Options
New book, The 1838-O Half Dollar, by Kevin Flynn and John Dannreuther
kevinj
Posts: 989 ✭✭✭
The 1838-O Half Dollar, An Alignment of the Stars, by Kevin Flynn and John Dannreuther will be going to the printers in the beginning of January and should be ready at end of January. This book is being self-published, with only a limited number being printed. The book is 8 ½ by 11, approximately 90 pages. Softcover $29.95 plus shipping.
The primary purpose of this book was to do a complete analysis of the 1838-O half dollar. It start out as a simple question as to whether some coins were struck in Philadelphia and ended up uncovering most of the history of this variety.
The evidence absolutely shows that all of the 1838-O half dollars were struck at the New Orleans Mint. No specimen was struck by the Philadelphia Mint before the dies were shipped to the New Orleans Mint in April, 1838. There were also two strikings in New Olreans, one in late January, and a second in late March 1839. We show which coins were struck during each striking. The archive records found and presented show why most of these coins were struck, who struck them. Many of these records have not before been published. The diagnostics of the coins was also used to determine other key elements such as the order the coins were struck and also helped determine a second striking was made in late March.
A detailed photograph comparison was done between the 1838-O Smithsonian specimen, that is the key to these discoveries, and the 1838 proof at the Smithsonian, and other 1838-O half dollars is provided. There are die cracks on the 1838-O Smithsonian specimen that do not exist on any other 1838-O half dollar. Also presented is an analysis of the 1839-O half dollars that have been called proofs that is also an integral part of the 1838-O half dollars.
All theories are presented with an analysis of each. All facts, conclusion, untrue, and a summary are given. A historical timeline and detailed analysis of the die making process will up understand some of the dependencies.
Our analysis of the 1838-O half dollars, besides the Smithsonian specimen was primarily through photographs and digital images, same was for the 1839-O half dollars called proofs. We are looking to study the other 1838-O half dollars to confirm the die states and surface texture. Please contact John or myself if you have a specimen.
Price for the softcover is $29.95. To order, send a check or money order to Kevin Flynn, P.O. Box 396, Lumberton, NJ08048. Please include $5 for media shipping or $10 for first class shipping. Please email me at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com to reserve a copy. See other books available at www.kevinjflynn.com.
The primary purpose of this book was to do a complete analysis of the 1838-O half dollar. It start out as a simple question as to whether some coins were struck in Philadelphia and ended up uncovering most of the history of this variety.
The evidence absolutely shows that all of the 1838-O half dollars were struck at the New Orleans Mint. No specimen was struck by the Philadelphia Mint before the dies were shipped to the New Orleans Mint in April, 1838. There were also two strikings in New Olreans, one in late January, and a second in late March 1839. We show which coins were struck during each striking. The archive records found and presented show why most of these coins were struck, who struck them. Many of these records have not before been published. The diagnostics of the coins was also used to determine other key elements such as the order the coins were struck and also helped determine a second striking was made in late March.
A detailed photograph comparison was done between the 1838-O Smithsonian specimen, that is the key to these discoveries, and the 1838 proof at the Smithsonian, and other 1838-O half dollars is provided. There are die cracks on the 1838-O Smithsonian specimen that do not exist on any other 1838-O half dollar. Also presented is an analysis of the 1839-O half dollars that have been called proofs that is also an integral part of the 1838-O half dollars.
All theories are presented with an analysis of each. All facts, conclusion, untrue, and a summary are given. A historical timeline and detailed analysis of the die making process will up understand some of the dependencies.
Our analysis of the 1838-O half dollars, besides the Smithsonian specimen was primarily through photographs and digital images, same was for the 1839-O half dollars called proofs. We are looking to study the other 1838-O half dollars to confirm the die states and surface texture. Please contact John or myself if you have a specimen.
Price for the softcover is $29.95. To order, send a check or money order to Kevin Flynn, P.O. Box 396, Lumberton, NJ08048. Please include $5 for media shipping or $10 for first class shipping. Please email me at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com to reserve a copy. See other books available at www.kevinjflynn.com.
Kevin J Flynn
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<< <i>The 1838-O Half Dollar, An Alignment of the Stars, by Kevin Flynn and John Dannreuther will be going to the printers in the beginning of January and should be ready at end of January. This book is being self-published, with only a limited number being printed. The book is 8 ½ by 11, approximately 90 pages. Softcover $29.95 plus shipping.
The primary purpose of this book was to do a complete analysis of the 1838-O half dollar. It start out as a simple question as to whether some coins were struck in Philadelphia and ended up uncovering most of the history of this variety.
The evidence absolutely shows that all of the 1838-O half dollars were struck at the New Orleans Mint. No specimen was struck by the Philadelphia Mint before the dies were shipped to the New Orleans Mint in April, 1838. >>
Sounds like4 a good book. I will order one. Just ordered the 1822 Half eagle book from Stacks, I don't know if my library can hold one book per coin!
On another note, I had not thought about this before, the quote above says "No specimen was struck by the Philly Mint before the dies were shipped". Seems to me that the Philly mint would have tested the dies before shipping, does the evidence show that not even a test strike was made? Thats a pretty absolute statement that I would think would be hard to prove given the level of documentation at the mint at the time.
<< <i>Sounds like4 a good book. I will order one. Just ordered the 1822 Half eagle book from Stacks, I don't know if my library can hold one book per coin!
On another note, I had not thought about this before, the quote above says "No specimen was struck by the Philly Mint before the dies were shipped". Seems to me that the Philly mint would have tested the dies before shipping, does the evidence show that not even a test strike was made? Thats a pretty absolute statement that I would think would be hard to prove given the level of documentation at the mint at the time. >>
That is funny and I agree, luckily there are only a few subjects/coins that would warrant an entire book just on one variety/coin, such as the 1913 vnick, 94S dime, 38O half, 84-85 trade to name a few
On the dies, they did not test the dies in Philly before sending to the Branch Mints,
I can absolutely prove they did not test these two sets of 1838-O working dies before they sent them, it is actually impossible that they were used to make a test strike before shipping.
I would not use or imply absolutely, nor would JD, unless we were absolutely sure.
Thanks
Kevin
I met John at the last Long Beach Expo. I was in line to show a coin to David Hall at the "Meet the Expert" booth when he approached me and asked what coin I was going to get David's opinion on - an 1818 half dollar. If I recall correctly, he mentioned he was writing a book, however I remember him saying something about seated dimes or half dimes. But he could be writing several books, for all I know.
What I do know is that he was a pleasure to meet and talk to. I hope to speak with him again soon.
<< <i>My kind of book! I'll have to ask Santa for one.
I met John at the last Long Beach Expo. I was in line to show a coin to David Hall at the "Meet the Expert" booth when he approached me and asked what coin I was going to get David's opinion on - an 1818 half dollar. If I recall correctly, he mentioned he was writing a book, however I remember him saying something about seated dimes or half dimes. But he could be writing several books, for all I know.
What I do know is that he was a pleasure to meet and talk to. I hope to speak with him again soon. >>
JD IMO is the foremost expert on 19th century proof coins, IMO he is of what I jokingly call a living legend, probably the most knowledgeable person alive on proofs
He is also extremely open minded and we have shared a great deal of knowledge and research.
JD is writing a book on each of the proofs, gold, silver, and minor, can't wait till they are done.
This 38-O book started because I shared all of my archive research with JD, and he remembered them when asked clarification on the 38-O, sparked conversations, questions, research, knowledge......
This book is what I would call a game changer for the 1838-O half dollar and information about it.
Kevin
Their position is that there is a dual-origin of these pieces. This is a recent publication, apparently with evidence to support their dual-origin position also.
I'm with you. The only book available is Breen's old work and it is out of date, particularly regarding 19th-century proofs.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>In “The Surprising History of the 1838-O Half Dollar,” by David Stone, Mark Van Winkle they state that “New evidence indicates 1838-O half dollars were struck on two different occasions,” said Halperin. “Originals were struck early in 1838 at the Philadelphia Mint as prototypes for a planned New Orleans Mint coinage that never took place due to production difficulties in that facility’s first year of operations.”
Their position is that there is a dual-origin of these pieces. This is a recent publication, apparently with evidence to support their dual-origin position also. >>
I greatly respect Dave, Mark, and Jim, we often share info and research together. I also consider them good friends.
I also respect anyone who puts in the time, research, and passion to write a book.
I have shared a draft of my book with them and spoke to them on the phone about JD and my findings.
I kinda did not want to write this book, as it refuted some of their research and I have to much respect for them.
Mark VanWinkle said it best, when he said
"When Dave and I published the 1838-O book a couple of years ago we never thought it would be the final word.
We attempted to bring together what was known and other items that had been long forgotten.
Both Dave and I would be the first ones to embrace any new scholarship on the 1838-O."
This is one of the reasons why I have the greatest of respect for them. I should know better as I to enjoy when someone brings new information to light and shares it, even if it refutes what I have stated in a book or other writing, as it teaches us something new or a new perspective, and isn't that the essence of the hobby?
There are also archive records and other information they were not aware of which helped on this subject. The Smithsonian specimen is also the key is solving the mystery here. The photographic evidence included in the book speaks for itself.
I can absolutely prove that no 1838-O half dollars were struck in Philadelphia, actually physically impossible.
But I will let the reader judge as to whether they agree with our assertions.
Kevin
Kevin: <<The primary purpose of this book was to do a complete analysis of the 1838-O half dollar. It starts out as a simple question as to whether some coins were struck in Philadelphia and ended up uncovering most of the history of this variety>>
DeliaBug: <<In “The Surprising History of the 1838-O Half Dollar,” by David Stone, Mark Van Winkle they state that “New evidence indicates 1838-O half dollars were struck on two different occasions,” ... Their position is that there is a dual-origin of these pieces. This is a recent publication, apparently with evidence to support their dual-origin position also.>>
On Jan. 2, 2014, more than eleven months before this thread originated and shortly after the work by Stone & Van Winkle was published, I demonstrated that all 1838-O halves were likely to have been struck in New Orleans. R. W. Julian cooperated with me. It is he who has done the most research regarding the Philadelphia Mint in the 19th century and he has researched the beginnings of the New Orleans Mint in depth. I also quote John Albanese.
Eliasberg 1838-O Half Dollar and the Controversy over its origins
The Eliasberg 1838-O was auctioned again in May 2015:
The Incredible Gene Gardner Coin Collection, Part 6 – Auction #3 with a focus on Half Dollars
Coincidentally, the Garrett 1838-O dime is 'in the news' this week:
Garrett-Kaselitz Coin and 1838-O Liberty Seated Dimes in General
<< <i>On Jan. 2, 2014, more than eleven months before this thread originated and shortly after the work by Stone & Van Winkle was published, I demonstrated that all 1838-O halves were likely to have been struck in New Orleans. R. W. Julian cooperated with me. It is he who has done the most research regarding the Philadelphia Mint in the 19th century and he has researched the beginnings of the New Orleans Mint in depth. I also quote John Albanese. >>
Greg,
Sounds like you believe you proved something regarding the 1838-O half dollar?
Read your article prior to writing my 1838-O Half Dollar book with JD, IMO your article it was more of an attack on Mark and David's 38-O book.
You state, "I demonstrated that all 1838-O halves were likely to have been struck in New Orleans". Where did you "demonstrate" this?
You presented several theories and arguments, but no actual proof.
JD and I presented physical evidence in archive letters that validated that it was impossible, based on the state of the working dies sent that they were first used in Philadelphia.
JD and I also proved that there was absolutely two strikings at the New Orleans Mint, when the second striking happened, , diagnostics on the coins which show which coin was from the second striking, the coin press used for the second striking, the relationship between the 1839-O half dollars that have been called proofs and the 1838-O half dollar from the second striking, why the coin from second striking was more likely struck as a proof for presentation, and how many coins are known from the second striking. We even presented some of the depositions of New Orleans Mint employees including Tyler.
WOW, you state R.W. Julian has done the most research regarding the Philadelphia Mint in the 19th century.
Please show me the evidence or proof on this. R.W. is a great researcher, and has done very extensive researcher in the archives, but I would suggest not stating what you cannot prove, or if you believe it state as an opinion.
On this subject of the importance of archive records, if you read JD and my 38-O book, you would clearly see that in your article, you missed many of the important archive letters that presented the entire picture of this great American Treasure and all of the circumstances surrounding its creation.
Your article is also incorrect in several of the statements you make, for example "There is no solid evidence that any mintmarked coins were made at the Philadelphia Mint during the 19th century ". This is incorrect, I have seen several times, that branch mint were having problems with working dies, the working dies were returned to Philadelphia and these dies were used to strike coins to test.
Would gladly show you how you were wrong in your theories, statements, assertions if you would like.
Kevin
Partner @Gold Hill Coin
I see your book is sold out. Any thought of reprinting another edition?
<< <i>Kevin:
I see your book is sold out. Any thought of reprinting another edition? >>
Hi Mark,
Only printed 50 copies of the 1838-O half dollar book, was not intending to print anymore.
Can you send me an email at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin: <<Read your article prior to writing my 1838-O Half Dollar book with JD, IMO your article it was more of an attack on Mark and David's 38-O book.>>
My article was about 1838-O halves in general, with specific mention of the Eliasberg 1838-O half as it was then coming up for auction a few days after my article was published. Stone & Van Winkle catalogued the Eliasberg 1838-O and they coined a theory that some 1838-O halves were struck in Philadelphia.
It is neither accurate nor fair to use the term "attack" in this context. I diligently and fairly rebut each of the major arguments put forth by Stone & Van Winkle. As it was generally believed that all 1838-O halves were made in New Orleans, the burden of proof was on Stone & Van Winkle to support an opposing theory. They wrote a brilliant article and they are among the sharpest researchers in the nation. In this case, however, I believe that I did in fact demonstrate in January 2014 that it is extremely unlikely that any 1838-O half dollars were struck in Philadelphia.
The point that all 1838-O halves were minted in New Orleans cannot be 100% proved. In some cases, mint records are wrong, accidentally or deliberately. In addition, there are mint records that do not survive. Moreover, some mint records may be inconsistent with other mint records, and all are subject to interpretation. Analogously, consider that most of the cases handled by the U.S. Supreme Court are not mentioned much 'in the news' because they are relatively boring instances of the Supreme Court resolving conflicts among federal appeals courts. One federal court decision may interpret a particular law in a manner that is very much at odds with interpretations of the same law by judges in other federal courts. If federal laws are so ambiguous that federal judges cannot consistently apply them or even agree on their meanings, it is misleading for Kevin to say that mint records, including poorly written letters, are crystal clear.
Certainly, there is at least a 1% chance that Stone & Van Winkle are correct. I did demonstrate that there is a high probability, most certainly at least a 95% chance, that all 1838-O halves were minted in New Orleans.
Kevin: <<Your article is also incorrect in several of the statements you make, for example "There is no solid evidence that any mintmarked coins were made at the Philadelphia Mint during the 19th century ". This is incorrect, I have seen several times, that branch mint were having problems with working dies, the working dies were returned to Philadelphia and these dies were used to strike coins to test>>
If so, such cases are anomalies, severe engineering or manufacturing problems pertaining to dies that had already been shipped. Though curious, it is misleading to use such cases as evidence that I am "incorrect"! Such "mintmarked" pieces would be die trials not coins, would be extraordinarily unusual, and would NOT be relevant to the theory put forth by Stone & Van Winkle that stunning Proof 1838-O halves were made in Philadelphia.
Kevin: <<JD and I presented physical evidence in archive letters that validated that it was impossible, based on the state of the working dies sent that they were first used in Philadelphia.>>
Please consider this passage in my article on Jan. 2, 2104: << Dies sent to New Orleans “hard to be hardened by the coiner before they could be used,” R. W. Julian stated in the already mentioned article in Numismatic News. Thieves would probably not know how to “machine” and harden dies. This is another reason to doubt the Stone-Van Winkle theory. The use of dies in Philadelphia before shipping them to New Orleans would have been a violation of a very logical rule relating to security. >>
Long ago, R. W. Julian identified practices regarding the shipping of dies from Philadelphia to New Orleans. He provided evidence "regarding the state of the dies," which suggests that they were not made usable before they were shipped to New Orleans.
He has unearthed many documents regarding the New Orleans Mint, starting in the 1960s! Julian contributed to Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, Numismatic News, Coin World, The Numismatist and other publications. During a period of more than 40 years, he has probably spent months in total researching archives relating to U.S. coinage and U.S. Mint medals. Indeed, his books on medals are landmark references. As for coins, he has probably written more than a thousand articles, most of which relate to primary archival research that he did himself. He has won countless awards from the NLG, including most of the highest honors.
Eliasberg 1838-O Half Dollar and the Controversy over its origins
<< <i>Kevin: <<Read your article prior to writing my 1838-O Half Dollar book with JD, IMO your article it was more of an attack on Mark and David's 38-O book.>>
Greg - My article was about 1838-O halves in general, with specific mention of the Eliasberg 1838-O half as it was then coming up for auction a few days after my article was published. Stone & Van Winkle catalogued the Eliasberg 1838-O and they coined a theory that some 1838-O halves were struck in Philadelphia.
It is neither accurate nor fair to use the term "attack" in this context. I diligently and fairly rebut each of the major arguments put forth by Stone & Van Winkle. As it was generally believed that all 1838-O halves were made in New Orleans, the burden of proof was on Stone & Van Winkle to support an opposing theory. They wrote a brilliant article and they are among the sharpest researchers in the nation. In this case, however, I believe that I did in fact demonstrate in January 2014 that it is extremely unlikely that any 1838-O half dollars were struck in Philadelphia.
Kevin response - Greg, I asked David Stone what he believed about your article after you interviewed him and wrote the article. In his opinion, it was an attack. When I read it, can to the same opinion. Can provide specific examples if you wish.
Please articulate where you " I demonstrated that all 1838-O halves were likely to have been struck in New Orleans."
IMO, this seems to be the basis on responding to this thread in the first place, so I would like to understand how/why you believe this.
Plus, I might suggest next time writing/calling me to discuss this rather than bring it to the public forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg - The point that all 1838-O halves were minted in New Orleans cannot be 100% proved. In some cases, mint records are wrong, accidentally or deliberately. In addition, there are mint records that do not survive. Moreover, some mint records may be inconsistent with other mint records, and all are subject to interpretation. Analogously, consider that most of the cases handled by the U.S. Supreme Court are not mentioned much 'in the news' because they are relatively boring instances of the Supreme Court resolving conflicts among federal appeals courts. One federal court decision may interpret a particular law in a manner that is very much at odds with interpretations of the same law by judges in other federal courts. If federal laws are so ambiguous that federal judges cannot consistently apply them or even agree on their meanings, it is misleading for Kevin to say that mint records, including poorly written letters, are crystal clear.
Kevin - incorrect, the fact that the 1838-O half dollars were only struck in New Orleans can be proven.
Mint Director Robert Patterson specifically stated the dies would be sent not hardened in case they were stolen
The dies were sent in a softened state
Rufus Tyler requested the dies for the half-dime dime, and half dollar February 14, 1838
On April 9, 1838, Patterson states "one of the pair of the half dollar dies, also has the false border on, but this will not be done hereafter, as it increases very much the difficult in hubbing. This border must therefore, as is not our practice, be turned in the lathe" Obviously these dies were not fully prepared, and could not have been used in Philadelphia first.
Two pairs of half dollar dies were shipped from Philadelphia to New Orleans April 11, 1838
We can prove absolutely the coins that were struck in February, and can prove absolutely the coin that was struck in March.
Besides the typed letters included in the back, scans of the more important letters are also include to show no misinterpretation.
So your saying that Director Patterson, Coiner Tyler, and other Mint employees purposefully/accidently misled others in their letters and we should not believe them?
Suggest you read all Director Patterson's letters, he was straight up, no BS type of person, you did not mislead or otherwise lie to him.
Plus, its not just the Mint records that validates the absolute proof, its the coins themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg - Certainly, there is at least a 1% chance that Stone & Van Winkle are correct. I did demonstrate that there is a high probability, most certainly at least a 95% chance, that all 1838-O halves were minted in New Orleans.
Kevin response - What analysis did you do of the dies, coins, mint records to validate this point. You seem stuck on using probability, most certainly, 95% chance.
Please show the txt from your validation, evidence, proof that they were all struck in New Orleans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: <<Your article is also incorrect in several of the statements you make, for example "There is no solid evidence that any mintmarked coins were made at the Philadelphia Mint during the 19th century ". This is incorrect, I have seen several times, that branch mint were having problems with working dies, the working dies were returned to Philadelphia and these dies were used to strike coins to test>>
Greg - If so, such cases are anomalies, severe engineering or manufacturing problems pertaining to dies that had already been shipped. Though curious, it is misleading to use such cases as evidence that I am "incorrect"! Such "mintmarked" pieces would be die trials not coins, would be extraordinarily unusual, and would NOT be relevant to the theory put forth by Stone & Van Winkle that stunning Proof 1838-O halves were made in Philadelphia.
Kevin response - Greg, IMO, this is exactly what you did in your article. Pick wording from David, tear it apart. I can show examples if you wish.
You made an statement that you believed absolute There is no solid evidence that any mintmarked coins were made at the Philadelphia Mint during the 19th century " I showed exceptions that I found in the archives that the Philadelphia Mint did use dies to attempt to replication the problems at the Branch Mint. One of David and Mark's theory entailed that the Philadelphia Mint wanted to test the dies before being sent to New Orleans, same premise, a die trial. You refuse to admit that you were incorrect in your assertion. I would respectfully suggest researching the archives as there is a world of information that you can learn what was actually done there.
If you wish, I can gladly present more examples from your article that are incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: <<JD and I presented physical evidence in archive letters that validated that it was impossible, based on the state of the working dies sent that they were first used in Philadelphia.>>
Greg - Please consider this passage in my article on Jan. 2, 2104: << Dies sent to New Orleans “hard to be hardened by the coiner before they could be used,” R. W. Julian stated in the already mentioned article in Numismatic News. Thieves would probably not know how to “machine” and harden dies. This is another reason to doubt the Stone-Van Winkle theory. The use of dies in Philadelphia before shipping them to New Orleans would have been a violation of a very logical rule relating to security. >>
Kevin responses - Working dies can be hardened, annealed, then rehardened. They can be hardened, used to strike a limited number of coins, annealed, then hardened again. This is not normal, but I can provide several examples of this. Once a working die has been used extensively in the coining press, it becomes work hardened, and very difficult to anneal and reuse. This did not prove they were not used in Philadelphia, the fact that there were other unfinished and the borders be turned in the lathe was evidence that the dies were unfinished when they were shipped.
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg - Long ago, R. W. Julian identified practices regarding the shipping of dies from Philadelphia to New Orleans. He provided evidence "regarding the state of the dies," which suggests that they were not made usable before they were shipped to New Orleans.
He has unearthed many documents regarding the New Orleans Mint, starting in the 1960s! Julian contributed to Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, Numismatic News, Coin World, The Numismatist and other publications. During a period of more than 40 years, he has probably spent months in total researching archives relating to U.S. coinage and U.S. Mint medals. Indeed, his books on medals are landmark references. As for coins, he has probably written more than a thousand articles, most of which relate to primary archival research that he did himself. He has won countless awards from the NLG, including most of the highest honors.
Kevin response - Previous response you state "It is he who has done the most research regarding the Philadelphia Mint in the 19th century"
Prove that Robert has done more research in the archives than anyone regarding the 19th century.
Its not what Robert has done or not done, it is your absolute assertion. Please prove it.
Kevin - Greg, you brought this up on this thread, I am simply responding, challenging your assertions.
Again, I suggest next time, address this in an email or phone call and would have gladly discussed this with you.
Sincerely
Kevin
>>
book under discussion but the answers by kevinj are irrelevant. What is important is whether or
not the book claims that all material is new and unpublished. Are previous relevant publications
cited or not? Mr. Flynn needs to discuss this point and post the bibliography on this thread.
I would note that detailed studies of the 1838–1839 New Orleans coinage, based on Archival
documents, have appeared in various numismatic publications since the mid 1960s. It will be
interesting to learn how many of these, if any, are in the Flynn bibliography.
RWJ
<< <i>Having had visiting relatives, this thread was not noticed until today. I have not seen the 1838–O book under discussion but the answers by kevinj are irrelevant. What is important is whether or not the book claims that all material is new and unpublished. Are previous relevant publications cited or not? Mr. Flynn needs to discuss this point and post the bibliography on this thread.
I would note that detailed studies of the 1838–1839 New Orleans coinage, based on Archival documents, have appeared in various numismatic publications since the mid 1960s. It will be interesting to learn how many of these, if any, are in the Flynn bibliography. RWJ >>
Hi Bob,
I did read every article/reference/auction catalog on the 1838-O half dollar, including yours, that I could find.
Obviously not all material in this book is not new, everyone knows about Frossard's 1894 article for example.
The material in the books is primarily based upon the archive records and studying the coins. The key to the second striking is the 1838-O Smithsonian specimen, which is a die state much later than any other, and also is a later die state than the 1839-O half dollars that are called proofs. I did a detailed diagnostic study in the book of all die cracks, scratches, and everything else on each of the specimens.
I included all archive records used in the back of the book, including scans of some of the originals. Also included deposition testimony of New Orleans Mint employees regarding Rufus Tyler, which was important to learn more about Tyler, such as he worked at the Philadelphia Mint for a year before New Orleans. Also did research on Bache, Patterson, and others.
Below is the Summary of what JD and I uncovered on the 1838-O half dollar
Do I care whether I/JD are listed of the discoverer of new information, not really, I like to research, figure things out, write, and hopefully help other enjoy our hobby.
Do I care when individuals make assertions as absolute when I know they are wrong, yes.
Do I care when individuals, who IMO, attack others in the field, such as David Stone and Mark Van Winkle, who I greatly respect and admire, absolutely.
Its funny, I was not going to print this book, as it refuted some of the information published by David and Mark
I was torn and wrote Jim Halperin and told him of my dilemma. Jim replied with a statement from Mark "When Dave and I published the 1838-O book a couple of years ago we never thought it would be the final word. We attempted to bring together what was known and other items that had been long forgotten. Both Dave and I would be the first ones to embrace any new scholarship on the 1838-O."
I have the utmost respect for David and Mark.
Kevin
=========================================================================
The following is the Summary on the 1838-O half dollar.
To meet the increasing demand for coinage for commerce, Congress authorized three new mints in 1835. One of the chosen locations was in New Orleans, a city strategically located on the Mississippi River that would help in disbursing coinage throughout the south and west. The Philadelphia Mint supplied equipment vital to coinage production such as three steam powered coining presses, each of a different size. David Bradford was hired as the Superintendent of the New Orleans Mint with Tyler Rufus employed as the Coiner. Robert M. Patterson was the Director of the Mint from 1835 through 1851.
The New Orleans Mint opened in 1838 and in anticipation of commencing coin production, on February 14th, Tyler requested working dies for the silver half-dime, dime, and half dollar. Between April 9th and 11th, two sets of 1838 dated half-dime, dime, and half dollar working dies were sent from Philadelphia to New Orleans. All working dies sent were shipped in a softened state, and required hardening and polishing at the New Orleans Mint. For the two sets of half dollar working dies sent, one set had a false border while the other did not. Both half dollar working dies required being put through a lathe at the New Orleans Mint. Director Patterson was very conscientious about theft of these working dies and their illegal use to strike coins. All of these working dies were in a state that they could not have been used by the Philadelphia Mint prior to shipping to strike coins at the Philadelphia Mint. These dies were not sent to New Orleans especially prepared or intended to strike proof coins or to test the design or alloy. As stated by Patterson, these working dies were the same used in Philadelphia except for a mint mark added.
On May 8th, 1838, Tyler struck thirty dimes on the small coining press before having mechanical problems. One specimen was sent to Director Patterson, ten were put in a cornerstone of a new building, with the remainder being given out as mementos. Additional dimes were struck up through July 1838. Between August 2nd and November 1st, the New Orleans Mint was closed because of yellow fever. Dimes and half-dimes were struck in December and the beginning of January 1839.
On January 17th, 1839, Director Patterson stated that no time should be lost in getting ready for the coinage of the half dollars. Between January 17th and the end of January, Tyler was able to get the large coining press into operation to be used for the half dollars. Tyler found that the half dollar working dies were too short to be held in place by the screws. In order to test the large coining press, he built a support system to raise the bottom working die to reach the screws. He was able to strike ten "excellent impressions" from a single set of 1838 dated half dollar working dies before the support system was crushed. The time frame in which these ten 1838-O half dollars were struck is based upon a letters from Rufus Tyler on February 25th and Superintendent Bradford on March 7th. Bradford stated in his letter that Tyler had struck a few half dollars in the middle of January on the large press. No 1838-O half dollars were submitted to Philadelphia for the annual assay sent on January 17, 1839. The fields of these ten coins exhibit a brilliant surface texture expected from a new pair of working dies. The striking characteristics of the design elements and rims are very strong.
Between February 26 and March 12, 1839, three pairs of 1839 dated half dollar dies were sent to the New Orleans Mint. Two sets of these arrived on March 16th. On March 29th, Superintendent Bradford stated that Tyler was able to get the half dollar coining press into operation and commenced striking half dollars on March 27th. The reverse used for the 1838-O half dollars in late January 1839 was moved from the large coining press to the half dollar coining press and used to strike 1839-O half dollars. This reverse is found on ninety percent of the known 1839-O half dollars.
The key to a second striking was found in the 1838-O half dollar in the Smithsonian Institution collection. This specimen exhibited the latest die stage of any of the nine known 1838-O half dollars. The fields on the reverse display mirrored surfaces equal to the 1838 proof half dollar at the Smithsonian. The striking characteristics of this coin were also stronger than the 1838 proof half dollar. There are several 1839-O half dollars that have been categorized as proof coins. Two or three of these coins exhibited diagnostics that were later than any of the first eight known specimens, but earlier than the 1838-O Smithsonian specimen. The 1838-O Smithsonian half dollar also has stronger striking characteristics than the 1839-O half dollars that are called proofs. A conclusion can be made that in late March 1839, Tyler was able to get the half dollar coining press into operation. He first used an 1839 dated obverse with the reverse used for the 1838-O half dollars and struck several half dollars. Tyler then replaced the obverse with the 1838-O half dollar working die, increasing the striking pressure and struck one or more 1838-O half dollars. He then continued to strike 1839-O half dollars.
The two 1838-O half dollar working die obverses were defaced on June 13, 1839. A note allegedly from Rufus Tyler published in 1894 stated a specimen was given to Alexander Bache and that not more than twenty specimens were struck. Nine 1838-O half dollars are known to exist today, including one in the Smithsonian Institution collection. Most likely, eleven to fifteen 1838-O half dollars were struck with only one specimen known from the second striking. The 1838-O Smithsonian half dollar should be classified as a proof, whereas the remaining coins should be classified as specimen coins.
==================================================================
(except for the comparison with the 1839–O coinage) that had not been well published in the past.
It is also worth noting that you did not contact me for copies of published articles. In a reply to Analyst you
stated “Again, I suggest next time, address this in an email or phone call and would have gladly discussed
this with you.” Apparently this advice is only for others.
RWJ
Large, dense blocks of text are hard to read.
I think your readers would appreciate your putting in several "hard returns."
Thanks.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>I am still waiting for the bibliography. I do note, however, that the “summary” contains practically nothing (except for the comparison with the 1839–O coinage) that had not been well published in the past.
It is also worth noting that you did not contact me for copies of published articles. In a reply to Analyst you stated “Again, I suggest next time, address this in an email or phone call and would have gladly discussed
this with you.” Apparently this advice is only for others.
RWJ >>
Bob,
Read one of your articles
http://www.numismaster.com/ta/Coins.admin?rnd=YGJDMDXN&@impl=coins.ui.anonymouse.UiControl_ArticlePrint&@prms=41727469636c6549643d3133383932&@windowId=LDQQZ&@showStackMB=0&@pushOnStack=0&@noBG=1&@showMB=1&@ForPrint=1
Had I known you had, or there were other articles on the subject, would have called or written you.
If you have other articles, please, include links on them herein.
There are still some unanswered questions, such as how Bache got his specimen. I know Patterson and Bache were close friends, and a group of Patterson, Bache and friends got together once a week.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>I am still waiting for the bibliography. I do note, however, that the “summary” contains practically nothing (except for the comparison with the 1839–O coinage) that had not been well published in the past.
It is also worth noting that you did not contact me for copies of published articles. In a reply to Analyst you stated “Again, I suggest next time, address this in an email or phone call and would have gladly discussed
this with you.” Apparently this advice is only for others.
RWJ >>
Bob,
Read one of your articles
http://www.numismaster.com/ta/Coins.admin?rnd=YGJDMDXN&@impl=coins.ui.anonymouse.UiControl_ArticlePrint&@prms=41727469636c6549643d3133383932&@windowId=LDQQZ&@showStackMB=0&@pushOnStack=0&@noBG=1&@showMB=1&@ForPrint=1
Had I known you had, or there were other articles on the subject, would have called or written you.
If you have other articles, please, include links on them herein.
There are still some unanswered questions, such as how Bache got his specimen. I know Patterson and Bache were close friends, and a group of Patterson, Bache and friends got together once a week.
Kevin >>
As Breen lists me as a reference on the New Orleans coinage of 1838–1839 it would appear
that you did not read Breen either. I assume from your answer that you have no intention of
posting the bibliography.
<< <i>As Breen lists me as a reference on the New Orleans coinage of 1838–1839 it would appear that you did not read Breen either. I assume from your answer that you have no intention of posting the bibliography. >>
Read Breen, included an excerpt in the book, Breen states "These were struck in January 1839, ostensibly to test a recent arrived press of the largest size"
This is incorrect as to the objective of why they struck them.
The three coining presses had been there since early 1838, in a letter dated Feb 14, 1838, Tyler stated that he was preparing the largest and smallest coining presses.
Letter from Patterson dated Jan 17, 1839 "It appears to me that no time should be lost in getting ready for the coinage of the half dollars."
Objective was to prepare for the half dollars, not test the dies. Tyler used the large press as he had not prepared the half dollar press yet.
Tell you what, you list the other articles, I will list my bibliography.
Especially interested in any articles that did a detailed study of all diagnostics of each of the 1838-O half dollars and proved that there were two strikings, one in Jan, and the second around March 27, 1839.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>As Breen lists me as a reference on the New Orleans coinage of 1838–1839 it would appear that you did not read Breen either. I assume from your answer that you have no intention of posting the bibliography. >>
Tell you what, you list the other articles, I will list my bibliography.
Kevin >>
The point of asking for a bibliography was to see the thoroughness of the work and what
credit was given to earlier research articles. Your refusal to do so says all that is necessary.
<< <i>The point of asking for a bibliography was to see the thoroughness of the work and what credit was given to earlier research articles. Your refusal to do so says all that is necessary. >>
Bob,
You love one way conversations. You ask me about Breen, I answer. You state without validation, that most of the summary was in previous articles. I requested these articles. You refused to produce.
Yet, I am suppose to do what you wish.
As JD and I based our research upon the national archive records and the study of the coins as the primary source of information.. Many of these archive records have not been published before by you or others. Why would we include reference to articles such as your earlier one referenced herein as it added nothing to the subject and book? Again, I challenge you to produce these articles, but know you will not as they do not exist.
You state in your article previously referenced regarding the New Orleans Mint and the 1838-O half dollars "The half dollar dies dated 1838 were not used for regular coinage but one of the two pairs on hand struck 20 specimens, according to a later statement by Coiner Rufus Tyler, in testing the largest press. Two pairs of dies for 1839 had been mailed on Feb. 26 and the coiner perhaps tested the press with the older dies to avoid damage to those dated 1839. It is sometimes reported that the 1838 half dollars were struck in January 1839, but it is more likely that Tyler struck these pieces shortly before commencing regular half dollar coinage in early April. (The two 1838 obverses were defaced on June 13, 1839.)"
This is pure speculation, conjecture, you offer no evidence, proof, validation, and some of these statements are incorrect based upon the archive records. Again, why would we reference something that was wrong?
You produce these articles to back your assertion, and I will gladly produce the bib.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>The point of asking for a bibliography was to see the thoroughness of the work and what credit was given to earlier research articles. Your refusal to do so says all that is necessary. >>
Bob,
You love one way conversations. You ask me about Breen, I answer. You state without validation, that most of the summary was in previous articles. I requested these articles. You refused to produce.
Yet, I am suppose to do what you wish.
As JD and I based our research upon the national archive records and the study of the coins as the primary source of information.. Many of these archive records have not been published before by you or others. Why would we include reference to articles such as your earlier one referenced herein as it added nothing to the subject and book? Again, I challenge you to produce these articles, but know you will not as they do not exist.
You state in your article previously referenced regarding the New Orleans Mint and the 1838-O half dollars "The half dollar dies dated 1838 were not used for regular coinage but one of the two pairs on hand struck 20 specimens, according to a later statement by Coiner Rufus Tyler, in testing the largest press. Two pairs of dies for 1839 had been mailed on Feb. 26 and the coiner perhaps tested the press with the older dies to avoid damage to those dated 1839. It is sometimes reported that the 1838 half dollars were struck in January 1839, but it is more likely that Tyler struck these pieces shortly before commencing regular half dollar coinage in early April. (The two 1838 obverses were defaced on June 13, 1839.)"
This is pure speculation, conjecture, you offer no evidence, proof, validation, and some of these statements are incorrect based upon the archive records. Again, why would we reference something that was wrong?
You produce these articles to back your assertion, and I will gladly produce the bib.
Kevin >>
One more time. I asked you to post a bibliography and nothing more. I did not ask for a “summary.”
You have created all kinds of demands to cloud the issue. I am beginning to doubt its existence.
One item in particular, however, will be of interest in the bibliography, if there is indeed such an entry
in your book. In late 2010 I published, in this forum, the February 25, 1839, letter from Rufus Tyler
which is the key to understanding the entire sequence of events around the 1838–O half dollar.
I also published a synopsis of the March 7, 1839, letter, another important part of the picture. Both of
these are mentioned in your summary but not credited, hardly a surprise.
David Stone made a polite request to use the letter for a proposed book on this subject and I was happy
to cooperate; that book was published in 2012. The authors, Messrs Stone & Van Winkle, made the error
of assuming some of the pieces had been struck in Philadelphia but I consider this a minor mistake as
they correctly demonstrated two strikings, confirming a speculation I published in 1977:
Half dollar dies of 1838 were not used to strike regular coinage, but were instead put in the largest press
to test it. Some 20 pieces were produced in (probably) March, 1839; one account indicated that the special
pieces as may have been struck as early as January, 1839. It appears likely that they were struck on more
than one occasion, since one letter mentions that only 10 pieces had been produced.
In short the key elements of the 1838–O half dollar story had been published well before your book appeared,
including work by Stone & Van Winkle, analyst and the undersigned.
RWJ
<< <i>One more time. I asked you to post a bibliography and nothing more. I did not ask for a “summary.” You have created all kinds of demands to cloud the issue. I am beginning to doubt its existence.
One item in particular, however, will be of interest in the bibliography, if there is indeed such an entry in your book. In late 2010 I published, in this forum, the February 25, 1839, letter from Rufus Tyler which is the key to understanding the entire sequence of events around the 1838–O half dollar. I also published a synopsis of the March 7, 1839, letter, another important part of the picture. Both of these are mentioned in your summary but not credited, hardly a surprise.
David Stone made a polite request to use the letter for a proposed book on this subject and I was happy to cooperate; that book was published in 2012. The authors, Messrs Stone & Van Winkle, made the error of assuming some of the pieces had been struck in Philadelphia but I consider this a minor mistake as they correctly demonstrated two strikings, confirming a speculation I published in 1977:
Half dollar dies of 1838 were not used to strike regular coinage, but were instead put in the largest press to test it. Some 20 pieces were produced in (probably) March, 1839; one account indicated that the special pieces as may have been struck as early as January, 1839. It appears likely that they were struck on more than one occasion, since one letter mentions that only 10 pieces had been produced.
In short the key elements of the 1838–O half dollar story had been published well before your book appeared, including work by Stone & Van Winkle, analyst and the undersigned.
RWJ >>
That's one letter, and only a partial letter, I included 31 relevant letters I found at the archives in the back of the book.
So your thread (which I read before) from 2010 is your "articles" from the past that fully covered the 1838-O half dollar? This is only one piece of the puzzle, you have no clue. I doubt also that you studied the coins, which was half of the solution. Really do not care if you doubt.
Wrong again, you state Dave and Mark correctly demonstrated two strikings, confirming a speculation you had in 1977.
If you read David and Mark's book, they believed the that one of the specimens had strike doubling and doubled denticles, and that was the only specimen from New Orleans, that the others were from Philadelphia.
This was incorrect, this specimen was one of the ten struck in January 1839. The was most likely the last when the support system built by Tyler in the lower die failed.
One coin from second striking, Smithsonian specimen. Really wish you learned to study the coins and understand their importance.
Wrong again - you stated "Half dollar dies of 1838 were not used to strike regular coinage"
The reverse used for the 1838-O half was also used to strike 1839-O half dollars, please look at the coins and sequence of diagnostics.
Wrong again - you state 1838-O half dollars were struck to test large coin press, which Breen repeated and was wrong. Struck to prepare for striking half dollars per the order of Patterson
So it seems like your primary issue, is that you published part of a letter that was relevant, and therefore anyone who ever researched the same subject, even if they also found the letter at the archives through research, should quote you for some reason???????????? Even though your were wrong on your interpretation of these letters as you did not see the other letters and did not study the coins.
I found this letter along with other letters at the archives. The archives is our primary source of information that I used for this book.
Kevin
The 1838–O dies were not used for regular coinage. The statement is correct. That a reverse
die sent in 1838 was used for the 1839 issue is irrelevant. Mr. Flynn needs to learn the difference
between plural and singular.
The half dollars were struck in January to test the press, despite what Flynn says. If he cannot get
this right, one has to wonder about the overall accuracy of his book.
I am criticized for not examining certain of the coins but then I never claimed to have done so. Flynn
is wrong again.
It is considered unethical to publish something – and thereby claim credit for a discovery – if it was
previously published. The book by Stone & Van Winkle was ethically done but the book defended
by Flynn is perhaps another matter.
RWJ
<< <i>Still no bibliography.
The 1838–O dies were not used for regular coinage. The statement is correct. That a reverse die sent in 1838 was used for the 1839 issue is irrelevant. Mr. Flynn needs to learn the difference between plural and singular.
Kevin - LOL, Your a really funny guy, you state "Half dollar dies of 1838 were not used to strike regular coinage." Your statement is cumulative, there is an exception which proves it incorrect, they were used to strike 1839-O coins.
In addition, two pair of 1838-O half dollars were sent. Three pair of 1839-O half dollars were sent. A second reverse was used for the 1839-O half dollars. It is possible that the second 1838-O reverse was used for 1839-O coinage.
In addition, as I have already stated, on January 17th, 1839, Director Patterson stated that no time should be lost in getting ready for the coinage of the half dollars. Had the support system not broke, it is highly likely that Tyler would have kept striking half dollars for circulation. Tyler's clear direction and objective is to prepare to strike the half dollars, plain and simple words from Patterson.
--------------------------------------------------
The half dollars were struck in January to test the press, despite what Flynn says. If he cannot get this right, one has to wonder about the overall accuracy of his book.
Kevin - Please show me the archive records that support your assertion. Talk is cheap, please evidence, proof, validation for your statement.
Will repeat the letter from Patterson, on January 17th, 1839, Director Patterson stated that no time should be lost in getting ready for the coinage of the half dollars.
Your somehow stating Patterson was wrong, or perhaps he lied/misled, or some other conspiracy, that we should not believe archive records?
Objective was not to test the dies, but to prepare to strike half dollars.
-------------------------------
I am criticized for not examining certain of the coins but then I never claimed to have done so. Flynn is wrong again.
Kevin - LOL, never said you claimed to have examined the coins, but suggesting if you had, you would have learned that there was two strikings, when, and which coin, sequence of striking, and so on. The coins were the key to solving this mystery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is considered unethical to publish something – and thereby claim credit for a discovery – if it was previously published. The book by Stone & Van Winkle was ethically done but the book defended by Flynn is perhaps another matter.
When did I claim credit for the discovery of the one letter you partially published?
Also, still waiting for the other articles you claimed to have, which had previously published all of these 31 archive letters, presented a complete diagnostics and sequence of the striking, proved absolutely that it was impossible that any coins were struck in Philadelphia, proved 2nd striking, proved which coin was in second striking, proved the relationship between the 1838-O half dollars and 1839-O half dollars, a detailed comparison between the 1838-O half dollar at the Smithsonian and the 1838 half dollar proof at the Smithsonian. In actuality, JD and I discovered a great deal regarding the 1838-O half dollar. Obviously not everything, but a great deal was unpublished previously.
Show me the articles that has this material and it will show it was previously discovered. Balls in your court, time to put some evidence where your mouth is so to speak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bibliography - definition - a list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, usually printed as an appendix.
Besides the national archive records, other books referenced
Breen, Walter, Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins. New York, New York: Doubleday, 1988
Breen, Walter, Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins, 1722 - 1989, 1989
Stone, Dave, Mark VanWinkle, The Surprising History of the 1838-O Half Dollar, 2012
Frossard, Ed, The 1838-O Half Dollar New Orleans Mint, July 1894 Numismatist
Guth, Ron, Jeff Garrett, 100 Greatest U.S. Coins, Second Edition, 2005
Proskey David, July 1880 Coin Collector's Journal
Listed in their own section with the title of reference are the auction catalog references.
Did not use your article, Greg's article as there was nothing in either that I did not know from the archives, plus if I included, I would have had to waste time refuting many of the things that were incorrect.
RWJ >>
If you don't list record groups, entry numbers, box numbers, and file numbers, why bother.....the sad thing is, all you guys are capable of doing that and don't. You spend all this time in the archives but God forbid you leave enough of a paper trail so someone else can add on to your work.
Kevin: <<Greg, I asked David Stone what he believed about your article after you interviewed him and wrote the article. In his opinion, it was an attack. When I read it, can to the same opinion.>>
I communicate with David Stone fairly often. He never said anything of the sort to me. Debating is not attacking. I was addressing the arguments put forth by Stone & Van Winkle, one at a time. Before their paper appeared, the unanimous or nearly unanimous belief was that 1838-O halves were struck in New Orleans.
Kevin: <<Working dies can be hardened, annealed, then rehardened. They can be hardened, used to strike a limited number of coins, annealed, then hardened again. This is not normal, but I can provide several examples of this. Once a working die has been used extensively in the coining press, it becomes work hardened, and very difficult to anneal and reuse. This did not prove they were not used in Philadelphia, the fact that there were other unfinished and the borders be turned in the lathe was evidence that the dies were unfinished when they were shipped.>>
It is Kevin who is "picking" words apart here. Clearly, I was saying that the 1838-O half dollar dies that were shipped were extremely likely to have been unused and extremely likely to need further preparation by skilled workers before being used. If so, this alone would demonstrate that they were struck in New Orleans. Did I claim to be absolutely certain? No, I implied then and I admit now that there are variables of which I am not aware and documents that I have never seen. Also, it is impossible for us to know now what precisely happened in 1838. Sometimes, employees disobey orders. Should we assume that all orders given by the director of the Mint were followed?
Kevin: You made an statement that you believed absolute There is no solid evidence that any mintmarked coins were made at the Philadelphia Mint during the 19th century " I showed exceptions that I found in the archives that the Philadelphia Mint did use dies to attempt to replication the problems at the Branch Mint.
Kevin's research in this area may be fascinating. I have never heard anyone make such claims before. However, items that fall into the category, broadly defined, of patterns, die trials, experimental pieces, fantasies and related items, are not coins. Kevin is splitting hairs. In the 19th century, the Philadelphia Mint was not making and releasing coins with mintmarks and Kevin knows this. Nonetheless, I am fascinated by the existence of the items that Kevin talks about, though I am not yet convinced. He should please start a thread about those. I thank him for his contribution in this regard. I admit that I did not know about such mintmarked pieces being struck in Philadelphia.
Kevin: One of David and Mark's theory entailed that the Philadelphia Mint wanted to test the dies before being sent to New Orleans, same premise, a die trial.
No, this is a not an entirely accurate and is a misleading interpretation of their point in this regard.
Stone & Van Winkle: <<The term die trial doesn’t seem quite right for these coins either, as dies trials are generally off-metal strikings, while the 1838-O half dollar was struck in regular-issue silver. Perhaps essai – any coin struck from a prototype die or dies to test a new design or concept – is the best definition for the Philadelphia mintage. Whether it is technically a pattern or not, the 1838-O is definitely a prototype of the business-strike half dollars issued at New Orleans in 1839, and some prototype issues, like the 1836 Reeded Edge halves, have traditionally been collected with the pattern series. It is easy to understand why early collectors considered the 1838-O a pattern.>>
Although this argument by Stone & Van Winkle is creative and fascinating, I honestly believe that I have refuted it to the extent that it could be practically refuted with the information and knowledge that was available to me in January 2014. Moreover, I believe that my refutation at that time was sufficient. I have written extensively about patterns for more than twenty years and I have discussed this point with others who are well qualified. It is extremely unlikely that any mintmarked patterns (narrowly defined) were struck in Philadelphia during the 19th century, though, of course, it is possible.
Kevin response - What analysis did you do of the dies, coins, mint records to validate this point. You seem stuck on using probability, most certainly, 95% chance.
The 95% and 1% numbers were really meant to illustrate concepts rather than be taken literally. Before repeating my arguments, I wish to clarify that I meant to say that I believe I showed that it is extremely likely that all 1838-O halves were struck in New Orleans, though I allowed for a small but non-trivial probability that some could have been made in Philadelphia. One reason why I devoted much time and effort to refuting their points is because Stone & Van Winkle put forth some brilliant arguments that I felt needed to be refuted for legitimate and important educational purposes.
Kevin: <<Prove that Robert has done more research in the archives than anyone regarding the 19th century. Its not what Robert has done or not done, it is your absolute assertion. Please prove it.>>
I was unaware that such an assertion would be challenged. Almost all numismatically knowledgeable people who have focused on the history of the U.S. Mint, in recent decades, are aware that Bob has spent a tremendous amount of time over a period of several decades researching primary sources, especially government documents relating to the U.S. Mint in the 19th century.
Kevin: <<Bob,You love one way conversations. You ask me about Breen, I answer>>
Bob's reference to Breen in this thread was not meant to imply that Bob agrees with all of Breen's conclusions. The point is that Breen {1988} cites or at least lists many of the articles that Bob wrote long ago, some of which are directly relevant to this thread.
Denga: <<I would note that detailed studies of the 1838–1839 New Orleans coinage, based on Archival documents, have appeared in various numismatic publications since the mid 1960s. It will be interesting to learn how many of these, if any, are in the Flynn bibliography. >>
Yes, I am certain that much pertinent research was done long before 2014 and Bob deserves credit for a large portion of such research about the early history of the New Orleans Mint. I communicated often and in detail with R. W. 'Bob' Julian about the early history of the New Orleans Mint. Research already done coupled with my analysis was sufficient to demonstrate that it is extremely likely that all 1838-O halves were struck in Philadelphia.
Kevin: <<Do I care when individuals, who IMO, attack others in the field, such as David Stone and Mark Van Winkle, who I greatly respect and admire, absolutely. ... I have the utmost respect for David and Mark.>>
I, too, "have the utmost respect for David and Mark." The implication that I somehow assaulted them is ridiculous. We are talking about an intellectual debate regarding a topic that is very important to collectors of and students of classic U.S. coins. The fact that I found that their arguments were sophisticated, brilliant and wrong lead to my logical arguments in opposition to their theory, which I believe to be harmful to the coin collecting community. In this thread, Kevin is mis-representing both my arguments and my intentions. Also, I have favorably cited David Stone in many of my articles and hope to do so in the future.
Eliasberg 1838-O Half Dollar and the Controversy over its origins
<< <i>Kevin: <<Greg, I asked David Stone what he believed about your article after you interviewed him and wrote the article. In his opinion, it was an attack. When I read it, can to the same opinion.>>
Greg - I communicate with David Stone fairly often. He never said anything of the sort to me. Debating is not attacking. I was addressing the arguments put forth by Stone & Van Winkle, one at a time. Before their paper appeared, the unanimous or nearly unanimous belief was that 1838-O halves were struck in New Orleans.
Kevin 2 - Greg, its your right to write an article and refute, I am just stating that is the impression I received, you interviewed David, then when on the offensive on everything why it could not be. IMO opinion it was an attack. David felt it was the same. Maybe an attack is similar enough to an aggressive/assertive to state they are/or make the receiver/reader feel they are the same. I understand your perspective that you believe you were just debating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: <<Working dies can be hardened, annealed, then rehardened. They can be hardened, used to strike a limited number of coins, annealed, then hardened again. This is not normal, but I can provide several examples of this. Once a working die has been used extensively in the coining press, it becomes work hardened, and very difficult to anneal and reuse. This did not prove they were not used in Philadelphia, the fact that there were other unfinished and the borders be turned in the lathe was evidence that the dies were unfinished when they were shipped.>>
Greg - It is Kevin who is "picking" words apart here. Clearly, I was saying that the 1838-O half dollar dies that were shipped were extremely likely to have been unused and extremely likely to need further preparation by skilled workers before being used. If so, this alone would demonstrate that they were struck in New Orleans. Did I claim to be absolutely certain? No, I implied then and I admit now that there are variables of which I am not aware and documents that I have never seen. Also, it is impossible for us to know now what precisely happened in 1838. Sometimes, employees disobey orders. Should we assume that all orders given by the director of the Mint were followed?
Kevin 2 - Greg, you stated it was impossible to absolutely prove that they were struck in New Orleans. This is incorrect. we can prove based upon the condition of the dies which were specifically stated.
You also believed that because the dies were softened, this demonstrated the dies could not have been used before, which is incorrect. I only learned this from JD in the past few months, and there are clear examples of this.
I was 'debating' this with you, as from Dave and Mark's perspective, they found die states they believed showed two strikings, one in Phila and one in New Orleans. They had other arguments to support their believe, and
they did not have all of the archive records I found, and they did not do a detailed study of the diagnostics which proved two strikings in New Orleans. They actually helped us consider other alternatives, which pushed JD and I to explore this and write a book.
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: You made an statement that you believed absolute There is no solid evidence that any mintmarked coins were made at the Philadelphia Mint during the 19th century " I showed exceptions that I found in the archives that the Philadelphia Mint did use dies to attempt to replication the problems at the Branch Mint.
Greg - Kevin's research in this area may be fascinating. I have never heard anyone make such claims before. However, items that fall into the category, broadly defined, of patterns, die trials, experimental pieces, fantasies and related items, are not coins. Kevin is splitting hairs. In the 19th century, the Philadelphia Mint was not making and releasing coins with mintmarks and Kevin knows this. Nonetheless, I am fascinated by the existence of the items that Kevin talks about, though I am not yet convinced. He should please start a thread about those. I thank him for his contribution in this regard. I admit that I did not know about such mintmarked pieces being struck in Philadelphia.
Kevin 2 - Greg, actually the coins struck in Philadelphia were sent back to Carson City so that the Coiner there could see what was expected. It is not known, but assumed that the coins were released into circulation.
Your right, under normal circumstances, the Philadelphia Mint did not strike coins with branch mint marks.
Spend probably thousands of hours in the archives over a twenty five year period and you see stuff like this.
I am lucky, I live about 10 miles from the archives in Phila, and it is between my home and work.
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: One of David and Mark's theory entailed that the Philadelphia Mint wanted to test the dies before being sent to New Orleans, same premise, a die trial.
Greg - No, this is a not an entirely accurate and is a misleading interpretation of their point in this regard.
Kevin 2 - I stand corrected, Mark and David stated that on page 9 that they believed the 1838-O half dollars were first struck in Philadelphia as pattern or essai pieces.
Stone & Van Winkle: <<The term die trial doesn’t seem quite right for these coins either, as dies trials are generally off-metal strikings, while the 1838-O half dollar was struck in regular-issue silver. Perhaps essai – any coin struck from a prototype die or dies to test a new design or concept – is the best definition for the Philadelphia mintage. Whether it is technically a pattern or not, the 1838-O is definitely a prototype of the business-strike half dollars issued at New Orleans in 1839, and some prototype issues, like the 1836 Reeded Edge halves, have traditionally been collected with the pattern series. It is easy to understand why early collectors considered the 1838-O a pattern.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg - Although this argument by Stone & Van Winkle is creative and fascinating, I honestly believe that I have refuted it to the extent that it could be practically refuted with the information and knowledge that was available to me in January 2014. Moreover, I believe that my refutation at that time was sufficient. I have written extensively about patterns for more than twenty years and I have discussed this point with others who are well qualified. It is extremely unlikely that any mintmarked patterns (narrowly defined) were struck in Philadelphia during the 19th century, though, of course, it is possible.
Kevin 2 - Greg, you presented some good arguments against David and Mark's believe that the coins were struck in Philadelphia, but you did not prove it absolutely, which is why I was surprised of your first response in this thread.
Yep, your right, based upon the info you had in January 2014, you presented some good argument.
Your also right I believe, I have never heard or read about patterns with mintmarks being struck at Philadelphia, does not mean it did not happen of course, LOL especially with Linderman and A.L. Snowden, they had/were striking all kinds of restrikes, patterns, and everything else for a profit.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin response - What analysis did you do of the dies, coins, mint records to validate this point. You seem stuck on using probability, most certainly, 95% chance.
Greg - The 95% and 1% numbers were really meant to illustrate concepts rather than be taken literally. Before repeating my arguments, I wish to clarify that I meant to say that I believe I showed that it is extremely likely that all 1838-O halves were struck in New Orleans, though I allowed for a small but non-trivial probability that some could have been made in Philadelphia. One reason why I devoted much time and effort to refuting their points is because Stone & Van Winkle put forth some brilliant arguments that I felt needed to be refuted for legitimate and important educational purposes.
Kevin 2 - Your right, and I have done the same for the same reason, refuting what was printed so that collectors would learn the truth/a different perspective, and so on.
Suggest perhaps ask others what they thought, it it was to aggressive, or doing an interview, they directly refuted what was said.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: <<Prove that Robert has done more research in the archives than anyone regarding the 19th century. Its not what Robert has done or not done, it is your absolute assertion. Please prove it.>>
Greg - I was unaware that such an assertion would be challenged. Almost all numismatically knowledgeable people who have focused on the history of the U.S. Mint, in recent decades, are aware that Bob has spent a tremendous amount of time over a period of several decades researching primary sources, especially government documents relating to the U.S. Mint in the 19th century.
Kevin 2 - I hate assertions unless they can be backed up. I know several people who have spent countless hours at the archives researching Mint records. I know Bob has put in time, and know now that he has a grant and is using it to make copies of archive records. It was not about Bob, it was about the assertion.
Think also of the irony. You assert Bob has done more research than anyone else.
Think of the 1838-O under discussion, Bob finds a few relevant records, I list 31, many of which were never published before, which greatly help JD and I prove what happened here.
Of course, I read every page of every record from 1837 through 1840 to get these, but in the end it was worth it to get the big picture.
----------------------------------------------------
Kevin: <<Bob,You love one way conversations. You ask me about Breen, I answer>>
Bob's reference to Breen in this thread was not meant to imply that Bob agrees with all of Breen's conclusions. The point is that Breen {1988} cites or at least lists many of the articles that Bob wrote long ago, some of which are directly relevant to this thread.
Denga: <<I would note that detailed studies of the 1838–1839 New Orleans coinage, based on Archival documents, have appeared in various numismatic publications since the mid 1960s. It will be interesting to learn how many of these, if any, are in the Flynn bibliography. >>
Yes, I am certain that much pertinent research was done long before 2014 and Bob deserves credit for a large portion of such research about the early history of the New Orleans Mint. I communicated often and in detail with R. W. 'Bob' Julian about the early history of the New Orleans Mint. Research already done coupled with my analysis was sufficient to demonstrate that it is extremely likely that all 1838-O halves were struck in Philadelphia.
Kevin 2 - Yep, from Bob's article, he knew a great deal on the early history of the New Orleans Mint
LOL, he can have all the credit, really do not care of whether JD/I are listed as the discoverer.
The books/articles speak for themselves, which is why I requested all of these alleged articles from the 1960s.
Greg, you have not read my book, you have no idea what we stated/show/researched, how can you make such a claim that much of the pertinent research was done long before 2014. I would request you to prove this, I will gladly list points, and you can show when it was previously published if it was.
For example, did you know Tyler worked at the Philadelphia Mint for a year before New Orleans, he also helped build the coining presses there.
Suggest you look at your wording, last sentence, you state that it was extremely likely that all 1838-O halves were struck in Philadelphia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin: <<Do I care when individuals, who IMO, attack others in the field, such as David Stone and Mark Van Winkle, who I greatly respect and admire, absolutely. ... I have the utmost respect for David and Mark.>>
Greg - I, too, "have the utmost respect for David and Mark." The implication that I somehow assaulted them is ridiculous. We are talking about an intellectual debate regarding a topic that is very important to collectors of and students of classic U.S. coins. The fact that I found that their arguments were sophisticated, brilliant and wrong lead to my logical arguments in opposition to their theory, which I believe to be harmful to the coin collecting community. In this thread, Kevin is mis-representing both my arguments and my intentions. Also, I have favorably cited David Stone in many of my articles and hope to do so in the future.
Kevin 2 - Greg, suggest you speak to David
Lets draw a parallel, you feel you are having a friendly conversation on a subject, then after you find out that everything you said is being twisted IMO, and used against you.
Or how did it make you feel when I was proving you wrong. I would have analyzed your article and presented all the points you were incorrect if needed.
I give you credit, if you did not know something, at least you are open to alternatives.
Bob on the other hand will never admit he is wrong IMO, even when it is obvious.
Eliasberg 1838-O Half Dollar and the Controversy over its origins >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still no bibliography.
The 1838–O dies were not used for regular coinage. The statement is correct. That a reverse die sent in 1838 was used for the 1839 issue is irrelevant. Mr. Flynn needs to learn the difference between plural and singular.
Kevin - LOL, Your a really funny guy, you state "Half dollar dies of 1838 were not used to strike regular coinage." Your statement is cumulative, there is an exception which proves it incorrect, they were used to strike 1839-O coins.
In addition, two pair of 1838-O half dollars were sent. Three pair of 1839-O half dollars were sent. A second reverse was used for the 1839-O half dollars. It is possible that the second 1838-O reverse was used for 1839-O coinage.
In addition, as I have already stated, on January 17th, 1839, Director Patterson stated that no time should be lost in getting ready for the coinage of the half dollars. Had the support system not broke, it is highly likely that Tyler would have kept striking half dollars for circulation. Tyler's clear direction and objective is to prepare to strike the half dollars, plain and simple words from Patterson.
The half dollars were struck in January to test the press, despite what Flynn says. If he cannot get this right, one has to wonder about the overall accuracy of his book.
Kevin - Please show me the archive records that support your assertion. Talk is cheap, please evidence, proof, validation for your statement.
Will repeat the letter from Patterson, on January 17th, 1839, Director Patterson stated that no time should be lost in getting ready for the coinage of the half dollars.
Your somehow stating Patterson was wrong, or perhaps he lied/misled, or some other conspiracy, that we should not believe archive records?
Objective was not to test the dies, but to prepare to strike half dollars. >>
>>
1) The 1838–O obverse dies were not used for regular coinage despite what Flynn claims.
2) The letter of February 25, 1839, states that the dies were installed “in order to try the press.” The letter of
January 17 from Director Patterson did not arrive until after the first batch of coins was struck.
3) Flynn’s book could not have been written without the two key letters of 1839, February 25 and March 7. That he
does not list their prior 2010 publication says all that is necessary.
RWJ
<< <i>1) The 1838–O obverse dies were not used for regular coinage despite what Flynn claims.
2) The letter of February 25, 1839, states that the dies were installed “in order to try the press.” The letter of January 17 from Director Patterson did not arrive until after the first batch of coins was struck.
3) Flynn’s book could not have been written without the two key letters of 1839, February 25 and March 7. That he does not list their prior 2010 publication says all that is necessary.
RWJ >>
1. Now that you changed from the 1838-O dies were not used for regular coinage TO the 1838-O obverse dies were not used to regular coinage, I would agree
The first 10 coins were not on polished planchets, but they were struck with exceptional strikes and it is believed given as presentation pieces or gifts, better than the 1839-O half dollars, and the Smithsonian specimen has a better strike than the 1838-O proof and the first 10, and was struck on a planchet that had the reverse polished. The first 10 will be classified as specimen coins by PCGS if certified, the Smithsonian as a proof if certified.
I am surprised, you actually changed
And I never stated that the obverse dies were used for circulation. I stated on reverse, and possibly the second reverse from 1838-O were used for circulation.
You most believe that people on this forum can't read or are stupid. You state one thing, then change it, then claim the second is what you were saying all along.
2. Yep, your right the Feb 25th letter does use "try the press"
In context it states "I mentioned in both of my former letters that the half dollar dies sent us last year are unsuitable for present use for besides being out of date the bottom ones are too short to reach the screws and consequently cannot be secured in the seats. I how however spliced one of them in order to try the press and succeeded in making ten excellent impressions, the very first ones struck, being as perfect as the dies, are entirely satisfactory, but the piece upon the bottom die became loose and I was unable to strike any more without fixing. We are in daily expectation of hearing from you that more of the 1/2 dollar does are on the way."
Clear objective from Director Patterson, person in charge of the Mint, was to "getting ready for the half dollars."
Tyler only had the small press, which it is assumed the half dollar did not fit, and the large press, which with the objective of getting ready to strike coins had to modify the press because the half dollar dies did not fit.
Clear objective was to strike coins. Tyler even states that he wanted to keep striking coins per Patterson's objective, but the support system fail.
He clearly says "I how however spliced one of them in order to try the press", not test the press, he wanted to strike coins per Patterson's direction.
Taken out of context, you are correct. Taken in context, Tyler was trying to strike half dollars per Patterson's direction. Tyler knew the half dollar die would not fit, why would he test if he knew it did not fit? He was able to strike half dollars using the press by making modifications to build a support system, please use in context, not just a single small set of words because it fits what you wrongly stated.
Guess you were there, Tyler received Patterson's letter after he struck the coins, wow, unbelievable. Please show, (not with one of your articles), archive records of exactly when Tyler received this letter, and exactly when the coins were struck. Somehow, a year after the dies were sent, Tyler suddenly chose to strike half dollars, somehow reading Patterson's mind, yeah ok. PLEASE PROVE your statement
3. Obviously those letters were very important. But my source of reference was the National Archives, not you
You claim to be an expert on the English language. bibliography - definition - a list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, usually printed as an appendix.
I did not use/reference the letter you printed in your thread.
I used National Archives, which I found them.
That they do not fit within the new Julian definition of bibliography, so what, really do not care.
Guess though, based upon your words, as many of these letters and research has never been published before, if you use any archive letters first published in JD and my book, you will list us as the source of reference.
So you stated that there were many articles from the 60s in which this material was covered. The only one you came up with was your 2010 little thread.
Still waiting for your to back up what you claim.
<< <i>1) The 1838–O obverse dies were not used for regular coinage despite what Flynn claims.
2) The letter of February 25, 1839, states that the dies were installed “in order to try the press.” The letter of January 17 from Director Patterson did not arrive until after the first batch of coins was struck.
3) Flynn’s book could not have been written without the two key letters of 1839, February 25 and March 7. That he does not list their prior 2010 publication says all that is necessary.
RWJ >>
1. Now that you changed from the 1838-O dies were not used for regular coinage TO the 1838-O obverse dies were not used to regular coinage, I would agree
The first 10 coins were not on polished planchets, but they were struck with exceptional strikes and it is believed given as presentation pieces or gifts, better than the 1839-O half dollars, and the Smithsonian specimen has a better strike than the 1838-O proof and the first 10, and was struck on a planchet that had the reverse polished. The first 10 will be classified as specimen coins by PCGS if certified, the Smithsonian as a proof if certified.
I am surprised, you actually changed
And I never stated that the obverse dies were used for circulation. I stated on reverse, and possibly the second reverse from 1838-O were used for circulation.
You most believe that people on this forum can't read or are stupid. You state one thing, then change it, then claim the second is what you were saying all along.
Actually I enjoy reading your responses as they are so badly written that they sometimes defy common sense.
You really did say that the obverse & reverse of the 1838–O were used for regular coinage: Your [sic] a really
funny guy, you state "Half dollar dies of 1838 were not used to strike regular coinage." Your statement is
cumulative, there is an exception which proves it incorrect, they were used to strike 1839-O coins. The last
time I checked, “they” is plural, meaning that a pair of dies was used. I simply used your poor English to make
the point.
2. Yep, your right the Feb 25th letter does use "try the press"
In context it states "I mentioned in both of my former letters that the half dollar dies sent us last year are unsuitable for present use for besides being out of date the bottom ones are too short to reach the screws and consequently cannot be secured in the seats. I how however spliced one of them in order to try the press and succeeded in making ten excellent impressions, the very first ones struck, being as perfect as the dies, are entirely satisfactory, but the piece upon the bottom die became loose and I was unable to strike any more without fixing. We are in daily expectation of hearing from you that more of the 1/2 dollar does are on the way."
Clear objective from Director Patterson, person in charge of the Mint, was to "getting ready for the half dollars."
Tyler only had the small press, which it is assumed the half dollar did not fit, and the large press, which with the objective of getting ready to strike coins had to modify the press because the half dollar dies did not fit.
Clear objective was to strike coins. Tyler even states that he wanted to keep striking coins per Patterson's objective, but the support system fail.
He clearly says "I how however spliced one of them in order to try the press", not test the press, he wanted to strike coins per Patterson's direction.
Taken out of context, you are correct. Taken in context, Tyler was trying to strike half dollars per Patterson's direction. Tyler knew the half dollar die would not fit, why would he test if he knew it did not fit? He was able to strike half dollars using the press by making modifications to build a support system, please use in context, not just a single small set of words because it fits what you wrongly stated.
Guess you were there, Tyler received Patterson's letter after he struck the coins, wow, unbelievable. Please show, (not with one of your articles), archive records of exactly when Tyler received this letter, and exactly when the coins were struck. Somehow, a year after the dies were sent, Tyler suddenly chose to strike half dollars, somehow reading Patterson's mind, yeah ok. PLEASE PROVE your statement
It would appear that you are not aware that mail to New Orleans in 1839 took many days, sometimes as long
as two weeks, other times only a week; it all depended on when the coastal sloops sailed from Philadelphia
and how many ports were visited. (The mail did not go overland.) But I will thank you for proving my earlier
statement: “The half dollars were struck in January to test the press, despite what Flynn says. If he cannot get
this right, one has to wonder about the overall accuracy of his book.” It is no longer necessary to wonder.
Your discussion is sometimes more than bizarre: Your [sic] somehow stating Patterson was wrong, or perhaps
he lied/misled, or some other conspiracy, that we should not believe archive records? I have not mentioned
Dr. Patterson in a bad light and certainly did not imply that he was lying about anything. This is nothing more
than an attempt to change the subject and attack me for things I did not say or imply.
Another Flynn gem: You most [sic] believe that people on this forum can't read or are stupid. As I don’t believe
that to be true it must be your opinion.
3. Obviously those letters were very important. But my source of reference was the National Archives, not you
You claim to be an expert on the English language. bibliography - definition - a list of the books referred to in a scholarly work, usually printed as an appendix.
I did not use/reference the letter you printed in your thread.
I used National Archives, which I found them.
That they do not fit within the new Julian definition of bibliography, so what, really do not care.
Guess though, based upon your words, as many of these letters and research has never been published before, if you use any archive letters first published in JD and my book, you will list us as the source of reference.
So you stated that there were many articles from the 60s in which this material was covered. The only one you came up with was your 2010 little thread.
Still waiting for your to back up what you claim.
I assume that the above nonsense is meant to make up for the ethical lapses in your book.
But by all means continue your argument amongst yourselves. Hopefully when published, any writings will be a bit easier to follow.
<< <i>Ok, I tried - I really tried - to continue to read the posts in this thread, but find it completely impossible. I hereby throw my hands up and admit failure.
But by all means continue your argument amongst yourselves. Hopefully when published, any writings will be a bit easier to follow. >>
I agree whole heartedly with TDN. Can't we all just get along?
Oh yeah, Patterson letter sent January 17, 1839, you say two weeks to send. + 14 days, January 31, 1839.
1838-O half dollars (10) struck in January 1839........ per Patterson's instructions.
Tyler writes Patterson on February 25 stating he struck 10 half dollars
As an example of timing of mailing, Bradford wrote Patterson June 13th, based upon letter sent by Patterson June 4th, 9 days
Patterson wrote Bradford Feb 1, based upon letter Jan 23rd.
What is really sad is you do not understand the importance of what the coins can teach us, this was a clear example.
You also obviously missed many of the relevant archive records concerning this from back in the 60s and have no clue regarding these.
And there are no articles from the 60s which presented this material. This was a blatant lie in one of your opening statements.
Good luck
Enjoyed numismatic conversations with Eric P. Newman, Dave Akers, Jules Reiver, David Davis, Russ Logan, John McCloskey, Kirk Gorman, W. David Perkins...