Is the Cardinal 1794 Dollar the first dollar struck or not?
CaptHenway
Posts: 32,630 ✭✭✭✭✭
There are some good arguments for the Cardinal 1794 silver dollar being the first U.S. silver dollar struck (other than the copper trial strikes), but some would say that it has not been proven.
Any strong opinions one way or the other?
TD
Any strong opinions one way or the other?
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
0
Comments
I have no strong opinion either way.
Wondercoin
However I have read some strong arguments against calling it a 'Specimen Strike'.
<< <i>I don't see how without any supporting documentation that it could be proven either one way or the other.
However I have read some strong arguments against calling it a 'Specimen Strike'. >>
Straight from John Albanese (a paraphrased quote):
I was fully expecting NOT to sticker the coin because of the specimen designation. But when I got it in hand, it was so clearly special that I had to do so.
Analyst has a very good article on CoinWeek supporting the designation. Article
<< <i>I don't believe it is the first struck, but that's just my opinion. >>
Thank you. Is there any particular reason why you feel that way?
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
<< <i>Why would the mint use a planchet with a plug to bring the weight up to specs and with adjustment marks for the very first US silver dollar to be struck? Couldn't they have found a better planchet for such an historic event? And, why wouldn't they have documented this historic event? Sorry, but I think wishful thinking is influencing some opinions. >>
Perhaps that was the best planchet they had on that first day? The others could have been worse.
Perhaps they did not care? They were not numismatists, and had not had any opportunity to get feedback from collectors as to what they did or did not like to see in a coin.
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Makes me wonder if by the same logic my 1850 20 dollar specimen/"proof" might be the first U.S. 20 dollar gold piece that was struck following the 1849 proofs in the Smithsonian. (Edited to provide link to photo and thread discussing "First Struck" Twenty Dollar.)Photo and thread from the past
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Like breaking a bottle of champagne against a newly built ship on its maiden voyage....
Kinda special.
The pcgs sp 66 1794 is just that.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>maybe more than 1 was made and saved and this is ther surviving example. >>
That is certainly the possibility BUT if one takes that stance then one has to explain what happened to the first struck coin - which would be a flashy, prooflike example that was saved by the Mint or other dignitary. It would not have circulated - it would be immediately recognized as a prize and plucked from circulation. Sure, it could have been lost in a fire or whatnot - but again that's a stretch. It's far more believable that the Carter coin, struck on a planchet that would take hours if not days of preparation and matching the die state exactly of the copper pattern in the Smithsonian, is THE first dollar struck.
Did you mean to say, TDN 1794 silver dollar??
As for the no documentation, that bothers me not at all. You have to put yourself in the mindset of 200 years ago - coin collecting was something that a very small number of very rich guys in Europe did. No rare coin dealers in the entire U.S. until the 1850s, no formal Mint cabinet until the 1838. Also, this was two years into the Mint operation, so it's not like it was a special occasion for celebration. The silver dollar at that point in time didn't have the iconic status that it does today in the American psyche. You had to coin a billion Morgans for that to happen. There was no reason to put the 1794 on the front page of the Philadelphia papers.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
This is true, but .... one of the reasons that we bought it is because it is the most likely candidate to be the very first silver dollar struck.
Unless, of course, you believe that the Mint just happened to have this polished planchet sitting around on the day of striking all the 1794's ... and struck it third or fourth or fifth or something.
Like I said - it just doesn't quite make sense that it's not. But you're right - it requires a leap of faith.
The first strike cannot be determined because more than 92% of 1794 dollars no longer exist - the evidence is gone.
Some early US die marriages are known to be prooflike for 25 or more extant examples.
It cannot be determined with certainty that it was a polished planchet, or if the prooflike condition was only from polished dies - the final step in die preparation.
I am only convinced that it is the earliest strike among the remaining 1794 dollar examples that are of high enough grade to determine the die stage.
<< <i>I think the adjustment marks and plug actually add credence to it being one of the first struck, if not the first one struck. The planchet manufacture was not yet routine and they wanted to get the weight right. >>
I'm with the snowman here. We will never know if it's the first struck without documentation. But one can fathom that if this was the first time they were minting the dollar, the first planchet was not perfect. They had to adjust it to the right weight etc, and then strike it to see how the design looked. I don't know, just spit balling, but it makes sense to me for the period.
This one I have to disagree with as experts that I respect say it would not have the fabric that it has if the planchet was not carefully polished in advance of striking.
<< <i>It cannot be determined with certainty that it was a polished planchet, or if the prooflike condition was only from polished dies - the final step in die preparation. >>
<< <i>This one I have to disagree with as experts that I respect say it would not have the fabric that it has if the planchet was not carefully polished in advance of striking. >>
The 1794 dollar has adjustment file marks mostly at the periphery which is typical of 1794-95 dollars and half dollars, the rest of the coin had the adjustment marks pressed out.
I have filed and polished a lot of silver, having a former silversmithing hobby/business. As a filed surface can only be polished on the high points, an adjusted planchet simply could not be polished to any effective degree. The key early US Mint employees had much more abililty and knowledge than is usually given credit for, and they would not have tried to polish an adjusted planchet.
Not saying it could not have been the first dollar struck, just saying the evidence is gone to prove it was the first. It may have even been part of Robert Scot's reference set of coins, found in a drawer at the Mint after his death, and distributed to his heirs by probate court.
<< <i> it still doesn't prove it was the first one struck.
This is true, but .... one of the reasons that we bought it is because it is the most likely candidate to be the very first silver dollar struck.
Unless, of course, you believe that the Mint just happened to have this polished planchet sitting around on the day of striking all the 1794's ... and struck it third or fourth or fifth or something.
Like I said - it just doesn't quite make sense that it's not. But you're right - it requires a leap of faith. >>
I won't disagree that it is a special coin. Heck it looks like it, feels like it, tastes like it ... okay, maybe not so much on the last two.
Wishing, dreaming, and speculating that it was the first is fun ... especially over beer. But, there is no proof ... and THAT is the end of the speculation. Is there ANY evidence that the US Mint didn't strike 2 or 3 "special" coins? What if this was the second or even third? Again ... more beer and speculation.
Regardless of the discussion, it's the baddest 1794 on the planet. Now THAT is not speculation!
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Absolutely, positively cannot refute that point. The only counterpoint to it is that it's easier to believe that the very first coin was specially produced and saved than it is to believe that more than one was produced and saved and that the earlier strikes were destroyed leaving just this one.
I don't understand this assertion. If a planchet's surface area is 95% untouched by adjustment marks, then 95% of the planchet could be polished appropriately.
<< <i>I respectfully suggest you reconsider disagreeing with Nysoto. For what it's worth, and as a fellow metallurgical/mechanical Engineer, I hold his comments in the very highest regard. >>
I hold most posters' comments in high regard - and even so I will still disagree occasionally. I have seen plenty of early strike bust coinage over the years. But I've never seen one with fabric like this:
<< <i>Unless making a profit is the primary goal (which seems to have been denied by the new owners), those owners should refrain from statements trying to burnish its significance. Martin is a true gentleman in that regard - doing extremely high quality research and producing (multiple) free publications of that work. Let's watch for the numismatic fruit of the new owners of the lovely 1794 dollar. >>
Again, I don't understand this statement. It is precisely Martin's research that convinced us the coin is most likely the first struck. It is this reason we chose to pay what we paid. It is not the case of us buying a coin on the cheap and trying to raise its significance to make a profit - rather it is a case of us recognizing its significance and paying ALL the money to acquire it.
There is no definitive proof it is the first dollar struck, but the preponderance of evidence points that way.
<< <i>Is there ANY evidence that the US Mint didn't strike 2 or 3 "special" coins? What if this was the second or even third? Again ... more beer and speculation.
Absolutely, positively cannot refute that point. The only counterpoint to it is that it's easier to believe that the very first coin was specially produced and saved than it is to believe that more than one was produced and saved and that the earlier strikes were destroyed leaving just this one. >>
Or ... shudder the thought ... rather than destroyed the dollars were spent. It sure makes sense that something special was done to commemorate the first silver dollar(s) struck. Maybe, hopefully, somebody will come across something in some out-of-the-way, long-forgotten Mint records. RWB ... are you reading this?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
But my oh my that takes an even bigger leap of faith for me to believe it. The first dollar struck would have been saved for many years. A flashy prooflike 1794 entering circulation after a few design changes for the dollar would have been plucked and saved very very quickly if you ask me.
<< <i>As a filed surface can only be polished on the high points, an adjusted planchet simply could not be polished to any effective degree >>
<< <i>I don't understand this assertion. If a planchet's surface area is 95% untouched by adjustment marks, then 95% of the planchet could be polished appropriately. >>
Adjustment marks appear on a struck coin where the striking pressure is the least, dies are slightly convex to facilitate metal flow, and the edges usually have the weakest part of the strike on early coins, as dentils often show weakness. Even on well hammered early coins, parts of the edges are usually weak because the dies are slightly out of parallel at strike. Adjustment marks can also appear on the portrait, if the adjusting is very severe, or if the coin was struck with weak pressure.
Since adjustment marks can be found anywhere on the surface, the adjusting was done over the entire planchet, not just at the periphery, but they are usually pressed out in the center. So many examples exist to prove this on 1794-95 coins. After 1807, adjusting was mostly done on the edge, with finer files than the coarse files used in 1794-95.
I saw the Cardinal/Legend 1794 dollar in 2004, it is a fantastic coin.
<< <i>Maybe, hopefully, somebody will come across something in some out-of-the-way, long-forgotten Mint records. RWB ... are you reading this?
So, if someone were to come up with the "smoking gun," what would be the best way of "monetizing" that information
<< <i>The first dollar struck would have been saved for many years. >>
Not to take this thread off on a tangent but just curious on how you arrived at this conclusion? Was this a habit of the early mint? Did they save all of the first other denominations too? If silver was great, then the first gold coins would have been even more important and I'm not aware of any records of that either. And then we get to who would have kept it? Would they have arm-wrestled over it?
It is quite an anomaly.
And Occam's razor.
Well, I guess I'm making the supposition that if they were going to make a specimen in the first few coins that it would be the first coin. Not sure why you'd make a specimen out of the 5th coin or the 10th coin and not save the very first coin. Of course, if the Mint didn't think the very first United States silver dollar was special at the time, then obviously my supposition is wrong. It also seems odd to me that the Mint would save the only silver plugged planchet for later in the production run. Wouldn't a special planchet go first?
Occam's razor
Yes - thank you!
<< <i>Well, I guess I'm making the supposition that if they were going to make a specimen in the first few coins that it would be the first coin. >>
You are not wrong as that is exactly what they did TDN - from Evans' Mint History: "Eckfeldt put aside "master coins"—coins struck with extra care using new dies and polished planchets. These pieces became the Mint's Cabinet, or coin collection". The only issue is that this was not in practice in 1794. At least not in documented practice.
<< <i>Not to take this thread off on a tangent but just curious on how you arrived at this conclusion?
Well, I guess I'm making the supposition that if they were going to make a specimen in the first few coins that it would be the first coin. Not sure why you'd make a specimen out of the 5th coin or the 10th coin and not save the very first coin. Of course, if the Mint didn't think the very first United States silver dollar was special at the time, then obviously my supposition is wrong. It also seems odd to me that the Mint would save the only silver plugged planchet for later in the production run. Wouldn't a special planchet go first? >>
It seems equally plausible to me that they would "practice" on a few regular planchets before
going ahead with minting the specimen. It really doesn't make a tremendous amount of
difference, IMO. The coin is unique no matter the historical details.
<< <i>We had this argument at the ANA when it was on exhibit. What it came down to was those with a vested financial interest in the coin (owner, consultant, exhibitor) assert it is the first because of the obvious monetary benefit. There is NO objective, definitive evidence that proves it is the first dollar struck. Anything else is just speculation. You can stack expert after expert decrying how spectacular the coin is and how it's the best in existence and how if you are really quiet you look at it you can hear the angels sing ... it still doesn't prove it was the first one struck. >>
My pops always told me while growing up that "the high flying eagle draws many arrow," and I find that relevant in a situation such as the above statement and or situation. There were/are far fewer folks with a true vested financial interest in such a coin/asset as the coin in question, than there are folks with zero vested financial interest (due to the fact that 99% of the worlds population could never afford to even be in its presence, let alone own it)....in conclusion, of course there are going to be far more opinions that would suggest that the coin in question is indeed not the first ever struck US Dollar. That is the way the world works, and always has worked. These days I believe that with both sides having such little or any clear-cut evidence of wether or not "it is" or "it isn't" that those that are automatically in the "it isn't" camp are referred to as "haters", or in an older term "high flying eagle shooters." Maybe it's envy, maybe it's an uneducated guess, maybe its true, but it has always been strange to me that there are far more "haters" than there are "lovers" when it comes to someone else's treasure.
My opinion (not as if it matters in the slightest) is: Hellava Coin and Congrats to whomever owns it today, and to each the same onward till the end of history!
Erik
<< <i>Did they save all of the first other denominations too? >>
All of the first year silver denominations had a much higher survival rate than subsequent years, and with more MS examples. So more were saved, by whom is not known. As I mentioned earlier Chief Engraver Robert Scot did have coins at the Mint that were probably a reference set, which I uncovered from original documents while doing research on Scot.
The Cardinal/Legend 1794 dollar is not the only early strike of a first year issue. In Volume 1, Number 1 of the John Reich Journal, the article "The First Dime" by Allen Lovejoy describes the Hayes 1796 dime as "an early strike proof or presentation piece." Is is one of the few JR-1 dimes without the cud, and is definately a very early strike, "it is not unreasonable to speculate that it might well have been one of the first dimes, if not the first dime, struck by the Mint."
Lovejoy knew better than to claim the Hayes 1796 dime as definately the first dime struck, but like the 1794 dollar it is a possibility.
As for whether or not it is the first silver dollar struck, I don't know and I don't really care. The coin is what it is.
The only thing that bothers me about any of the arguments in this thread is the assumption that we have seen all of the high grade 1794 Dollars in existence. (The assumption is required when arguing that the Amon Carter coin is the only one like it in the world.) My experience leads me to believe that there are still a whole lot of coins we haven't seen, and there are many amazing finds yet to be found.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
And, for those who've never been, I highly recommend. It's quite the marvel!
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>There are about 138 known 1794 dollars, and about 1,620 that did not survive out of the 1,758 mintage.
The first strike cannot be determined because more than 92% of 1794 dollars no longer exist - the evidence is gone.
Some early US die marriages are known to be prooflike for 25 or more extant examples.
It cannot be determined with certainty that it was a polished planchet, or if the prooflike condition was only from polished dies - the final step in die preparation.
I am only convinced that it is the earliest strike among the remaining 1794 dollar examples that are of high enough grade to determine the die stage. >>
True, fresh dies can produce a number of prooflike examples. However, even fresh dies will not produce a perfectly squared-off edge that is prooflike itself, even between and within the flat areas of the edge lettering, such as is plainly evident on the Carter 1794 dollar. Such a sharp squared prooflike edge requires more preparation, and that is what led John Dannreuther to conclude that the plachet itself was polished before striking.
Beyond the Carter 1794 dollar, what about other prooflike examples? In 1887 dealer Ebenezer Locke Mason wrote “It is said that but a few of the 1794 dollars were struck, and the earliest from the dies equaled Proof pieces in their glistening splendor. The British Museum contains the best known specimen.” This particular coin was donated to the British Museum in 1818 and has remained there ever since. Its earliest recorded owner was Captain Hawkins Whitshed, who gave it as a gift to Sarah Sophia Banks in 1796. The coin remained with Sarah Banks until her death in 1818, and then it was donated to the Museum. Based on Mason's description from long ago, the coin displayed "glistening" surfaces equal to "Proof pieces," yet, according to Dannreuther's recent examination of the coin, it did not have sharply squared prooflike edges. So, in all likelihood this would have been a very early strike from fresh dies, where the dies themselves would have created the prooflike surfaces.
Here is an image of the British Museum specimen:
You will note the prominent clashmarks on the reverse of the coin. So, if this was one of the earliest struck based on its prooflike surfaces -- say within the first 25 struck -- and yet the dies had already clashed, then how much earlier in the production must the Carter 1794 dollar have been?
I think rather than labelling all who disagree "haters" as per above (and not you Cardinal), perhaps realizing that healthy skepticism is a good thing and that some do have high levels of proof regarding anything, particular when bold assertions are made.
I, for one, hate the hype in this or any similar situation but DO love the coin as per Andy Lustig.
BTW, Cardinal, are you an alumnus of Stanford University?
Well, just Love coins, period.