Abuse of distributing patterns and restriking coins from old dies - 1861
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Abuses at the Philadelphia Mint attracted the ire of Boston coin collectors as early as 1861. The following letters document an exchange of complaint and response involving Mint Director James Pollock. Since he was relatively new to the job and had no mint experience, his assurances might have carried greater trust than if written by his predecessor, James Ross Snowden. Note the mention of 1804 dollars and see the thread started by member “Rittenhouse” for additional information.
[RG104 entry 211J box 1]
Boston, Mass.
November 12, 1861
Hon. James Pollock
Director of the Mint of the United States
The undersigned, a committee of the Boston Numismatic Society, were instructed to call your attention to the abuses which have of late years been practices at the Mint of the United States, whereby numbers of pattern pieces, and coins from dies of former years, have been freely struck and disposed of by employees of the Mint to dealers who have in turn, disposed of them at great prices. Two years since, members of the Society were offered specimens of the dollar of 1804, of which previously only three or four examples were known; upon applying to the Director of the Mint he peremptorily replied that none had been struck; further investigations resulted in the fact being proven that three specimens had been struck, two of which had been sold for $75.00 each; various pattern pieces, in large numbers, have also been issued without the sanction of the proper officers. Under these circumstances we respectfully urge the expediency of destroying the dies of the current coin, and also of pattern pieces at the close of each year.
Very respectfully yours,
/signed/
George W. Pratt
Winslow Lewis
Henry Davenport
Isaiah Colburn
[Response by Director Pollock]
Mint of the United States
Philadelphia, Pa.
November 21, 1861
[Boston Numismatic Society]
Gentlemen,
Yours for the 12th inst., has been received.
The abuses, to which you refer, if they ever had an existence, can no longer be practiced in this institution. The practice of striking pattern pieces and coins from dies of former years cannot be too strongly condemned; and great care is not taken to prevent the recurrence of any such abuse. All the dies of former years are secured in such manner that it is impossible for anyone to obtain possession of them without the knowledge of the Director. The dies of the current coins & of pattern pieces will be destroyed at the close of the year – the dies of the past few years have also been destroyed.
Very truly yours,
J. A. Pollock, Director
Comments
Were the 1804 dollars referenced the ones presumably made by Night Watchman Theodore Eckfeldt, aka "The Midnight Minter?"
The letters do not say who made the coins.
After reading the relevant records and tracing auction records of the various patterns and "Cabinet Coins," JD, Saul, and I concur that Theodore Eckfeldt was not a minter of anything, midnight or otherwise. Rather, he was one of the "beards" for Linderman and A Loudon Snowden, who were doing the not so clandestine restriking.
The "Midnight Minter" tale is a fabrication principally by Breen and repeated by Taxay, based on the fact that Eckfeldt was a night watchman and also sold patterns to collectors and dealers. However, the conflation of these two points ignores the fact that old dies were locked in the either the Engraver's or, more commonly, the Director's vaults, uncoined planchets were locked in the Coiner's vault, and the presses were chained shut and locked at night, per Mint regulations.
So, Eckfeldt would had to have obtained the keys to at least two separate vaults and a third set for the presses. The tale also ignores the very curious fact that the Mint apparently never bothered to change the locks even after it was known that Eckfeldt was selling pieces!!!
A review of period auction records clearly shows that anytime Linderman was in office, whether as Director's Clerk or Director, there was a substantial increase in the appearance of patterns and Cabinet Coins on the market, especially Gobrecht dollars. Once Linderman dies, A Loudon took over. Pollock appears to have been little more than a "silent partner."
Further evidence pointing the finger at Linderman can be found in James Ross Snowden's Jan 22, 1859 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb:
"We are daily pressed upon by collectors of coins from all parts of the country either by letter or in person for specimens of pattern pieces of coins and rare types. A few of these having been in every case spread, some of them get into the hands of dealers, and are sold and excessive prices. I propose, with your approbation, to check this traffic, and at the same time to gratify a taste which has lately greatly increased in the country, and seems to be increasing every day, namely by striking some of each kind and offering a price to them, so that the profits may ensure to the benefit of the Mint Cabinet of coins and ones which is the property of the U.S. States, an exact account of which will be kept and sent to the Department."
Notice that a no point does Snowden propose firing the guilty parties! Rather he's going to "out compete them." The reason is simple, A Loudon is his nephew and Linderman is the nephew of the powerful former Senator from PA and quite politically connected. Firing his nephew would be personally embarrassing and firing Linderman would be political suicide.
James Ross wasn’t exactly immune from criticism himself, as he had allowed J.N.T. Levick, and others such as coin dealers Edward Cogan and William Idler, into the Mint in 1857 and 1858 to purchase rare large cents and half cents at face value that the public had exchanged for the new Flying Eagle cent!
And finally, we have the 1887 "Mint Report" in which Director George Kimball firmly points the finger at Linderman, et al.
Man, what a load of hogwash. Pollock has only been in office about 6 months and Linderman already has him providing cover, Period auction records show that not only aren't the "dies of former years" locked away, the ones for current coins and patterns were not destroyed! Now, I do believe that "All the dies of former years are secured in such manner that it is impossible for anyone to obtain possession of them without the knowledge of the Director."
The above post (12:23pm) helps to illustrate a basic concept: it took several people and multiple departments to produce a coin or restrike a pattern, etc. No individual or department had all the skills necessary. While the Coining Dept. could roll ingots into strips, cut and upset planchets and run presses, each of these steps required trained workmen to operate the equipment. Correct alloy ingots were made by the M&R Dept. Hardened working dies, made by the Engraving Dept., had to come from one of the few locked depositories as mentioned above (plus the Coiner's vault held dies).
When the facts of mint operations are considered, it appears nearly all instances of restrikes and similar events were officially condoned, or at least workmen were compensated in a more or less open manner. Distribution of pattern pieces seems to be a somewhat different matter because all were officially made by written or verbal order. How, when and why the left the Mint and to whom the found their way, and to whom any profit accrued are largely unanswered questions -- for now.
@Rittenhouse...how do you account for the Class II 1804 dollar, struck over a recent Swiss shooting thaler? The professional "counterfeiters" in the Mint hierarchy would have known that such a piece could never fool contemporary collectors, but an underling such as (but not necessarily) Eckfeldt might not know that.
Given that Stickney was from Boston and told others of his 1804 dollar acquisition in 1843, do we know if Stickney was a member of the Boston Numismatic Society and what his relationship was with George W. Pratt, Winslow Lewis, Henry Davenport and Isaiah Colburn?
The fallacy in that argument is that they were trying to fool people. They weren't. Maybe some dealers were, but any collector with half a brain would have known these pieces were new. That's why you get the letter from Boston Numismatic Society. That's why you see comments in AJN from this period of time about pieces being "of recent origin", etc. Root showed of his copper dollar (1852, I think) at a BNS meeting and no one thought it was real. They did think it was very cool, though. In large part, it did not matter to those purchasing these "Cabinet Coins." There's a J84 over-struck on an 1859 dollar. And how about all of the "mules." Do you really think they "fooled" those who could afford them? The auction records say not. Pieces known to be originals brought more than those known or suspected to be new.
It's pretty obvious that restrikes were being made at the Philadelphia Mint on a regular basis. The large number 1836 Gobrecht Dollars with different die rotations speaks volumes about the practice. It does seem however that numbers made had an effect upon the number of restrikes that were made. There were many Gobrecht Dollars, not so many 1804 dollars.
Still the question remains. How and why was the 1804 dollar that was struck over the Swiss coin made? The "official restrikers" would not have goofed up that badly, would they? And the stories that other clandestine coins were made, seized and destroyed would seem to have more credibility.
Does anyone have an comments about these issues?
Can't tell how much I enjoy these threads and how informative they are.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
To me, the overstrike pieces suggest a solo, or nearly so, activity. That is, instances where the person responsible was either not sanctioned to make the pieces, or was authorized, but the necessary resources of correct planchets, etc. were not available. There are comments in both Stickney and Mickley materials where a request was delayed because DuBoise could not get other workers time due to pressing manufacturing schedules.
[However, all of this kind of thing is preliminary and includes a lot of old-tyme assumption and innuendo, which for now is difficult to separate from fact.]
Great thread.... Forensic research... one wonders if any old family diaries exist that may further explain some of these cases. Cheers, RickO
"...one wonders if any old family diaries exist that may further explain some of these cases."
I've been searching and had some success, but this is very time and money intensive...with no assurance of finding anything.
Along these lines, several years ago we (HJBLTD) sold a letter to a prominent pattern collector. It was on Treasury Department letterhead dated Oct 22, 1863 from the Secretary of the Treasury to James Pollock Esq. Director of the Mint. : Sir You will please to furnish to the Hon. George Opdyke, Mayor of New York, a proof set of the specimen pieces struck at the Mint for the for the years 1862 and 1863, as follows: Half dollars and Quarter dollars in silver, and the series of Gold coins struck in copper, all bearing the legend "In God we trust", on his paying the expense of same, I am very respectfully, Secretary of the. TReasury.
Could the restrike over the Thaler be as simple as it was available and somebody wanted to see what would happen?
Alternatively, we know the mint did account fairly carefully for the precious metals. It's not like we have mint records of the number of strikes from the presses that today's automatic counters generate. However, the silver would have to have been accounted for if you have to have blanks made.
So maybe it was a test to see if reusing existing coins would allow them to simplify the process? Instead of tossing extra silver into the melt pot and then adjusting the #s along the way for the off-books metal?
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I be leave the mint gave base metal patterns away and just charged replacement cost for silver and gold patterns, thus the "paying the expense of same" line
There are twoissues here. First, "The large number 1836 Gobrecht Dollars with different die rotations speaks volumes about the practice." Actually no (apologies for missing this at the start). 1836 (J60) Originals come in Alignments I, II, and IV. Restrikes are only seen in III, and use a different reverse - "The Cracked Reverse." The alignments arose from problems during the Dec 1836 striking. JD, Saul Teichman, and I did a presentation at the 2012 ANA presenting the data. You can read it here. 1838 Originals come in III and IV, originals are determined by die state. 1839 Originals come solely in IV, with restrikes in both III and IV. As with the 38's , they can be determined from restrikes by die state. You can read about that here. You can also read our articles on these pieices in the March thru August 2016 issues of The Numismatist.
As to the 1804 dollar overstrike, it is a "piece de caprice" no different than the 1838 Gobrecht overstruck on an 1859 Seated dollar and other such pieces (see uspatterns.com). Perhaps someone involved in the illicit restriking stuck a coin they had in the press and created a "cabinet coin" or maybe they ran short of planchets and used whatever they had. I think the former more likely.
I also disagree that the restriking was "officially sanctioned." It was not as can be seen from James Ross Snowden's 1859 letter to Sec Treas Cobb:
We are daily pressed upon by collectors of coins from all parts of the country either by letter or in person for specimens of pattern pieces of coins and rare types. A few of these having been in every case spread, some of them get into the hands of dealers, and are sold and excessive prices. I propose, with your approbation, to check this traffic, and at the same time to gratify a taste which has lately greatly increased in the country, and seems to be increasing every day, namely by striking some of each kind and offering a price to them, so that the profits may enure to the benefit of the Mint Cabinet of coins and ones which is the property of the U.S. States, an exact account of which will be kept and sent to the Department.
If the restriking was officially sanctioned, then why is Snowden proposing to "check the traffic"? This letter also reveals that whomever was doing the restriking was so powerful that they could not simply be fired or even brought up on charges. That would be the "good" Dr. Henry Linderman, who was the nephew of the very powerful former PA Senator, Richard Brodhead. Linderman himself was also very politically connected, as can be seen from his numerous gov't appointments over the years. Add in that Snowden's nephew, A. Loudon, was also a principal, and it becomes easy to see why they were never stopped.
Snowden's suggestion was to strike "some of each kind and offering a price for them." This would flood the market for pattern pieces and rare types, and drive out the dealers selling for excessive prices. The proposal is thus an official sanctioning of restriking. Further, pieces made to exchange for specimens needed for the Mint Cabinet also were clearly made with official approval. Snowden and Pollock both placed a very high public value on the Mint Cabinet and especially the large group of Washington Pieces, for which a special medal was prepared to mark its completion.
We will have to disagree then. Certainly Snowden's restriking was officially sanctioned since he wrote to Cobb and received approval. However, Linderman's restriking remained what it was, personal profiteering.
Even if one wishes to maintain that any pieces restruck at this time had "official sanction," we are only talking about a relatively few pieces as Snowden first makes the offer in a May 24, 1859 notice and then recinded it 7 months later in another notice on Dec. 20.
Snowden's efforts did little to "check the trade" as period auction records clearly show that pieces continued to appear in rather large numbers. He did, however, manage to piss off Cogan, who sent him a "nasty-gram" on June 14, 1859. Snowden replied on June 16, essentially saying yes, he was restriking, what do you have to trade?
That Snowden's idea failed - or might even have stimulated interest - is reasonable as "Rittenhouse" notes. I don't think we disagree in so far as what the letter states.
However this letter says nothing about Linderman. Thus, no conclusions can be drawn from it about his actions, if any, at that time.
BTW - "Official sanction" need not be from the Secretary of the Treasury. The Director operated the mints and was the responsible officer. Only his approval was necessary for the work to be "official." Of course, that does not mean it was ethical by the standards of the time - even if the purpose was to enhance the Mint Cabinet. Production for personal profit was clearly illegal and unethical.
The material posted here by various persons is worthy of comment.
1) Director James Pollock is called a “silent partner” in the restriking of
old coins. This is not true as internal Mint documents have been found
which show that he was not involved at all. It is of interest, however, to
note that the boxed-up old dies (including, for example, an 1804 dollar
obverse) were held in the engraver’s vault.
2) H.R. Linderman was supposedly protected in his illegal Mint activities
because of his uncle, Senator Richard Brodhead. Brodhead, however,
left the Senate in 1857. At any rate Brodhead was a Democrat and would
have had no influence with the new Lincoln administration in 1861 had
he still been in the Senate. (James Ross Snowden was fired as director in
early May 1861 primarily because he was a Democrat.)
3) Brodhead was an interesting person, to say the least. He named his son,
born in 1859, Jefferson Davis Brodhead. In addition Brodhead’s wife was a
niece of the Confederate president. I somehow doubt Brodhead’s influence
with any government official after 1860.
4) My copy of the 1887 Mint report does not mention Linderman or anyone
else by name as restriking coins. There is, however, an interesting background
to this matter. In early 1887 Mint Director James P. Kimball asked for a set of
U.S. coins in copper. This request was refused by the Philadelphia superintendent
and in retaliation Kimball issued a directive, printed in the 1887 mint report,
about pattern coins and restriking.
5) Was Linderman involved in making restrikes of the old coins, such as the
1804 dollar? Yes, but the only reasonably certain time was in the late 1860s
when he was director for the first time.
6) There is little doubt that A. Loudon Snowden was involved in restrikes and
patterns but there is no clear indication of this before 1867. It is possible that
he was in charge of the restriking carried out by James Ross Snowden in the
late 1850s but this is speculative.
Could it be true that the authors of the letter, who presumably were in Boston, were jealous that collectors in or near Philadelphia had access to neat and important numismatic items that were literally 'out of their reach'?
It is suspicious that the authors of the letter seem to be deliberately lumping together 1804 dollars, restrikes of previous regular issue coins, and patterns of all sorts. Despite some overlap, these are three very different categories of items. If some were illegally distributed, it does not follow that all were illegally distributed.
It would be untenable to argue that a numismatic item is illegal or illegitimate if it was not made in the calendar year indicated by the 'date' on it. Some 1795 half eagles were made later than 1795. Suppose 1803 dollars were minted in 1804? Should those 1803 dollars be subject to question? No!
Roger:
Was there any law preventing the Mint from distributing patterns or any law limiting such distributions? Patterns served many purposes. It seems logical to use dies from previous years to make some patterns. It was fair and ethical for Mint officials to: stimulate coin collecting, draw interest in new coin proposals, provide physical evidence of past proposals, educate coin collectors about patterns that were made in the past, make people aware of alternative alloys, and allow coin collectors to own pieces relating to ideas that were not (or not yet) incorporated into polices.
Roger:
During the 19th century, it was a noteworthy practice in Mints elsewhere in the world to make restrikes and novodels. Consider all those made in Russia? Did anyone ever demonstrate that these were illegal? Unusual patterns and restrikes were generally considered to be legitimate items by coin collectors in more than a few nations.
Silver Coins of Gran Colombia: One Real (12½¢) and Two Reales
This is an interesting line of reasoning as is the rest of the post providing background information. It's worth examining if this could be a motivation of those behind this effort.
The auction record says different.
I pointed out a political connection. Of course former senators never retain any political clout, they just ride off into the sunset.
I said "pointed a finger." Words do have meaning, Bob. You know, like "To" and "By'.
Again the auction record says differently.
Again the auction record says differently.
There were several advanced collectors in the Boston area. You've probably aware of Stickney. Not sure if Root was a native or just visited. The complaint is valid. This stuff was driving down the price of originals.
As the 1887 "Mint Report" points out, it had been illegal since 1825 to produce gold or silver coin in a fineness or weight different than that prescribed by law. Since many of the restrikes were underweight and some were not to the fineness in effect at the date on the coin, they would be illegal, not to mention the off-metal pieces. A finer point can be made that the designs of official coinage were officially approved, whereas the patterns were not.
It's also very clear from JR Snowden's request to Cobb to officially restrike, that the Mint did not consider the "other pieces" to be legal, particularly since the profits did not "enure to the Mint Cabinet and one which is the property of the United States."
You seem to like to to conflate issues. Circulation strikes are not patterns or proofs.
Answered above.
Only for the restrikes made at Snowden's direction.
Conflation at its finest. Check a map; I think you'll find that Russia and the U.S. are different countries on different continents. And, so whatever the public conceives as legal is legal? Interesting concept. When will you be arguing that in front of SCOTUS, or even one of the Districts? I look forward to reading the opinion.
JD just pointed out to me that the report does, in fact, "name" Linderman. On page 136, the report states:
"There is evidence that experimental coins of this description were in formally sold at the mint at Philadelphia under limitations of a personal, rather than of an official, character, but with what authority or official sanction has not in my examination of the present matter thus far appeared."
And further down the page:
"In a communication to the superintendent of the mint at Philadelphia, under date of February 26, 1875, from the Director of the Mint, the same officer by whom was framed the technical portions of the Coinage Act of 1873, as well as the Instructions and Regulations of 1874,
It will be observed that although the terms " pattern dies "and " pattern pieces "are obviously used in the popular or colloquial sense of trial or experimental dies and pieces respectively, indication is found, in the absence of any thing to the same purpose of a more formal character, that, in agree ment with the letter of the instructions and regulations then in force, specimen pieces of any kind, except of coin authorized by law, were notunderstood by this officer to be then struck for sale."
Seems pretty clear to us. But then again we read "all of the words."
I can see it in a different perspective, not, though, as a knowledgeable coin person, but as a person who ran manufacturing operations for 35 years at multiple companies.
Tools require set ups. Tooling, current and stored, requires periodic inspection and testing.
We had government owned tooling, some of which had not been "used" for 20+ years, that was stored in the shops, that would get inspected 1/year. They would also pull a couple tools (dies, molds, etc.) from the thousands in storage, and have them mounted on the manufacturing tools to ensure fitment, have the operator (stamp, machine, mold, etc.) out a couple parts, check the parts, then scrap them, and send the tools back to storage.
Also, in the main production areas, tools coming back from maintenance, tools changing from one type of material or product line to another, shops being reopened after weekends, holiday closings, etc would have set ups, test runs, etc. and the stuff was scrapped, so we did not mess up "good" material. Often times, previously scrapped or obsolete material was used for the set ups.
Even operators would "goof off" sometimes and make some 1 of a kind weird stuff to impress their buddies with the skills they had or creativity.
Since metal detectors did not exist, anyone could have walked in with normal coins that could have been tossed in the manufacturing defect buckets heading to the smelter, and a few pristine blanks diverted to "playtime".
Joe: Hey Fred, Boss says to go grab some of those old dies, you know, the ones that are 50 years old, and run a couple coins on the new press that was installed last week. Grab a few of the blanks that failed weight, "mint" them, see how they look, and toss them in the scrap bucket.
Fred: No problem, hey, these look cool. I have $2.25 in my pocket, I will take these home with me, and sub out the stuff in my pocket.
I also would SERIOUSLY think that during the Civil War, based on where the mint was, maybe not EVERY thing that occurred was 100% documents, monitored, or whatever.
My only wonder is that, for example, the 1804 dollar, that 500+ were not made over the time frames that the "restrikes" or what you want to call them, were made. My guys could have made the amount that exists while the boss was eating lunch.
I have formed no opinion on the details of the pattern and restrike situation. The present research is in progress to, hopefully, provide new information and insights. Considering the span of about 50 years, generalizations become very uncertain.
Pattern and experimental pieces were not mentioned in coinage laws, and only part of regulations after most of the events mentioned above occurred.
Dir. Pollock's situation is complicated by his two terms as Director followed by Superintendency of the Philadelphia Mint, and the various activities of A.L. Snowden both as a Mint officer and a private advisor.
Kimbal's comments require deeper examination - another task for the future. He was personally responsible for the attempted prosecution of Linderman's Estate, but was "shot down" by the U.S. Attorney. That must have hurt his ego a little.
I've found that 19th and many 20th century auction catalogs are indicators, but not necessarily reliable sources. The authors' wanted to sell coins at the best prices and, just as today, invent, adapt, weedle, and adjust the facts to fit their sales goals. Any auction catalog claim should be verified by other sources not associated with the auction company.
Despite what Rittenhouse claims, the auction records say nothing of
the sort. What actually happened is that someone struck a considerable
number of extra pieces in 1858 or 1859 and then gradually sold them
over a period of years. That such sales correspond to this or that mint
official is meaningless.
In my original posting I noted that definitive documents had been found,
showing that Director James Pollock had nothing to do with restriking the
old coins from the boxed-up dies. It is worth noting that H.R. Linderman,
while director’s clerk under Pollock, is also specifically excluded by the
documents.
I also note the response by Rittenhouse in which he claims that Linderman
is in fact named in the 1887 mint report as restriking old coins. The quoted
section merely reports what is well known to researchers, that pattern pieces
were sold to collectors during Linderman’s two terms of office. These sales
were done openly with the official permission of Director Linderman and the
full knowledge of the Treasury Department. This fact has nothing to do
with restriking coins from the old boxed-up dies. The sales in question were
made to any interested collector.
Rittenhouse:
This is a technicality at best. Items made for collectors were certainly considered different by the people involved. Besides, what would the penalty have been for producing numismatic items that were slightly underweight? Laws are subject varying legitimate interpretations. Also, if such items are categorized as patterns, they would not be subject to this regulation anyhow.
Rittenhouse:
We are returning to the issue of profits. As I have been making clear, it can be legal to strike an item and not legal to hide profits made by selling it. The item can be legitimate without the profits being legitimate.
Who exactly made profits, from which items? How much profit was involved? Does Rittenhouse really know the answers to these questions? Let him provide a list of allegedly profitable transactions that were not properly reported?
Rittenhouse:
In my post above, I made the distinction very clear. I pointed out that the authors of the letter in 1861 were deliberately masking such issues: It is suspicious that the authors of the letter seem to be deliberately lumping together 1804 dollars, restrikes of previous regular issue coins, and patterns of all sorts. Despite some overlap, these are three very different categories of items. If some were illegally distributed, it does not follow that all were illegally distributed.
Also, Rittenhouse is not sensibly reading of my point about the dates on coins. If it was legal to strike regular coins in years after their respective dates indicate, then it would surely be legal to do so with Proofs. I figured that it was obvious that patterns were never legally required to bear dates corresponding to the respective years in which they were made. Why would they be? If an alternative design or alloy is being illustrated, why would it have to bear the current date? Rittenhouse's response to my point is not constructive.
Analyst agove, as quoted by Rittenhouse:
Rittenhouse:
In order to understand customs, norms and interpretations of law during a particular time period, it is necessary to understand behavior patterns, not just read laws and lists of government regulations. In many nations, official Mints made unusual patterns and restrikes for collectors. The people involved generally regarded such behavior as legitimate and ethical. Of course, this was not always true.
In the Judd and Adams-Woodin books, there are many items that could also be called "restrikes" or fantasies. The point here is that a wide variety of items fall into the category of patterns overall, and these were not subject to the same regulations as business strikes that were made in large quantities.
Million Dollar Coins, Part 3: Half Cents
ttt
It is interesting to note that the year referenced in the OP's post, 1861 coincided with the 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagle that was subject to much discussion in the herein linked thread as to whether the existing two examples were one or both restrikes of a later date. Notably their first auction appearance was several years after 1861 and Ford and others have opinioned as to their being of a later striking.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/11643042#Comment_11643042
this thread makes me think of Dan Carr.
This is a great thread... glad it was bounced to the top.... Amazing information gleaned from old documents... answers some questions, but raises even more..... Onward!!! Cheers, RickO
This letter shows the trading process going on, I think it's cool.
June 10, 1859
Dear Sir,
I have received your favor of the 8th inst. I do not know where you can obtain the coins you name.
I would be glad however to have a description of the “10 or 12 Washington Cents and tokens” which you possess, and if I think it desirable to pursue any of them, I will present you with other specimens of greater rarity in exchange.
I am very respectfully
Your obedient servant,
James Ross Snowden,
Director of the Mint
Benjamin Haines
Elizabeth, N.J.
Yep. This increased after the director sent out a public notice of his interest in buying or trading for Washington pieces needed for the Mint Cabinet of Coins and Ores.
According to JEDM, Mint DirectorSnowden, on June 10, 1859, said,
RogerB:
Invariably, "specimens of greater rarity" would have to be rare date coins, restrikes of rare issues, and/or patterns (broadly defined). It seems clear that U.S. Mint Director Snowden honestly believed that trading such items for Washington numismatic pieces was logical and ethical. If a government official was involved in a criminal conspiracy or was the mastermind behind an inappropriate project, he would not issue a public notice explaining a major objective in such an undertaking. This letter is strong evidence that it was legal to for the U.S. Mint to trade rarities for items desired for the U.S. Mint Collection "of Coins and Ores."
Shield Earring Quarter Patterns
With only a few exceptions, what we think of as rare dates or varieties was meaningless in the 1840-60s. Trading coins and medals was normal procedure for the Mint Cabinet as well as individual collectors. The same applied to ore and mineral samples. Trading was also performed with other countries, and even the British East India Corporation.
One cannot understand actions and processes of that era by applying modern conceits.
RogerB:
I am not sure about this statement. By the 1850s, active numismatists were focused on the rarity of 1793 Liberty Cap cents, 1799 large cents, 1802 half dimes, 1827 quarters, 1796-97 halves, 1794 silver dollars, 1851 dollars, etc. There is quite a bit of overlap regarding items that many people then thought of as rarities and we think of rarities in the present.
RogerB:
I have been saying, for years, in many published articles that it was considered honest, ethical and legitimate for collectors to trade coins or other numismatic items with the Philadelphia Mint. QDB has made similiar points in many publications, starting long before I made them.
RogerB:
I agree that it is important to emphasize this point. Earlier in this thread, in a response to "Rittenhouse," I said, 'In order to understand customs, norms and interpretations of law during a particular time period, it is necessary to understand behavior patterns, not just read laws and lists of government regulations. In many nations, official Mints made unusual patterns and restrikes for collectors. The people involved generally regarded such behavior as legitimate and ethical. Of course, this was not always true.'
In regard to most all aspects of government, a societal pre-occupation with government regulations, bureaucratic details and endless record-keeping evolved mostly during the second half of the 20th century.
RE "In regard to most all aspects of government, a societal pre-occupation with government regulations, bureaucratic details and endless record-keeping evolved mostly during the second half of the 20th century."
The above quote is inaccurate and not based on facts.
Situations and circumstances were different 150 years ago, as were the impacts; but "government regulations, bureaucratic details and endless record-keeping" were part of every government of every established nation-state. The United States had, and still has, a far smaller, less intrusive and less documentation-requiring government than nearly every major country. Should Analyst dispute that, he is invited to reside in France, India, Poland, Israel or just about any other country. Once there, try to get a driver's license, open a business, build a house, get a dog license, have a telephone installed, get a patent, publish a book, etc. ad infinitum.
Curiously, it is the "bureaucratic details and endless record-keeping" the poster complains of, that provides our most important and reliable insights into numismatic history -- in the USA and elsewhere.
Bump - wondering if any new information has been found in this arena.
Been digging into those 1851 Proof Dollars (Well, the overstruck "O" coin at least) a lot lately and this thread is loosely related.
Any thought to your timelines with a May 1859 auction of an 1851 Proof Dollar and the letter Roger linked dated 7/4/1859 (Curtis) asking about some recent restrikes of patterns and dollars?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12226655/#Comment_12226655
Roger said in this thread Snowden received many letters in response to the public notice of the desire to acquire Washington pieces for the cabinet. Certainly the Benjamin Haines letter in this thread indicates that - but the Curtis letter is more of a - hey, I heard you're making restrikes and I want to buy some type of letter.
In the Curtis letter there were "Two 3-cent pieces enclosed."
Any other letters such as these pop up in the archives with coins enclosed? I've read theories how previously struck coins were used (the 1859?-O Dollar, the 1846 Dollar, the Swiss Thaler, etc) - and how it would be hard at times for the mint to fudge records to hide the silver, take coins out of the returned/exchanged pile, etc - Is it possible whoever "Ordered" certain coins provided the host coins themselves?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Posted separately so as not to confuse.
RE: "Any other letters such as these pop up in the archives with coins enclosed?"
Many letters to the director, Philadelphia Mint Superintendent, and Treasurer of the United States included currency, coins or stamps as pre-payment for coins or medals the sender ordered. After advertised public sale of proof sets in 1858 this was commonplace.
Earlier letters requested coins of specific dates, or newly issued coins, or other things that required some sort of payment. Various checks and drafts were also sent as individual payment, and there was always the extra cost of postage (or express company), registration and sometimes intermediary handling.
All of the above was in addition to routine bank and business orders for coins; and redemption during the 1870s. Here's a typical redemption request from a city street car line.
[File in NNP, NARA RG104 Entry 1]
What a fantastic thread. I'm actually working on research that has led me to documents where Linderman ordered special coins from the San Francisco Mint in 1878...
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Interesting - didn't realize coprolite was a synonym for coprolith!
Above posted for StrikeOutXXX
Thanks Capt!
Interesting that an 1851 Proof Dollar sold at the May 21, 1859 Cogan auction of coins "Previously belonging to Simon Gratz" He couldn't have "Previously" owned it very long - 3-4 months at the most assuming restrikes commenced Jan/Feb 1859.
https://archive.org/details/pricedcatalogueo00coga_18/page/n5
If Roger ever gets bored in the National Archives, he could always go rummaging through Gratz's personal papers to see if he can find anything of numismatic value:
http://www2.hsp.org/collections/manuscripts/g/Gratz1571.html
Gratz also had a half dollar pattern, proof sets, etc. Maybe in his papers are letters trading some items for the Mint Cabinet for some of the items auctioned in this sale?
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
The Curtis letter and reply plus one from P Clayton are in my files. Breen's citation for location is off by 7 years. Curtis' letter predates the directors complaint. The reply doesn't provide much detail and simply avoids answering most of Curtis' questions.
Attached is a PDF extract of the relevant pages requested above. I was going to add it to the 5:48PM post but the "Edit" button has vanished.... Is this another improvement along the lines of removing all the coin images from certain resources...