quarter, obv
Lot # 911 1807 Half eagle, obv
Lot # 912 1811 Half cent, obv & rev
Lot # 913 1816 Cent, obv & rev
Lot # 914 1817 Cent, obv & rev
Lot # 915 1820 Half eagle, obv
Lot # 917 Misc broken obv & rev dies – 8 pieces.
[NARA-P, entry 17, box 1]
(OK - I changed the title to "sensationalize" it.)
1
Comments
Does that mean my 50 States Quarter Dies
may someday be confiscated by the coiner. LOL
Regards, Larry
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
-Paul
The trouble with this stuff is that it was used to restrikes of oiginal coins. Going down this list restrikes of the 1811 half cent, made outside of the mint are known. The saving graces are two. First the reverse used on the 1811 restrike was from the type of 1800 to 1808. Second the 1811 restrike half cents almost always sell for more than original coins do. The exceptions would be if one in super high grade were to turn up or if an example of the famous C-1 two star break were appear in high grade. We had a discussion about this die state over the last Mother's Day weekend.
<< <i>How could they found an 1806 dime? None were minted. >>
The mint made the die in anticipation of striking dimes but demand never materialized that year.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The damage such die's (or hubs) could do if they fell into the wrong Chinese hands.
The name is LEE!
Interestingly, there's an 1820 Half Eagle obverse die on display at the ANA museum. Makes me wonder if any of the Mickley dies were really destroyed, or if they were simply resold out the back door.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The following dies were confiscated from the estate auction of collector Joseph J. Mickley, and destroyed on October 21, 1878.
Lot # 909 1806 Dime, obv
Lot # 910 1806 Quarter, obv
Lot # 911 1807 Half eagle, obv
Lot # 912 1811 Half cent, obv & rev
Lot # 913 1816 Cent, obv & rev
Lot # 914 1817 Cent, obv & rev
Lot # 915 1820 Half eagle, obv
Lot # 917 Misc broken obv & rev dies – 8 pieces.
Some additional information has been found on this subject. On October 19, 1878, Assayer W.E. Dubois,
Coiner O.C. Bosbyshell, and Superintendent James Pollock jointly signed a statement that the Mickley
dies had been destroyed on that day in their presence. The list given in the statement agrees with the
above except that a quarter eagle reverse was added. In all 19 dies, some heavily corroded, were received
from the estate executor.
On October 22 Acting Director Preston sent his thanks for the prompt handling of the matter.
The October 21 date given above is perhaps the date the October 19 statement was received at the Mint Bureau.
Denga
The people mentioned in Denga’s post were listed as being present.
The pieces were catalogued as hubs, not dies. The 1806 dime listing preceeds an 1806 twenty-five cent piece, and may have been a typo error, which was common in these older sales, as the printers usually did not know coin dates. Chances are good it was dated 1805.
Lot 916 was written as "1 Hub; rev. United States Twenty-five cent piece, about 1820" This is presumed to be the reverse seen on the 1823 dated quarters, of which lead copies have been made.
As to the credibility of those who signed the destruction letter, and the outcome of the confiscation, I will submit the September 17, 1878, letter (a month earlier) from William E DuBois who wrote on Philadelphia Mint letterhead, stating that the 1804 dollar that R C Davis purchased from John Haseltine the previous year was "One of the original issue and not a "restrike" from Mint dies". Unfortunately, this was not true.
Mickley owned hubs and dies, but he should not be accused of making any restrikes. The blame should rest with other people in Philadelphia such as M W Dickeson and W E DuBois.
Supposing, hypothetically, that U.S. Mint personnel did not refer to these Mickley items (cited above) as dies, could we conclude that they were dies and definitely not hubs?
It is curious that contributors to this thread refer, in theory, to pre-1810 hubs. What are the earliest Mint records regarding the use of ‘hubs’? Perhaps, I am not properly defining the term. Conceptually, an obverse central device punch that is the size and shape of a die for the respective coin type could be oddly termed a ‘hub.’ My tentative impression is that, if there no other devices on the tool, just an obverse (or reverse) central device, then it is a punch, not a hub. It might have made sense for such a punch to be the size of a die in order for proper and consistent placement of the respective central device. Even so, during the early years, the central device was punched into each die and later outer devices, letters, stars and numerals were punched. Eventually, all devices except the date and mintmark were incorporated in hubs. When were such hubs first employed?
Supposing, hypothetically, that U.S. Mint personnel did not refer to these Mickley items (cited above) as dies, could we conclude that they were dies and definitely not hubs?
The word hub meant different things at different times. After the 1830s it usually meant
the entire design for obverse or reverse minus the date and mintmark. Even then, however,
the use of “hub” included, for example, the head of Liberty or the reverse eagle used to create
a master hub.
Prior to that time “hub” referred to the head of Liberty or even (in the Draped Bust series)
to the Hair Ribbon behind the head.
As to the Mickley items there is no question whatsoever that they were dies and not hubs.
The cataloguer may not have known the difference but Coiner Bosbyshell certainly did.
Denga
The items in question were catalogued in the October 5-6, 1878, sale by E B Mason, Jr., at Thomas & Son's gallery in Philadelphia, not the one pictured earlier in the thread, which is a later offering by a different cataloguer. The pieces were catalogued as hubs, not dies. The 1806 dime listing preceeds an 1806 twenty-five cent piece, and may have been a typo error, which was common in these older sales, as the printers usually did not know coin dates. Chances are good it was dated 1805.
At least four different individuals read “1806,” a point carefully ignored by firstmint, who instead claims
that it was the printer’s fault. It is clear that that cataloguer did not know the difference between a hub
and a die but to blame a date error on the printer defies common sense.
Denga
First, it might have been a quarter eagle instead, which is at least the same size as a dime.
From USpatterns.com:
"This is an obverse die trial in white metal of the 1806/4 (Breen 1) variety. For many years it was believed to be a 1796 die trial but the star arrangement is definitive. It is believed to have been struck outside the mint by Montroville Dickeson or Joseph Mickley from dies sold as scrap."
Or perhaps it's just a typo and it was a half dollar die.
From USpatterns.com:
"These are obverse die trials, struck in white metal outside the mint, from an 1806 die with pointed 6 variety sold by the mint as scrap. The Pollock book mentions a notation from Abe Kosoff saying that they were struck by David Proskey. "
I'll add that if the Proskey attribution is correct, it's just one more very circumstantial bit of evidence to support the theory that the Mickley dies were never destroyed.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
There are other possibilities for the "1806 Dime" entry.
First, it might have been a quarter eagle instead, which is at least the same size as a dime.
From USpatterns.com:
"These are obverse die trials, struck in white metal outside the mint, from an 1806 die with pointed 6 variety sold by the mint as scrap. The Pollock book mentions a notation from Abe Kosoff saying that they were struck by David Proskey. "
I'll add that if the Proskey attribution is correct, it's just one more very circumstantial bit of evidence to support the theory that the Mickley dies were never destroyed.
The above points are well made but I think polite disagreements are in order:
1) The 1806 die may well have been for the quarter eagle but this would have meant that
the Liberty head was so badly corroded that it could not be determined which denomination
was involved. This, I think, is unlikely.
2) Using Kosoff as a source is reasonable, as he may have known someone involved with the
restrikes, but this does not show that the Mickley dies were used after 1878. It may simply have
been, for example, that Proskey sold some of the pieces and Kosoff’s source confused the matter.
Denga
Given the extent of the die rust seen on the "restrike", it's not hard to imagine that the die deteriorated further before the auction, or - if the piece was made after the auction - that the die was cleaned up before being put to use. So there's no telling if the cataloger could see if the die was for a dime or for a quarter eagle.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>The items in question were catalogued in the October 5-6, 1878, sale by E B Mason, Jr., at Thomas & Son's gallery in Philadelphia, not the one pictured earlier in the thread, which is a later offering by a different cataloguer.
The pieces were catalogued as hubs, not dies. The 1806 dime listing preceeds an 1806 twenty-five cent piece, and may have been a typo error, which was common in these older sales, as the printers usually did not know coin dates. Chances are good it was dated 1805.
Lot 916 was written as "1 Hub; rev. United States Twenty-five cent piece, about 1820" This is presumed to be the reverse seen on the 1823 dated quarters, of which lead copies have been made.
As to the credibility of those who signed the destruction letter, and the outcome of the confiscation, I will submit the September 17, 1878, letter (a month earlier) from William E DuBois who wrote on Philadelphia Mint letterhead, stating that the 1804 dollar that R C Davis purchased from John Haseltine the previous year was "One of the original issue and not a "restrike" from Mint dies". Unfortunately, this was not true.
Mickley owned hubs and dies, but he should not be accused of making any restrikes. The blame should rest with other people in Philadelphia such as M W Dickeson and W E DuBois. >>
One wonders why Firstmint collects numismatic literature at all, since it is full of printer's errors and insider statements that can't be trusted. I gather that he has some super secret way of determining fact from fiction, which possibly involves a magic eight ball.
Dubois, Bosbyshell, or Pollock must have buried the die behind the fence on the grassy knoll.
Regrettably, he makes personal assumptions in order to be disagreeable. As an example, I was citing the auction catalogue where these items appeared, and mentioned the 1806 dime preceeding an 1806 quarter. It was not "carefully ignored" as Denga wrote.
I also did not claim it was the printers fault, only that it "may have been" (since there were no 1806 dimes struck), and noted that there were other instances of typo errors in the older catalogues (gee, this still happens today).
Unfortunately, Denga, is the one defying common sense most of the time, as it could also have been the 1806 quarter eagle trial posted by Mr. Eureka, if that piece was known at the time. Then again, it may have been a typo error...if it was really a dime in the first place.
Denga asserts, "As to the Mickley items there is no question whatsoever that they were dies and not hubs".
As for the cataloguer, Ebenezer Mason (who had been in the coin business since 1860 or so), did know the difference between hubs and dies (at least according to the catalogue). Lot 917 starts out with, "Miscellaneous Lot Dies and Hubs..." which is different than what is seen in the opening post. Remember Denga, this is not me making any claims, just reporting what was written, just as I did previously. I have the catalogue in hand and do not make up anything that is cited.
I will close my involvement in this sophomoric exchange with Denga with something B. Max Mehl once wrote to John Ford, "...there might be a little question as to your absolute authority on numismatics" (see Ford II library sale by Kolbe, lot 1079)
Edited to add - Woodward, I collect and read numismatic literature to learn as much as possible about American numismatics, and if your cheap insinuation is referring to the Davis example of the 1804 dollar, then I suggest you read the books on the subject by Newman and Bowers.
1) Hubs versus Dies
Denga << The word hub meant different things at different times. After the 1830s it usually meant the entire design for obverse or reverse minus the date and mintmark. Even then, however, the use of “hub” included, for example, the head of Liberty or the reverse eagle used to create a master hub.
Prior to that time “hub” referred to the head of Liberty or even (in the Draped Bust series)
to the Hair Ribbon behind the head.
As to the Mickley items there is no question whatsoever that they were dies and not hubs.
The cataloguer may not have known the difference but Coiner Bosbyshell certainly did.>>
By the date in 1878 in the document presented by RWB, a ‘hub’ almost certainly contained positive (raised) impressions of all devices except the date and mintmark if any. (Was this central to the definition of a hub until late in the 20th century?) So, by the most oft-used late 19th century definition of the term ‘hub,’ pre-1821 hubs never existed. Therefore, there is no need to consult documents to know that Mickley’s items, with the dates in the list RWB furnished, cannot have been hubs.
As for the confusion, it is plausible, though unlikely, that one or more of the items in lot #917, ‘Miscellaneous broken obverse and reverse dies,’ were obverse central device or reverse central device punches. As these may have been fractured and/or heavily rusted, they may not have received much attention, and could have looked like dies to someone who did carefully inspect them. Moreover, Denga has enlightened us about the point that such punches were once called ‘hubs’ and Mason might have termed such punches ‘hubs’ as well. Besides, even a skimming of Mason’s publications would demonstrate that he was not one of the more sophisticated professional numismatists of the era. Mason may well have been careless with the terms die and hub, as he often was with other terms in his own periodicals. If most of the items were dies, and if one to three punches were “broken” and/or rotting away, Bosbyshell, for convenience, may have referred to the whole group as “dies.” Why bother with an explanation if the items were slated to be destroyed, anyhow? Who would care about a couple of rotting punches?
What is my point here? True hubs did not exist before 1830. We will never know if any punch-“hubs” were included in this lot. The contributors to this thread should be a little more careful about drawing conclusions. That being said, I agree that it is likely that all these Mickley items were dies or what was left of dies.
2) Possibly 1806 dime dies.
Dies exist for coin issues that were never struck and/or were struck but do not survive today. In a Goldbergs auction not long ago, a pair of 1885-CC Eagle dies was sold. Yes, there were no 1885-CC Eagles struck. Even so, dies were prepared. I vaguely remember other examples of surviving dies for which no resulting coins are known to have survived and maybe never were minted to begin with. Will Robins recently reported that a second 1876-CC 20c obverse die exists, though all known pieces were struck from the ‘first’ obv die.
3) Who struck the Mickley Restrikes and When did they do so?
MrEureka’s theory (or conjecture?) that maybe some (or all?) of the Mickley dies were not really destroyed is interesting. I am not an expert on the Mickley Restrikes and I hope that others may shed some light on this topic. Early copper experts frequently state that Mickley himself struck ‘1811’ half cents and did so prior to 1859. An ANS document, which I have never read, is sometimes cited in catalogue descriptions of Mickley 1811 half cent Restrikes.
4) 1806 Dime or Quarter Eagle Dies
Denga <<The 1806 die may well have been for the quarter eagle but this would have meant that the Liberty head was so badly corroded that it could not be determined which denomination was involved. This, I think, is unlikely.>>
MrEureka <<Given the extent of the die rust seen on the "restrike", it's not hard to imagine that the die deteriorated further before the auction, or - if the piece was made after the auction - that the die was cleaned up before being put to use. So there's no telling if the cataloger could see if the die was for a dime or for a quarter eagle.>>
Mason could plausibly have made such an error. He made a great many errors in his publications. As I said above, as the plan was to destroy the pieces anyway, Bosbyshell probably figured that there was no point in spending a lot of time writing about them. A correction relating to a denomination might have involved additional paperwork. After all, there are legal issues relating to government seizures. So, Bosbyshell may have wished to just close the matter. We may never know.
New column on Rarities & Related Topics
With the condition of Lot 909 (1806 dime die) given as "very good,“ I suspect it was nothing more than an unused die.
As for "hub" vs "die." it is not uncommon to see the terms tossed about indiscriminately in 19th century mint documents. Bosbyshell's comment, however, is clearly definitive.
The 1807 dimes were made from one die pair, and that die pair was pushed to point where the coins very unattractive and poorly stuck. It seems to me that if an 1806 obverse die had been available, it would have been used. It should be noted quarter eagle dies were sometimes used to strike dimes because the coins had virtually the same diameter. (19mm for the dime, 20mm for the quarter eagle) My conclusion is that the citation of an 1806 dime die was an error.
Citing an unused 1885-CC gold eagle die that was unused doesn’t settle this issue. That die was made during a different era when the mint’s die operations were much larger and more standardized. By that time the Philadelphia mint was using hubs in the die preparation process that contained the entire design except for the date and mint mark. By that time the die production process was easier and in a realtive sense less expensive. There was also a matter of branch mint die that was probably shipped to the Carson City mint and never used. This would have definitely been the case for the unused 1876-CC twenty cent piece die. Business strike production of the twenty cent piece was suspended in 1876, and that would have made that set of 1876-CC twenty cent piece tools instantly obsolete.
Over the years I have noticed a few things, including
1: Cataloguers make mistakes;
2: Typographers make mistakes;
3: Everybody lies about (fornication) and vaguely illegal coins.
TD
EAC 6024
The dies for the 1823 Half Cent obverse and 1813 Half Cent reverse used by Mickley are also on display at the ANA museum.
johnmilton on CoinTalk posted his 2014 photos of those dies which are in the following threads:
I’m surprised that no one was challenged to a duel in this thread
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Cool thread. A number of first Mint dies are illustrated in Secret History of the First US MInt (pp. 78-79).
Bananas at 20 paces!!!
I assume you meant 1823 "Large Cent"!
I am curious what happened to the 1803 S-261 large cent obverse die used to strike the 1804 "restrikes"?
Just a very cool old thread!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Very interesting. How many restrikes sell for more than the originals?
Great pictures of the 1823 die at the ANA.
@Analyst said:
Chief Engraver Robert Scot used "Hubb" many times in this late December, 1794 report, with the same meaning that "hub" is used in Mint terminology today. In this paragraph from Scot's handwriting he uses Hubb in three instances:
Scot's use of the word "Hubb" is precise for the intended meaning. "Hubbe" is an obsolete British word origin for "hob" meaning "a steel pattern used in forming a mold or die in cold metal."
On August 13, 1813 Adam Eckfeldt signed a contract for executing stamp dies for the Treasury Department to raise revenue for the War of 1812, interchanged the words hob and hub, and hub would be used mostly from that point in time:
"In case any original die or hob should break in hardening or hobbing, a further allowance is made of thirty three dollars for each original die, and seventeen dollars for each hub that shall be broken."
In the final sentences witnessed by Mint Director Robert Patterson, "the original dies and hub to be delivered in good order to the Commissioner of Revenue whenever required, and be safely kept at the Mint in the mean time. I further engage, in case such dies of the foregoing kinds shall be wasted, to furnish the same with the least practicable delay."
It's amazing that the dies ever got out of the mint.