Options
Why Fugio New Haven Restrikes are Called Restrikes
MidLifeCrisis
Posts: 10,519 ✭✭✭✭✭
Some Fugio dies were produced in the 1850's probably at the Scovill mint in Waterbury, Connecticut and probably at the request of the numismatist and lawyer, Charles I. Bushnell. The Scovill Manufacturing Company had been a major supplier of Hard Times Tokens as well as a producer of various buttons and small metal objects. Their is no evidence as to the origin of the Fugio dies but it is known that Bushnell had the Scovill Company produce several fantasy colonial items for him in the 1850s.
According to a notice in the American Journal of Numismatics from January of 1873 (on p. 72) three sets of Fugio dies were acquired by Horatio N. Rust in 1858, one die was acquired in Bridgeport and five others were from New Haven. These were, of course, the dies created at the Waterbury mint. It is not known if Rust was part of the deception or if he genuinely thought the dies were original Fugio dies. According to the journal notice, Rust used these dies to strike off three to four hundred copies of the Fugio cent in copper as well as some in silver and gold at the Scovill mint in Waterbury.
In the past these copies were incorrectly associated with some fantasy tokens created by the teenage C. Wyllys Betts in New Haven. It was thought Betts had located some original dies and used them to make some restrikes. From this mistaken attribution the Fugio copies have become known as the "New Haven Restrikes." However, they were minted in Waterbury, from new dies created in Waterbury. Thus they are not restrikes from the original dies, nor are they from New Haven!
Source: University of Notre Dame, Department of Special Collections website at http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoi...ntros/Fugio.intro.html
(Bolded emphasis added by me.)
My comment: Restrike, counterfeit, whatever...These are seriously rare coins with an interesting story. I am a fan of all things Fugio, and I think the "restrikes" are very cool.
According to a notice in the American Journal of Numismatics from January of 1873 (on p. 72) three sets of Fugio dies were acquired by Horatio N. Rust in 1858, one die was acquired in Bridgeport and five others were from New Haven. These were, of course, the dies created at the Waterbury mint. It is not known if Rust was part of the deception or if he genuinely thought the dies were original Fugio dies. According to the journal notice, Rust used these dies to strike off three to four hundred copies of the Fugio cent in copper as well as some in silver and gold at the Scovill mint in Waterbury.
In the past these copies were incorrectly associated with some fantasy tokens created by the teenage C. Wyllys Betts in New Haven. It was thought Betts had located some original dies and used them to make some restrikes. From this mistaken attribution the Fugio copies have become known as the "New Haven Restrikes." However, they were minted in Waterbury, from new dies created in Waterbury. Thus they are not restrikes from the original dies, nor are they from New Haven!
Source: University of Notre Dame, Department of Special Collections website at http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoi...ntros/Fugio.intro.html
(Bolded emphasis added by me.)
My comment: Restrike, counterfeit, whatever...These are seriously rare coins with an interesting story. I am a fan of all things Fugio, and I think the "restrikes" are very cool.
5
Comments
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
However, if these are slabbed as restrikes, should other pieces like the Omega Double Eagles also be slabbed as restrikes?
And we all know that sales are more important than doing the right thing.
Also, who was the big collector of the Waterbury pieces on the boards from a while back? I remember a number of posts on NEWPs which I always enjoyed.
I don't know who you have in mind. Maybe Fletcher, but I know he collected regular issue Fugios.
I owned the Eliasberg Silver Restrike at one time, and posted it a few times on here.
I just bought my second Silver Restrike...waiting to receive it in the mail.
Also, who was the big collector of the Waterbury pieces on the boards from a while back? I remember a number of posts on NEWPs which I always enjoyed.
I don't know who you have in mind. Maybe Fletcher, but I know he collected regular issue Fugios.
I owned the Eliasberg Silver Restrike at one time, and posted it a few times on here.
I just bought my second Silver Restrike...waiting to receive it in the mail.
I was thinking of Fletcher but may have confused regular Fugios with the Waterbury ones for him. I do miss his posts. Anyone know where he is these days?
Congrats on the silver restrikes! Would be great to see some pics
The correct term should be "novodel," but that would probably hurt their sales.
And we all know that sales are more important than doing the right thing.
I consider Novadels to made buy the Mint that struck them originally.
These sound like counterfeits that got a pass to me!
The source article does not indicate whether or not novodels are struck by the mint that struck them originally.
The source article also includes the following, which I found helpful for this discussion: "A restrike differs in that it a more strict reproduction using the same dies and minting methods as the original and would emulate the same quality of materials and manufacturing techniques. A counterfeit coin would actually strive to faithfully reproduce the lower quality of the actual coin in every respect whereas a novodel makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is an improved reproduction or commemorative issue. A novodel is not a counterfeit coin but an approximation of the real coin intended for collectors."
A good definition of "novodel" is hard to find. I found this definition at https://vintages-antiques-collectibles.knoji.com/novodels-restrikes-of-russian-coins/. Although it applies to Russian coins (from where I think the term originated), it seems to me to be as good a definition as any: "In numismatics (the study and collection of currency or coins) a "novodel" refers to Russian coins that were struck to reproduce an actual issued coinage. Often minted to be better than the original, a novodel is still a good collector's choice for rare and out-of-circulation coins. You can own a 'real thing' collectible coin for a fraction of the rare coin price."
The source article does not indicate whether or not novodels are struck by the mint that struck them originally.
The source article also includes the following, which I found helpful for this discussion: "A restrike differs in that it a more strict reproduction using the same dies and minting methods as the original and would emulate the same quality of materials and manufacturing techniques. A counterfeit coin would actually strive to faithfully reproduce the lower quality of the actual coin in every respect whereas a novodel makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is an improved reproduction or commemorative issue. A novodel is not a counterfeit coin but an approximation of the real coin intended for collectors."
Some Russian Novodels were struck for collectors which were a date not Originally struck so they could have a complete date run!
Call them what they are ... Fakes.
A case can be made that the 1804 Dollar and the 1913 Liberty Nickel are also fakes...for different reasons, of course, but the end is the same. Some people like and appreciate them; some people don't.
What about non-circulating legal tender, modern mint products, commemorative coins, tokens of all kinds, etc.? Many of them were either not intended to circulate, were produced for sale to collectors (profit motive), or produced privately for various reasons. Yet many collectors appreciate them and pay good money for them.
I'm not a fan of many of the coins I just mentioned, so I just don't add them to my collection.
I collect traditional (Redbook) colonial coins and other coins that circulated in early America. Fugios figured prominently in early America, notably because of their design. Fugio "Restrikes" depict that design better than most regular issue Fugios that come to market. Therefore, I am willing to include the "Restrikes" in my collection.
Many others would not define their collection the way I define mine. That freedom of choice is one of the many things that make America great.
Mind Your Business.
And what about the later strikings from those dies?
What about the Continental dollars made in 1876 from obviously new dies?
And what about the later strikings from those dies?
I need to know more before I can answer.
For example, do you think all Continental Dollars were struck in 1876 or later?
Call them what they are ... Fakes.
How about "private mint"
Super gorgeous silver piece! Love the OGH too!
Thank you!
The correct term should be "novodel," but that would probably hurt their sales.
And we all know that sales are more important than doing the right thing.
And "New Haven" has more panache than "Waterbury" from a marketing standpoint as well. But very interesting story about how these were actually struck in Waterbury aka the "Brass City"
Just ran across this beautiful Scovill Fugio and wanted to post here due to all the good info provided by @MidLifeCrisis above!
Do we know where the dies are now or what happened to them after Horatio Nelson Rust's possession?
That is purty!
A quick and a detailed description of what a novodel is
He is still here, just a little less active mostly due to runaway offspring count ;-)
Drooling over the MidLifeCrisis Silver Restrike ... should have bought it when I had the chance ;-)
Picked up this fiery orange one a few months back ... it's the CoinFacts Plate Coin.
@MidLifeCrisis ....Thanks for the article on 'novodel'....it was a term I was not familiar with and the dictionary does not list it...
Cheers, RickO
So a novodel is a backdated piece made from either original or non-original dies, while a restrike is essentially made from existing original dies but struck later.
I think it would be beneficial to further clarify its definition by specifying that a novodel is produced by the mint or governing body from which the series originated. Or at the very least, that the strikes are not meant to deceive. Either or both additions would add legitimacy to a novodel, define them as something positive, and differentiate them from counterfeits, which are not produced by the mint or governing body and which are specifically made to deceive.
Under this expanded definition, The dcarr overstrikes or Gallery Mint pieces, which do provide collectors with non-circulating specimens of coins and/or dates which may not have been struck contemperaneously with the original series, and which are not struck to deceive, could be considered novodels. They aren't restrikes--they aren't produced from original dies, though its seems that they might fall into the looser definition of restrike in that they are designed to mimic the original series in terms of planchet and strike.
But it would exclude pieces currently being made in China, which are neither struck by the original mint/governing body and which are being made to deceive.
--Severian the Lame
Yes, this is an old thread of mine...but I had to bump it because of that coin. Wow!
Thanks. Missed it the first time around. Somewhere I have one of those Fugios that i picked up years ago so this thread will be helpful in confirming its point of time origin. As I recall, it was represented to have come from the above referenced "Bank of New York Hoard."
there can be an interesting and perhaps heated discussion on what to call the New Haven Fugios, it seems the only certain thing is that they are not restrikes.
What about the Continental dollars made in 1876 from obviously new dies?
And what about the later strikings from those dies
in the book "So-Called Dollars" Mssrs. Hibler and Kappen call those made by Prof. Dickeson what they should be called --- struck copies. they made it a little confusing when they labeled the Bashlow/Bowers issues as "Continental Dollar Restrikes" when they should have called them restrikes of the Dickeson dies.
Regarding a few pieces:
Been meaning to toss this in this thread, but keep getting sidetracked. It popped up again, so here you go:
As part of the Great Transcription Project here on the forums, I transcribed the following letter from J. A. Pollock, Mint Superintendent, apparently answering a collector's question.
I wouldn't call it proof of ANYTHING, but it does lay out the state of knowledge/belief at the time, October 1877. Essentially, at the time, they believed that the "restrikes" were part of the contract coinage. I assume later research proved that to be incorrect.
Thought it was interesting....If not germane to the discussion.
"October 22nd, (187)7
P. D. Cooper, Esquire
Dear Sir,
In reply to your note of the 18th inst., regarding the “Franklin Cent”, the following quotation from the Act of Congress of July 6th, 1787 will give you the desired information.
“Resolved, that the board of Treasury direct the contractor for the Copper Coinage to stamp on the side of each piece the following device, viz; thirteen circles linked together; a small circle in the middle, with the motto “United States” around it; and in the centre, the words “we are one”; on the other side of the piece the following devices, viz; A dial with the hours expressed on the face of it; a meridian sun above, on the side of which is to be the word, “Fugio” and on the other the year in figures “1787””. The words “mind your business”, inscribed beneath the dial, which have gained for this piece the name of the “Franklin Cent”, appear to have been added without the authority of Congress, and, indeed, some pretend to say that it was at the suggestion of “Poor Richard” himself.
A portion of these Coppers’ are said to have been coined at New Haven by a firm in which Mr. Jarvis was a partner, and the remainder by Mr. Harmon, at Rupert, Vermont, whether the dies were taken by one Abel Buel who was also a partner in the New Haven firm.
Yours Respectfully,
J.A. Pollock
Supt.
P. D. Cooper Esq.,
Cleveland, Ohio"
The Bank of New York hoard was a GOOD thing. Those pieces were original Fugio Cents that happened to end up in the vault of a solvent bank. Collectors can New own a historic coin in Mint State at an attractive price.
The so-called New Haven "restrikes" are junk. They were not restrikes because they were made with new dies, and they are were made about 100 years later.
Well, not sure that I would call them "junk" ;-)
If someone made the same thing today on good copper planchets and put them in a gift shop for sale, what would you call them? Just because they are 100 years old doesn't given them much of a history. They had nothing do with the history of the original Fugio Cents other than they carried a similar design of the real thing.
The only thing that is good about them is that the rings on the reverse on thin, which makes it easy to distinguish them from the original coins.
The thing is that craftsmanship between now and 100 years ago is very different. Just look at the medals the US Mint puts out. I actually like these better than the originals because they generally come in better condition and I like the design of the thinner rings better.
Regarding 100 years, to me that gives them quite a bit of history from a US perspective, as 100 isn't that different from 200. Of course, if you look at UK coins or Chinese coins, they go back much further.
I do wish more people thought they were junk so I could buy them at junk prices!
Regardless of how they have been classified through the years, they are still an important part of the Fugio story ...