<< <i> The hair strands are absolutely hammered. The dies are aligned, so why the missing edge detail? >>
<< <i>The statement that the planchet was adjusted across the faces of both sides is a supposition not supported by facts as any evidence supporting the assertion has been obliterated. The lightness and crisscrossness of the adjustment marks remaining at the edges would also seem to be contrary to the assertion - as is the fabric of the coin. If the mint would not have attempted to polish a planchet with adjustment marks across the face, the spectacular finish on the dollar would seem to be an indication that it never did have such. >>
My opinion of why the edge detail is not well struck on the Carter example and all 1794 dollars is that Robert Scot was over aggressive in basining his initial attempts at dollar working dies, he learned and improved with the 1795's. The dies may have been over-convex, which would not allow full edge detail on any strike. There is also the apparent out of parrallel of the dies at strike - a common issue at the time.
Crisscrossed adjustment marks are relatively common, and it is common that adjustment marks occur only at the edge on some coins. The hammered centers indicate any adjustment marks would be obliterated in the centers, but they would appear towards the edges where pressure was less. The spectacular finish on the coin was imparted by a mirror finish on the die - something that Robert Scot was an expert at.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
The fact that the planchet was adjusted on both sides could have a number of plausible explanations, including but not limited to:
The person doing the adjusting was new at it, as you would expect on the first precious metal issue.
The person doing the adjustment filed one side of the planchet, put it down on the scale to weigh it and found that it was still too heavy, and picked it back up and by chance filed the other side.
As to the weak borders, let me ask you two questions: How strong is the edge inscription? What is the diameter of the coin?
The process of lettering the edge in the castaing machine should have served the function of upsetting the edge of the planchet a bit, but not much. A deeply-lettered edge would have resulted in stronger rims. A weakly-lettered edge, such as you might get if the lettering bars on the castaing machine were set a bit too far apart, would indicate a weakly-upset rim on the planchet.
Are there pictures of the edge published anywhere? I do not see them in the Logies book, a strange omission.
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.
<< <i>Just curious - how does the mint of 1794 make a correct weight planchet without adjustment marks? >>
They had to get the rolled out strips to the precise thickness. The "cookie cutter" planchet making device should have already been the correct diameter so that part would be solved.
I think that more early U.S. coins had adjustment marks than we might realize. the really minor adjustment marks would have been largely obliterated when the coins were stuck. Even the more pronounced ones would have worn off as the coins pasted from hand to hand. Only the moderate to heavy ones would appear on a well circulated piece.
That also might be numerous pieces that have adjustment marks that are too light to detect. Believe it or not very light adjustments are visible on this 1805 in AU-58 if you look at the center of the obverse with a 10X glass.
<< <i>The fact that the strike is light at the edges is curious. The hair strands are absolutely hammered. The dies are aligned, so why the missing edge detail? Also, the planchet has a slight split. Could this be an indication of adjustment at the edges leaving a too thin planchet at the edge? >>
The missing edge detail was due to the fact that coin was struck on a coin press than had been used for large cents. That press did not have the force or torque to exert enough pressure to strike the coin completely. Therefore the centers came out stronger than the edges. This 1794 dollar illustrates the problem more dramatically. The coin grades VF, but as you can see all of the edge devices are weak. Many thanks to Harry Laibstain who allowed me to download this picture when he was offering it for sale.
In 1795 the mint had to delay production of the silver until June when a larger press was installed and available. When was the problem got better, but then a number dies did not produce coins with sharp central detail. This 1795, Bolender variety #1 dollar, is really better than EF-40 by wear, but the weak hair detail resulted in a lower grade.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I have never seen the edge. Those who have state its condition supports the assertion the planchet was polished and the coin is a specimen. As I said before, the assertion it was not polished due to the possibilty it had now obliterated adjustment marks across the face of the planchet isn't a supportable assertion.
I have never seen that 1794 dollar in person so I can't make a comment on the nature of the specially prepared surface.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>I have never seen the edge. Those who have state its condition supports the assertion the planchet was polished and the coin is a specimen. As I said before, the assertion it was not polished due to the possibilty it had now obliterated adjustment marks across the face of the planchet isn't a supportable assertion. >>
Did the last slabber photo the piece before holdering it? They should have shot the edge on a piece like this.
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.
<< <i>The process of lettering the edge in the castaing machine should have served the function of upsetting the edge of the planchet a bit, but not much. A deeply-lettered edge would have resulted in stronger rims. A weakly-lettered edge, such as you might get if the lettering bars on the castaing machine were set a bit too far apart, would indicate a weakly-upset rim on the planchet. >>
Capt. Henway,
Deeply lettered edge on a half dollar produces a scalloped effect in the dentils. Are you or anyone else aware if such happens to dollars?
<< <i>Are there pictures of the edge published anywhere? I do not see them in the Logies book, a strange omission. >>
This is the only known photo of the edge of the coin, taken at the Pittsburgh ANA in August 2004. The picture is included in the 2010 edition of my book, but it had not been taken as of the time of publishing the earlier edition. (That edition was already printed and then released at the ANA that year.)
Obviously, this was long before PCGS was doing TrueView photos. In hand the edge of the coin is sharp and fully squared off, and the lettering is deeply incused. The surface of the edge is completely polished and prooflike, with the prooflike reflectivity noticeable even in the openings within the letters. There is no split to the rim at all -- what is seen is a single deeper adjustment mark that runs completely to the edge.
A point to ponder for those who feel the prooflike character of the coin is due purely to the polishing of the dies, rather than the polishing of the planchet: How do polished dies impart prooflike reflectivity to the surface of a normal planchet between the adjustment marks when the striking pressure is not sufficient to bring up the full peripheral details and smooth out the adjustment marks?
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.
Capt. Henway: <<I personally have no problem with calling it a "Specimen Strike." The Mint did make them back then. ...>>
TDN: <<Analyst has a very good article on CoinWeek supporting the designation.>>
I am strongly in agreement with the PCGS designation, though my theme was not so much to support the PCGS designation, but rather to explain the reasons why it should be concluded that this 1794 is a Specimen Striking. If this 1794 dollar was raw, I would have put forth the same reasons.
Capt. Henway: <<... but if the concensus is that calling such extraordinary early pieces -Specimen Strikes- is preferable to -Proofs- (because some early Specimens are better than others) I have no problem with that.>>
IMO, a Specimen and a Proof are two different concepts. In some cases, a coin that has many of the characteristics of a Proof, yet does not fulfill minium criteria to be a Proof, is a Specimen. In such cases, the coin may have never been intended to be a Proof and, in other cases, it may have been so intended but not quite qualify as a Proof. Overall, it should not be assumed that a Specimen was ever intended to be a Proof or Specimens are not necessarily inferior to Proofs. A process by which a Specimen is made is different from the process by which a business strike was made AND USUALLY is different from the process by which a Proof is made.
In the case of the Carter-Cardinal-Legend 1794 dollar, the dies were prepared very differently and the planchet was specially treated. The resulting coin is physically different from a Proof and it is physically different from a prooflike coin. It is not inferior to a Proof; it is just different from a Proof (if a relevant one existed). In my article, I discuss physical details, which cannot really be summarized here. In terms of physical characteristics, this coin is superior to all business strike 1794 dollars.
Capt. Henway: <<I have seen a 1799 Dollar that I would have absolutely no problem calling a flat-out Proof>>
Please tell us about it. I have never seen a pre-1820 U.S. silver coin that I regard as a Proof. I attended the Eliasberg and Pittman sales of the 1990s. I attended six of the last eight FUN Platinum Night events. I have covered many dozens of major auctions for Numismatic News, CoinLink and now CoinWeek. Usually, I examine the coins that I write about.
In some cases, Specimens may be more interesting and cooler than relevant Proofs. While Proofs often (though not always) have fairly uniform fully mirrored surfaces, Specimens sometimes exhibit cool assortments of die striae and/or the effects of extensive, varying treatment of dies with tools.
With every strike of the dies, do the flow lines increase in numbers? Under a microscope, the coin with the least number of flow lines, would that be your earliest struck dollar?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Great coin, I examined it years ago. Not hard to believe it is the first 1794 Flowing Hair dollar struck. But as for "first dollar," I vote for the silver Continental dollars ...
(I guess this is my once-a-year post for 2013 ... hard to remember when i used to live on these Boards)
<< <i>Great coin, I examined it years ago. Not hard to believe it is the first 1794 Flowing Hair dollar struck. But as for "first dollar," I vote for the silver Continental dollars ...
(I guess this is my once-a-year post for 2013 ... hard to remember when i used to live on these Boards) >>
what are you doing these days?
How did you fare after you sold your overthrow rainbow set of Morgans?
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
You mean you can't see the edge of the coin you just spent over $10,000,000 on???? Get that sucker in a PCGS edge-view holder so you can at least see some of it
<< <i>But as for "first dollar," I vote for the silver Continental dollars ... >>
These coins were struck by private individuals so technically they are tokens. Also, they carried no denomination.
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
Got a question about the 1794 die states. Logies lists three die states: perfect, clashed, and polished down to remove the clash marks.
I seem to remember somebody suggesting there were actually five die states, the extra two presumably being sub-states of the above. Does anybody know where this appeared, if at all?
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.
<< <i>Capt. Henway: <<I personally have no problem with calling it a "Specimen Strike." The Mint did make them back then. ...>>
TDN: <<Analyst has a very good article on CoinWeek supporting the designation.>>
I am strongly in agreement with the PCGS designation, though my theme was not so much to support the PCGS designation, but rather to explain the reasons why it should be concluded that this 1794 is a Specimen Striking. If this 1794 dollar was raw, I would have put forth the same reasons.
Capt. Henway: <<... but if the concensus is that calling such extraordinary early pieces -Specimen Strikes- is preferable to -Proofs- (because some early Specimens are better than others) I have no problem with that.>>
IMO, a Specimen and a Proof are two different concepts. In some cases, a coin that has many of the characteristics of a Proof, yet does not fulfill minium criteria to be a Proof, is a Specimen. In such cases, the coin may have never been intended to be a Proof and, in other cases, it may have been so intended but not quite qualify as a Proof. Overall, it should not be assumed that a Specimen was ever intended to be a Proof or Specimens are not necessarily inferior to Proofs. A process by which a Specimen is made is different from the process by which a business strike was made AND USUALLY is different from the process by which a Proof is made.
In the case of the Carter-Cardinal-Legend 1794 dollar, the dies were prepared very differently and the planchet was specially treated. The resulting coin is physically different from a Proof and it is physically different from a prooflike coin. It is not inferior to a Proof; it is just different from a Proof (if a relevant one existed). In my article, I discuss physical details, which cannot really be summarized here. In terms of physical characteristics, this coin is superior to all business strike 1794 dollars.
Capt. Henway: <<I have seen a 1799 Dollar that I would have absolutely no problem calling a flat-out Proof>>
Please tell us about it. I have never seen a pre-1820 U.S. silver coin that I regard as a Proof. I attended the Eliasberg and Pittman sales of the 1990s. I attended six of the last eight FUN Platinum Night events. I have covered many dozens of major auctions for Numismatic News, CoinLink and now CoinWeek. Usually, I examine the coins that I write about.
In some cases, Specimens may be more interesting and cooler than relevant Proofs. While Proofs often (though not always) have fairly uniform fully mirrored surfaces, Specimens sometimes exhibit cool assortments of die striae and/or the effects of extensive, varying treatment of dies with tools.
Back about 1985 I saw a 1799 dollar struck from well-polished dies that must have been multi-struck. The stars were so sharp that each of the six points radiating out had a crisp angle running down the center line of the point, and in the center of each star there was a small, cone-shaped point (or "nipple") pointing up. The rims were well struck and the edge was square. I have no idea where the coin is today.
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.
Try on the Garrett-Jimmy Hayes 1795 Bust S$1 (lot 73) as a stone proof. I think it brought $185K in 1985. As convincing as anything one might choose. More so than the SP66, though perhaps apples ands oranges.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Try on the Garrett-Jimmy Hayes 1795 Bust S$1 (lot 73) as a stone proof. I think it brought $185K in 1985.
Proof? I don't think so. As I remember it, "Specimen" is the best I would hope for. And in the same league, the Eliasberg 1796 Quarter B-1 was designated "SP" by PCGS, and I concur.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Could be right. Without Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine, there'll always be controversy. "Proof-ier" than the 1794 because of its polished planchet and polished dies. Multiple conjectural paths will always exist. Perhaps useful as an exemplar of what could be and was done in several ways. My typing and imaging skills preclude a quote from the Hayes catalogue.
Considering the Eliasberg 1796 25c, Specimen status is not out of line either. Sadly, I do not recall its fabric. I continue to identify more strongly on a daily basis with CaptHenway's sig line.
Certainly one of the most interesting, informative and provocative threads in many a moon. Numerous contributors have made this so.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>Got a question about the 1794 die states. Logies lists three die states: perfect, clashed, and polished down to remove the clash marks.
I seem to remember somebody suggesting there were actually five die states, the extra two presumably being sub-states of the above. Does anybody know where this appeared, if at all? >>
Actually, it was the Encyclopedia of Silver Dollars by Q. David Bowers that listed the three die states. It was my book on The Flowing Hair Silver Dollars of 1794 that provided the diagnostics for five separate die states.
<< <i>Got a question about the 1794 die states. Logies lists three die states: perfect, clashed, and polished down to remove the clash marks.
I seem to remember somebody suggesting there were actually five die states, the extra two presumably being sub-states of the above. Does anybody know where this appeared, if at all? >>
Actually, it was the Encyclopedia of Silver Dollars by Q. David Bowers that listed the three die states. It was my book on The Flowing Hair Silver Dollars of 1794 that provided the diagnostics for five separate die states. >>
I have looked through the latter book and cannot find it. Can anybody help me?
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.
<< <i>I have never seen the edge. Those who have state its condition supports the assertion the planchet was polished and the coin is a specimen. As I said before, the assertion it was not polished due to the possibilty it had now obliterated adjustment marks across the face of the planchet isn't a supportable assertion. >>
Did the last slabber photo the piece before holdering it? They should have shot the edge on a piece like this. >>
Heck, on a piece like this, I think I'd grab a couple armed guards, mosey over to PCGS, sit down with Mr. Hall, crack that sucker and take a peek. Then have them put it in another holder of course.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense. >>
Quite right! During his term as Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson held oversight authority with the operations of the Mint. So, for example, he personally delivered the silver for the minting of the 1792 half dismes, and he later collected the finished coins.
<< <i><< It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Is this true? Or did the mint make a profit on the coinage and thus hold back a few of the coins?
Edited to say that based on what I can find online, initially the coinage was free of charge. >>
Mint Director David Rittenhouse provided the silver that was used for the production of the 1794 dollars. In accordance with the Mint Act of April 1792, the Mint was required to return full value of the bullion in the form of the struck coins. All of the 1758 coins recorded as having been struck were paid out to Rittenhouse. Leonard D. Augsburger (co-author of The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint located in the Philadelphia archives the original receipt signed by David Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794 to acknowledge his receipt and acceptance of the coins that day.
As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
Any word yet?
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.
Try on the Garrett-Jimmy Hayes 1795 Bust S$1 (lot 73) as a stone proof. I think it brought $185K in 1985. As convincing as anything one might choose. More so than the SP66, though perhaps apples ands oranges.
Even if apples and oranges, they sure would make a good display together.
The Garrett-Jimmy Hayes 1795 Draped Bust Dollar "Choice Brilliant Proof" sold for a then record $170,000 in the 1980 Garrett auction and $143,000 at the 1985 Hayes auction.
The info and images below are from coinsite.com, which has some more pics worth a look as noted by MrEureka in this thread - Eye candy at CoinSite.com...
This 1795 $ will be appearing in one of the upcoming Pogue auctions in 2016 or 2017
Ex Jimmy Hayes Collection, Stacks, October 1985, lot 73, where it was catalogued "Choice Brilliant Proof." Struck from polished dies and exhibiting extremely sharp detail on the highest parts of the hair and the eagle's breast feathers. Undoubtedly one of the presentation pieces made for influential vistors and others under the administration of Mint Director Henry DeSaussure, many of which found their way to Europe. While this piece traces its provenance back to U.S. collector J. Colvin Randall, circa 1880, Randall made a number of trips across the Atlantic to make acquisitions for his collection. Since there is no record of a "Proof" or specimen 1795 Draped Bust Dollar in America prior to the Randall Sale in 1885, it is quite possible that he acquired the coin abroad. The Lester Merkin specimen, illustrated in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins was one such piece. Presumably, it was in England from sometime around the year of issue until its appearance in America in the 1970's, nearly 180 years later.
Ex. Garrett Collection, Bowers & Ruddy, lot 680, March, 1980; earlier from the J. Colvin Randall Collection, W. Elliott Woodward, lot 12, July, 1885
Ex. Amon G. Carter, Jr. Family Collection, Stacks, January, 1984, lot 207. A simply remarkable coin that's finer by far than any other known example. Considered by B. Max Mehl (who sold the coin in the Will W. Neil Collection Sale in 1947) and Stack's to be "The Finest 1794 Silver Dollar." Stack's, in its catalog description, was of the opinion that: "It is perfectly conceivable that this coin was the very first Silver Dollar struck!" That opinion is apparently shared by current numismatic experts as the coin was recently certified by PCGS as a Specimen striking with the grade of SP66.
Update: On January 24, 2013, Stack’s Bowers Galleries sold this specimen at auction as Lot #13094 of the Americana sale of the Cardinal Collection for a new world record price for any coin - $10,016,875 - eclipsing the previous record of $7,590,020 for a 1933 Double Eagle, set in 2002
Edited 3-17-2016 to update links that had changed and to get the pictures to show again. Also the 1795 $ will be appearing in one of the upcoming Pogue auctions.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Thanks for bumping it- I always thought this was one of the more fascinating threads seen on these boards. FWIW- I've always believed that the mint would want the weight on the first silver dollar it struck to be absolutely correct, since at the time the value of the coins it produced was dependent on the amount of silver in them. If the first coin or coins made and presented were found to be of incorrect weight, it could be damaging to the mint's fledgling brand, not to mention the fledgling nation the coins were representing.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Was just rereading this for reference material for my three minute speech tomorrow in London. *gulp*
Best of luck on your speech! I'm sure your speech will be memorable!! It's been 12 years since I spoke at a CNN press conference about the coin, and I am even more convinced to today of the importance of the coin than I was back then.
To all the naysayers, I say you truly can't appreciate the coin from a picture or a cased exhibit. When examined outside of its holder, the coin is a dramatic black and white frosted cameo -- every bit as dynamic as an 1890's era Proof Morgan Dollar. There can be no question that the planchet had special preparation and the dies themselves were totally fresh.
The United States silver dollars were based on the size and silver content of the Spanish Milled Dollars (8 Reales), as those were the most universally trusted of the crown-sized coins of the world at that time. So, clearly, the intent would be to show the world that these coins could be trusted.
In the years leading up to the production of the 1794 Dollars, many issues of foreign coins would be assayed by jewelers and counterstamped to designate their approval. Indeed, the Brasher Doubloons are historically famous in that regard. So, the clear evidence of the central plug and adjustment marks would similarly designate the precision used to ensure the proper silver content of the Specimen Dollar.
As the first issue of precious metal coinage by the U.S. Mint, this was a matter of national pride. Thomas Jefferson counseled Congress that "Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty. To transfer its exercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign." Accordingly, I have considered the silver dollars of 1794 to be our Founding Fathers' circulating declaration to the world of the sovereignty of our great nation, and the unique Specimen 1794 dollar to be our nation's first and foremost tangible symbol of that declaration.
it is a very special coin and I agree to the Specimen designation. It is much sharper than any of the other coins and specially struck, thats for sure.
I always was worried about the silver plug and the adjustment marks when it relates to the first coin being struck, but now when I read these posts, it actually makes sense. You want the first coin struck to have the exact silver weight of 1 USD (and not more or less), as it was probably a showcase coin.
And the mint wants to proof in the showcase coin that they are actually able to produce dollars in the right weight.
While they were a bit clumsy in achieving this (silver plug + adjustment marks), thats what they did, they took special care that this coin exactly has the weight of 1 USD.
So it most probably is the first silver dollar struck.
it is a very special coin and I agree to the Specimen designation... It is much sharper than any of the other coins and specially struck, thats for sure.
I always was worried about the silver plug and the adjustment marks when it relates to the first coin being struck, but now when I read these posts, it actually makes sense. You want the first coin struck to have the exact silver weight of 1 USD (and not more or less), as it was probably a showcase coin.
And the mint wants to proof in the showcase coin that they are actually able to produce dollars in the right weight.
While they were a bit clumsy in achieving this (silver plug + adjustment marks), thats what they did, they took special care that this coin exactly has the weight of 1 USD.
So it most probably is the first silver dollar struck.
It has likely been expressed before somewhere in this thread (I did not reread it completely), but it may be possible that it was not clumsy on the part of the mint using a planchet with a silver plug and adjustment marks. It could have been intentional in order to show that they had the techniques for dealing with overweight and underweight planchets all displayed on this single piece.
It does not guarantee that this was the first silver 1794 dollar struck. There is the slight possibility that at least one other from this die state was produced that became a pocket piece because of its special meaning and could still be out there somewhere or ending up getting melted (could this early die state be determined on a low grade coin?). Or maybe a high grade one still waits to be discovered.
For now this one is the most likely to have been the first struck in silver, but it may never be provable beyond a doubt that another like it didn't exist at one time.
But who would want a 1794 dollar anyway as "the touches of the graver are too delicate, and there is a want of that boldness of execution which is necessary to durability and currency".
(Too bad that some pictures seem to have been lost in this thread like the edge view posted by Cardinal on page 8. I was able to go back and edit my post on the previous page and change links so the pics from Coinsite.com appear again of this 1794 and the Garrett-Pogue 1795 Draped Bust PCGS Specimen-66)
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Cardinal: "Actually, it was the Encyclopedia of Silver Dollars by Q. David Bowers that listed the three die states. It was my book on The Flowing Hair Silver Dollars of 1794 that provided the diagnostics for five separate die states. "
At the ANA Convention in Pittsburgh, there was a numismatic theatre event about the Carter 1794 dollar, with emphasis upon the question of whether it was the first struck. Ken Bressett was among the speakers. I attended and analyzed this event for Numismatic News newspaper and I then carefully read Martin's book, which convincingly states that the Carter-Cardinal-Morelan coin is the finest survivor of the first of five die states. The similarity to the copper 1794 piece in the Smithsonian is pertinent.
TDN: "Just curious - how does the mint of 1794 make a correct weight planchet without adjustment marks?"
I theorize that each in the entire run of planchets for 1794 dollars was overweight. Also, the press employed in 1794 was not powerful enough for dollar-size coins. Every 1794 dollar is weakly struck in some areas, especially at the periphery. There is no reason to doubt the specialness of the Carter-Cardinal-Morelan coin, though it is a bit of stretch to conclude that it was the first struck.
Denga; "Pieces could have been held back and there was a mechanism for doing so, used prior to 1860 for the silver and gold proof coinage. One simply replaced the bullion used so that the accounts showed the same amount of pure metal. "
So, if the intent was to make a special coin, it would be easier to list it in the records as one of the coins that failed inspection rather than provide an explanation that few people would understand and may have led to the need for more paperwork.
Nysoto: "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."
TDN: "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."
Yes, I spent a lot of time examining this coin. Both the planchet and the dies were subject to particular and unusual methods of preparation, which are different from the polishing of dies for regular production runs. Please read my article on the Eliasberg 1851 Three Cent Silver, which is relevant.
Shamika: "What I was trying to suggest was that BECAUSE of the plug and adjustment marks, I would not think it's a first strike. Surely the mint director would not want adjustment marks mucking up a "first strike". "
There could well be a plug on the first strike. I agree that the existence of the plug on a Specimen Striking requires an explanation, and I provide one. Mint workers in 1794 were learning by doing. They intended to make a special coin and they did. They spent a great deal of time working on the planchet and unintentionally removed some weight in the process. They were proud of their work and wished to make sure that the resulting product met specifications mandated in the law.
Comments
<< <i> The hair strands are absolutely hammered. The dies are aligned, so why the missing edge detail? >>
<< <i>The statement that the planchet was adjusted across the faces of both sides is a supposition not supported by facts as any evidence supporting the assertion has been obliterated. The lightness and crisscrossness of the adjustment marks remaining at the edges would also seem to be contrary to the assertion - as is the fabric of the coin. If the mint would not have attempted to polish a planchet with adjustment marks across the face, the spectacular finish on the dollar would seem to be an indication that it never did have such. >>
My opinion of why the edge detail is not well struck on the Carter example and all 1794 dollars is that Robert Scot was over aggressive in basining his initial attempts at dollar working dies, he learned and improved with the 1795's. The dies may have been over-convex, which would not allow full edge detail on any strike. There is also the apparent out of parrallel of the dies at strike - a common issue at the time.
Crisscrossed adjustment marks are relatively common, and it is common that adjustment marks occur only at the edge on some coins. The hammered centers indicate any adjustment marks would be obliterated in the centers, but they would appear towards the edges where pressure was less. The spectacular finish on the coin was imparted by a mirror finish on the die - something that Robert Scot was an expert at.
The person doing the adjusting was new at it, as you would expect on the first precious metal issue.
The person doing the adjustment filed one side of the planchet, put it down on the scale to weigh it and found that it was still too heavy, and picked it back up and by chance filed the other side.
As to the weak borders, let me ask you two questions: How strong is the edge inscription? What is the diameter of the coin?
The process of lettering the edge in the castaing machine should have served the function of upsetting the edge of the planchet a bit, but not much. A deeply-lettered edge would have resulted in stronger rims. A weakly-lettered edge, such as you might get if the lettering bars on the castaing machine were set a bit too far apart, would indicate a weakly-upset rim on the planchet.
Are there pictures of the edge published anywhere? I do not see them in the Logies book, a strange omission.
<< <i>Just curious - how does the mint of 1794 make a correct weight planchet without adjustment marks? >>
They had to get the rolled out strips to the precise thickness. The "cookie cutter" planchet making device should have already been the correct diameter so that part would be solved.
I think that more early U.S. coins had adjustment marks than we might realize. the really minor adjustment marks would have been largely obliterated when the coins were stuck. Even the more pronounced ones would have worn off as the coins pasted from hand to hand. Only the moderate to heavy ones would appear on a well circulated piece.
That also might be numerous pieces that have adjustment marks that are too light to detect. Believe it or not very light adjustments are visible on this 1805 in AU-58 if you look at the center of the obverse with a 10X glass.
<< <i>The fact that the strike is light at the edges is curious. The hair strands are absolutely hammered. The dies are aligned, so why the missing edge detail? Also, the planchet has a slight split. Could this be an indication of adjustment at the edges leaving a too thin planchet at the edge? >>
The missing edge detail was due to the fact that coin was struck on a coin press than had been used for large cents. That press did not have the force or torque to exert enough pressure to strike the coin completely. Therefore the centers came out stronger than the edges. This 1794 dollar illustrates the problem more dramatically. The coin grades VF, but as you can see all of the edge devices are weak. Many thanks to Harry Laibstain who allowed me to download this picture when he was offering it for sale.
In 1795 the mint had to delay production of the silver until June when a larger press was installed and available. When was the problem got better, but then a number dies did not produce coins with sharp central detail. This 1795, Bolender variety #1 dollar, is really better than EF-40 by wear, but the weak hair detail resulted in a lower grade.
<< <i>I have never seen the edge. Those who have state its condition supports the assertion the planchet was polished and the coin is a specimen. As I said before, the assertion it was not polished due to the possibilty it had now obliterated adjustment marks across the face of the planchet isn't a supportable assertion. >>
Did the last slabber photo the piece before holdering it? They should have shot the edge on a piece like this.
<< <i>The process of lettering the edge in the castaing machine should have served the function of upsetting the edge of the planchet a bit, but not much. A deeply-lettered edge would have resulted in stronger rims. A weakly-lettered edge, such as you might get if the lettering bars on the castaing machine were set a bit too far apart, would indicate a weakly-upset rim on the planchet. >>
Capt. Henway,
Deeply lettered edge on a half dollar produces a scalloped effect in the dentils. Are you or anyone else aware if such happens to dollars?
1795 half on Heritage.
Remember too that the file as we know it today was not invented until the 1850s.
Brad
<< <i>Are there pictures of the edge published anywhere? I do not see them in the Logies book, a strange omission. >>
This is the only known photo of the edge of the coin, taken at the Pittsburgh ANA in August 2004. The picture is included in the 2010 edition of my book, but it had not been taken as of the time of publishing the earlier edition. (That edition was already printed and then released at the ANA that year.)
Obviously, this was long before PCGS was doing TrueView photos. In hand the edge of the coin is sharp and fully squared off, and the lettering is deeply incused. The surface of the edge is completely polished and prooflike, with the prooflike reflectivity noticeable even in the openings within the letters. There is no split to the rim at all -- what is seen is a single deeper adjustment mark that runs completely to the edge.
A point to ponder for those who feel the prooflike character of the coin is due purely to the polishing of the dies, rather than the polishing of the planchet: How do polished dies impart prooflike reflectivity to the surface of a normal planchet between the adjustment marks when the striking pressure is not sufficient to bring up the full peripheral details and smooth out the adjustment marks?
Capt. Henway: <<I personally have no problem with calling it a "Specimen Strike." The Mint did make them back then. ...>>
TDN: <<Analyst has a very good article on CoinWeek supporting the designation.>>
I am strongly in agreement with the PCGS designation, though my theme was not so much to support the PCGS designation, but rather to explain the reasons why it should be concluded that this 1794 is a Specimen Striking. If this 1794 dollar was raw, I would have put forth the same reasons.
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
Capt. Henway: <<... but if the concensus is that calling such extraordinary early pieces -Specimen Strikes- is preferable to -Proofs- (because some early Specimens are better than others) I have no problem with that.>>
IMO, a Specimen and a Proof are two different concepts. In some cases, a coin that has many of the characteristics of a Proof, yet does not fulfill minium criteria to be a Proof, is a Specimen. In such cases, the coin may have never been intended to be a Proof and, in other cases, it may have been so intended but not quite qualify as a Proof. Overall, it should not be assumed that a Specimen was ever intended to be a Proof or Specimens are not necessarily inferior to Proofs. A process by which a Specimen is made is different from the process by which a business strike was made AND USUALLY is different from the process by which a Proof is made.
In the case of the Carter-Cardinal-Legend 1794 dollar, the dies were prepared very differently and the planchet was specially treated. The resulting coin is physically different from a Proof and it is physically different from a prooflike coin. It is not inferior to a Proof; it is just different from a Proof (if a relevant one existed). In my article, I discuss physical details, which cannot really be summarized here. In terms of physical characteristics, this coin is superior to all business strike 1794 dollars.
Capt. Henway: <<I have seen a 1799 Dollar that I would have absolutely no problem calling a flat-out Proof>>
Please tell us about it. I have never seen a pre-1820 U.S. silver coin that I regard as a Proof. I attended the Eliasberg and Pittman sales of the 1990s. I attended six of the last eight FUN Platinum Night events. I have covered many dozens of major auctions for Numismatic News, CoinLink and now CoinWeek. Usually, I examine the coins that I write about.
In some cases, Specimens may be more interesting and cooler than relevant Proofs. While Proofs often (though not always) have fairly uniform fully mirrored surfaces, Specimens sometimes exhibit cool assortments of die striae and/or the effects of extensive, varying treatment of dies with tools.
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
A Specimen Three Cent Silver
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
(I guess this is my once-a-year post for 2013 ... hard to remember when i used to live on these Boards)
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>Great coin, I examined it years ago. Not hard to believe it is the first 1794 Flowing Hair dollar struck. But as for "first dollar," I vote for the silver Continental dollars ...
(I guess this is my once-a-year post for 2013 ... hard to remember when i used to live on these Boards) >>
what are you doing these days?
How did you fare after you sold your overthrow rainbow set of Morgans?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>But as for "first dollar," I vote for the silver Continental dollars ... >>
These coins were struck by private individuals so technically they are tokens. Also, they carried no denomination.
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 seem to remember somebody suggesting there were actually five die states, the extra two presumably being sub-states of the above. Does anybody know where this appeared, if at all?
<< <i>Capt. Henway: <<I personally have no problem with calling it a "Specimen Strike." The Mint did make them back then. ...>>
TDN: <<Analyst has a very good article on CoinWeek supporting the designation.>>
I am strongly in agreement with the PCGS designation, though my theme was not so much to support the PCGS designation, but rather to explain the reasons why it should be concluded that this 1794 is a Specimen Striking. If this 1794 dollar was raw, I would have put forth the same reasons.
Incredible Carter 1794 silver dollar
Capt. Henway: <<... but if the concensus is that calling such extraordinary early pieces -Specimen Strikes- is preferable to -Proofs- (because some early Specimens are better than others) I have no problem with that.>>
IMO, a Specimen and a Proof are two different concepts. In some cases, a coin that has many of the characteristics of a Proof, yet does not fulfill minium criteria to be a Proof, is a Specimen. In such cases, the coin may have never been intended to be a Proof and, in other cases, it may have been so intended but not quite qualify as a Proof. Overall, it should not be assumed that a Specimen was ever intended to be a Proof or Specimens are not necessarily inferior to Proofs. A process by which a Specimen is made is different from the process by which a business strike was made AND USUALLY is different from the process by which a Proof is made.
In the case of the Carter-Cardinal-Legend 1794 dollar, the dies were prepared very differently and the planchet was specially treated. The resulting coin is physically different from a Proof and it is physically different from a prooflike coin. It is not inferior to a Proof; it is just different from a Proof (if a relevant one existed). In my article, I discuss physical details, which cannot really be summarized here. In terms of physical characteristics, this coin is superior to all business strike 1794 dollars.
Capt. Henway: <<I have seen a 1799 Dollar that I would have absolutely no problem calling a flat-out Proof>>
Please tell us about it. I have never seen a pre-1820 U.S. silver coin that I regard as a Proof. I attended the Eliasberg and Pittman sales of the 1990s. I attended six of the last eight FUN Platinum Night events. I have covered many dozens of major auctions for Numismatic News, CoinLink and now CoinWeek. Usually, I examine the coins that I write about.
In some cases, Specimens may be more interesting and cooler than relevant Proofs. While Proofs often (though not always) have fairly uniform fully mirrored surfaces, Specimens sometimes exhibit cool assortments of die striae and/or the effects of extensive, varying treatment of dies with tools.
The Controversy over 1841 Quarter Eagles, Part 3, The physical characteristics of Proof coins
A Specimen Three Cent Silver >>
Back about 1985 I saw a 1799 dollar struck from well-polished dies that must have been multi-struck. The stars were so sharp that each of the six points radiating out had a crisp angle running down the center line of the point, and in the center of each star there was a small, cone-shaped point (or "nipple") pointing up. The rims were well struck and the edge was square. I have no idea where the coin is today.
Proof? I don't think so. As I remember it, "Specimen" is the best I would hope for. And in the same league, the Eliasberg 1796 Quarter B-1 was designated "SP" by PCGS, and I concur.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Considering the Eliasberg 1796 25c, Specimen status is not out of line either. Sadly, I do not recall its fabric. I continue to identify more strongly on a daily basis with CaptHenway's sig line.
Certainly one of the most interesting, informative and provocative threads in many a moon. Numerous contributors have made this so.
<< <i>Got a question about the 1794 die states. Logies lists three die states: perfect, clashed, and polished down to remove the clash marks.
I seem to remember somebody suggesting there were actually five die states, the extra two presumably being sub-states of the above. Does anybody know where this appeared, if at all? >>
Actually, it was the Encyclopedia of Silver Dollars by Q. David Bowers that listed the three die states. It was my book on The Flowing Hair Silver Dollars of 1794 that provided the diagnostics for five separate die states.
<< <i>
<< <i>Got a question about the 1794 die states. Logies lists three die states: perfect, clashed, and polished down to remove the clash marks.
I seem to remember somebody suggesting there were actually five die states, the extra two presumably being sub-states of the above. Does anybody know where this appeared, if at all? >>
Actually, it was the Encyclopedia of Silver Dollars by Q. David Bowers that listed the three die states. It was my book on The Flowing Hair Silver Dollars of 1794 that provided the diagnostics for five separate die states. >>
I have looked through the latter book and cannot find it. Can anybody help me?
<< <i>
<< <i>I have never seen the edge. Those who have state its condition supports the assertion the planchet was polished and the coin is a specimen. As I said before, the assertion it was not polished due to the possibilty it had now obliterated adjustment marks across the face of the planchet isn't a supportable assertion. >>
Did the last slabber photo the piece before holdering it? They should have shot the edge on a piece like this. >>
Heck, on a piece like this, I think I'd grab a couple armed guards, mosey over to PCGS, sit down with Mr. Hall, crack that sucker and take a peek. Then have them put it in another holder of course.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Did President Washington keep a diary? It seems like if I were the Mint Director I would have sent the first dollar struck to the President since the Mint was under him at the time, but that's just me.
It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver. >>
I always thought the new mint was under Thomas Jefferson who was Secretary of State. As we all know it was later moved under the Secretary of the Treasury which made more sense. >>
Quite right! During his term as Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson held oversight authority with the operations of the Mint. So, for example, he personally delivered the silver for the minting of the 1792 half dismes, and he later collected the finished coins.
<< <i><< It is quite possible that the entire run was delivered to the person that deposited the silver.
It was. >>
Is this true? Or did the mint make a profit on the coinage and thus hold back a few of the coins?
Edited to say that based on what I can find online, initially the coinage was free of charge. >>
Mint Director David Rittenhouse provided the silver that was used for the production of the 1794 dollars. In accordance with the Mint Act of April 1792, the Mint was required to return full value of the bullion in the form of the struck coins. All of the 1758 coins recorded as having been struck were paid out to Rittenhouse. Leonard D. Augsburger (co-author of The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint located in the Philadelphia archives the original receipt signed by David Rittenhouse on October 15, 1794 to acknowledge his receipt and acceptance of the coins that day.
As far as the "First Strike" status of the Carter-Cardinal 1794 dollar is concerned, I have recently learned that a previously-unreported key piece of evidence DOES exist which could provide a virtually certain answer to the question. As you might imagine, I am very much looking forward to reviewing that evidence! >>
Any word yet?
Even if apples and oranges, they sure would make a good display together.
The Garrett-Jimmy Hayes 1795 Draped Bust Dollar "Choice Brilliant Proof" sold for a then record $170,000 in the 1980 Garrett auction and $143,000 at the 1985 Hayes auction.
The info and images below are from coinsite.com, which has some more pics worth a look as noted by MrEureka in this thread - Eye candy at CoinSite.com...
This 1795 $ will be appearing in one of the upcoming Pogue auctions in 2016 or 2017
http://coinsite.com/1795-drape...-small-eagle-ex-hayes/
1795 Draped Bust Dollar, Small Eagle - Ex. Hayes
Ex Jimmy Hayes Collection, Stacks, October 1985, lot 73, where it was catalogued "Choice Brilliant Proof." Struck from polished dies and exhibiting extremely sharp detail on the highest parts of the hair and the eagle's breast feathers. Undoubtedly one of the presentation pieces made for influential vistors and others under the administration of Mint Director Henry DeSaussure, many of which found their way to Europe. While this piece traces its provenance back to U.S. collector J. Colvin Randall, circa 1880, Randall made a number of trips across the Atlantic to make acquisitions for his collection. Since there is no record of a "Proof" or specimen 1795 Draped Bust Dollar in America prior to the Randall Sale in 1885, it is quite possible that he acquired the coin abroad. The Lester Merkin specimen, illustrated in Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins was one such piece. Presumably, it was in England from sometime around the year of issue until its appearance in America in the 1970's, nearly 180 years later.
Ex. Garrett Collection, Bowers & Ruddy, lot 680, March, 1980; earlier from the J. Colvin Randall Collection, W. Elliott Woodward, lot 12, July, 1885
http://coinsite.com/1794-flowi...-carter-jr-collection/
Ex. Amon G. Carter, Jr. Family Collection, Stacks, January, 1984, lot 207. A simply remarkable coin that's finer by far than any other known example. Considered by B. Max Mehl (who sold the coin in the Will W. Neil Collection Sale in 1947) and Stack's to be "The Finest 1794 Silver Dollar." Stack's, in its catalog description, was of the opinion that: "It is perfectly conceivable that this coin was the very first Silver Dollar struck!" That opinion is apparently shared by current numismatic experts as the coin was recently certified by PCGS as a Specimen striking with the grade of SP66.
Update: On January 24, 2013, Stack’s Bowers Galleries sold this specimen at auction as Lot #13094 of the Americana sale of the Cardinal Collection for a new world record price for any coin - $10,016,875 - eclipsing the previous record of $7,590,020 for a 1933 Double Eagle, set in 2002
Edited 3-17-2016 to update links that had changed and to get the pictures to show again. Also the 1795 $ will be appearing in one of the upcoming Pogue auctions.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Was just rereading this for reference material for my three minute speech tomorrow in London. *gulp*
Latin American Collection
Ttt
Was just rereading this for reference material for my three minute speech tomorrow in London. *gulp*
Best of luck on your speech! I'm sure your speech will be memorable!! It's been 12 years since I spoke at a CNN press conference about the coin, and I am even more convinced to today of the importance of the coin than I was back then.
To all the naysayers, I say you truly can't appreciate the coin from a picture or a cased exhibit. When examined outside of its holder, the coin is a dramatic black and white frosted cameo -- every bit as dynamic as an 1890's era Proof Morgan Dollar. There can be no question that the planchet had special preparation and the dies themselves were totally fresh.
The United States silver dollars were based on the size and silver content of the Spanish Milled Dollars (8 Reales), as those were the most universally trusted of the crown-sized coins of the world at that time. So, clearly, the intent would be to show the world that these coins could be trusted.
In the years leading up to the production of the 1794 Dollars, many issues of foreign coins would be assayed by jewelers and counterstamped to designate their approval. Indeed, the Brasher Doubloons are historically famous in that regard. So, the clear evidence of the central plug and adjustment marks would similarly designate the precision used to ensure the proper silver content of the Specimen Dollar.
As the first issue of precious metal coinage by the U.S. Mint, this was a matter of national pride. Thomas Jefferson counseled Congress that "Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty. To transfer its exercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign." Accordingly, I have considered the silver dollars of 1794 to be our Founding Fathers' circulating declaration to the world of the sovereignty of our great nation, and the unique Specimen 1794 dollar to be our nation's first and foremost tangible symbol of that declaration.
--Cardinal
Ttt
Was just rereading this for reference material for my three minute speech tomorrow in London. *gulp*
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Good luck with your presentation.
Please post a recording of it if you can.
I always was worried about the silver plug and the adjustment marks when it relates to the first coin being struck, but now when I read these posts, it actually makes sense. You want the first coin struck to have the exact silver weight of 1 USD (and not more or less), as it was probably a showcase coin.
And the mint wants to proof in the showcase coin that they are actually able to produce dollars in the right weight.
While they were a bit clumsy in achieving this (silver plug + adjustment marks), thats what they did, they took special care that this coin exactly has the weight of 1 USD.
So it most probably is the first silver dollar struck.
it is a very special coin and I agree to the Specimen designation... It is much sharper than any of the other coins and specially struck, thats for sure.
I always was worried about the silver plug and the adjustment marks when it relates to the first coin being struck, but now when I read these posts, it actually makes sense. You want the first coin struck to have the exact silver weight of 1 USD (and not more or less), as it was probably a showcase coin.
And the mint wants to proof in the showcase coin that they are actually able to produce dollars in the right weight.
While they were a bit clumsy in achieving this (silver plug + adjustment marks), thats what they did, they took special care that this coin exactly has the weight of 1 USD.
So it most probably is the first silver dollar struck.
It has likely been expressed before somewhere in this thread (I did not reread it completely), but it may be possible that it was not clumsy on the part of the mint using a planchet with a silver plug and adjustment marks. It could have been intentional in order to show that they had the techniques for dealing with overweight and underweight planchets all displayed on this single piece.
It does not guarantee that this was the first silver 1794 dollar struck. There is the slight possibility that at least one other from this die state was produced that became a pocket piece because of its special meaning and could still be out there somewhere or ending up getting melted (could this early die state be determined on a low grade coin?). Or maybe a high grade one still waits to be discovered.
For now this one is the most likely to have been the first struck in silver, but it may never be provable beyond a doubt that another like it didn't exist at one time.
But who would want a 1794 dollar anyway as "the touches of the graver are too delicate, and there is a want of that boldness of execution which is necessary to durability and currency".
(Too bad that some pictures seem to have been lost in this thread like the edge view posted by Cardinal on page 8. I was able to go back and edit my post on the previous page and change links so the pics from Coinsite.com appear again of this 1794 and the Garrett-Pogue 1795 Draped Bust PCGS Specimen-66)
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
At the ANA Convention in Pittsburgh, there was a numismatic theatre event about the Carter 1794 dollar, with emphasis upon the question of whether it was the first struck. Ken Bressett was among the speakers. I attended and analyzed this event for Numismatic News newspaper and I then carefully read Martin's book, which convincingly states that the Carter-Cardinal-Morelan coin is the finest survivor of the first of five die states. The similarity to the copper 1794 piece in the Smithsonian is pertinent.
TDN: "Just curious - how does the mint of 1794 make a correct weight planchet without adjustment marks?"
I theorize that each in the entire run of planchets for 1794 dollars was overweight. Also, the press employed in 1794 was not powerful enough for dollar-size coins. Every 1794 dollar is weakly struck in some areas, especially at the periphery. There is no reason to doubt the specialness of the Carter-Cardinal-Morelan coin, though it is a bit of stretch to conclude that it was the first struck.
Denga; "Pieces could have been held back and there was a mechanism for doing so, used prior to 1860 for the silver and gold proof coinage. One simply replaced the bullion used so that the accounts showed the same amount of pure metal. "
So, if the intent was to make a special coin, it would be easier to list it in the records as one of the coins that failed inspection rather than provide an explanation that few people would understand and may have led to the need for more paperwork.
Nysoto: "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."
TDN: "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."
Yes, I spent a lot of time examining this coin. Both the planchet and the dies were subject to particular and unusual methods of preparation, which are different from the polishing of dies for regular production runs. Please read my article on the Eliasberg 1851 Three Cent Silver, which is relevant.
The Most Valuable Three Cent Silver Coin
Shamika: "What I was trying to suggest was that BECAUSE of the plug and adjustment marks, I would not think it's a first strike. Surely the mint director would not want adjustment marks mucking up a "first strike". "
There could well be a plug on the first strike. I agree that the existence of the plug on a Specimen Striking requires an explanation, and I provide one. Mint workers in 1794 were learning by doing. They intended to make a special coin and they did. They spent a great deal of time working on the planchet and unintentionally removed some weight in the process. They were proud of their work and wished to make sure that the resulting product met specifications mandated in the law.
Incredible Carter-Cardinal-Morelan 1794 silver dollar