The exciting 1861 Paquet Reverse Twenty Dollar Liberties Again in the News
northcoin
Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭✭✭
David Hall's video feature regarding the just (by PCGS) graded at MS 67 1861-P Double Eagle Paquet Reverse Coin on this site is not to be missed. Attributed to Norweb, the history of this coin is more fully explained back to it being only one of two Philadelphia Mint sourced 1861-P Paquets - the other being a MS 61 found in Paris.
In the video narrative reference is made to "a few struck in San Francisco, " with David Hall going on to comment that the 1861 Paquet Reverse is a rarity in any grade.
What is not said, but interesting to note, is that ALL of the surviving Philadelphia minted Paquets are in mint state and NONE of the San Francisco minted survivors are!
FWIW, here are photos of my San Francisco minted 1861-S Paquet Reverse Twenty Dollar Liberty (Double Eagle):
The history relating to the survival of the San Francisco minted Paquets is also of special note. If the transcontinental telegraph line had been completed to reach California earlier in 1861 it is likely that there would be no surviving 1861-S Paquet Reverse Twenty Dollars at all. As it was, the order to not start/halt production was delayed reaching San Francisco because it still had to be transmitted by Pony Express!
Here is a link to some extended commentary that I posted on another thread as included in a photo essay regarding the Carson City Mint and its honoring of the Pony Express:
Comments
Fascinating!! Thank you for sharing.
I thought it was interesting to see the coin was crossed. It has recently been put on the market for a kingly sum in what looked like it's original NGC holder. Either way, it is truly one of the all-time great U.S. Coins.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
Crossed at the same grade?
Yes, at the same grade.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
I wonder why there are no Mint State coins from San Francisco. Thank you for sharing!
YN Member of the ANA, ANS, NBS, EAC, C4, MCA, PNNA, CSNS, ILNA, TEC, and more!
Always buying numismatic literature and sample slabs.
Amazing... that is a beautiful coin..... Cheers, RickO
Wow, talk about mirrored fields!
Beautiful, thanks for sharing!
Excellent question and I think you will find the answer just as intriguing as the rest of the story that goes with the above described delay in transmitting the stop production order due to the Pony Express with regard to the San Francisco mint's striking of the 1861-S Paquet Reverse coin in the first place.
At the time the "few struck in San Francisco" slipped out into circulation there was no public awareness of same. It was not until many years later that it was discovered by an astute collector that a $20 1861 Liberty from the San Francisco Mint even existed with a different reverse than other $20 Liberties. By then all the 1861-S "Paquet Reverse" Liberty Head Double Eagles had been in circulation for some time. To date only about 200 or so have ever been found of the several thousand that were erroneously released by the San Francisco Mint.
Maybe someday one will surface in mint state, but as time passes that becomes more and more unlikely. (Probably the most likely appearance of finding one in mint state would have come from the recently unearthed Saddle Ridge Hoard that included hundreds of $20 San Francisco minted Double Eagles preserved in mint state, but that was not to be.)
Compare that to the mint state examples minted in Philadelphia where it was recognized from the inception that the coins were not going to go into general circulation. (One could even argue that the two known fall into the same category of questioned legality as has been alleged to apply to the 1933 Double Eagles that escaped from the Philadelphia Mint. As with the 1933 Double Eagles, the Philadelphia Mint issue was ordered to be melted.)
Add to the above, the fact that in 1861 there were likely more persons interested in collecting coins on the sophisticated East Coast as opposed to the Wild Wild West.
In the original post on the linked thread regarding the connection between the Pony Express and the 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagle it was stated:
"Below the Carson City photos I have posted the 1861 Paquet Reverse from my collection with its unique reverse design. Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth in their 2008 Third Edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins" place the 1861 San Francisco minted paquet at number 83 and note that "there are probably 200 to 300 examples known in all grades." An AU example is given an historical value by the authors of $85,000.00. No known uncirculaed examples exist."
Updating:
I have just learned that the 1861-S Paquet Reverse discussed above as being number 83 in the 100 greatest U.S. Coins book has now moved up to number 50 in the 2015 Fourth Edition with an updated to 2015 value for the AU coin at $100,000.00.
The authors comment in their 2015 Fourth Edition, "Today, the 1861-S Paquet double eagle ranks as one of the most desirable of the denomination. Prices for the issue have surged in recent years. About Uncirculated examples have nearly tripled since the first edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins was published. ..... prices for this coin will most likely continue their steady rise."
Thanks for confirming.
For those following this thread, here is a statement from Breen, (as referenced in a Heritage publication) that confirms the involvement of the Pony Express as discussed in my above posts:
"Working dies were prepared, for use in 1861, and were sent out to the New Orleans and San Francisco branch Mints. The first proofs were struck in Philadelphia during the period Jan. 2-5. These two specimens are perfect, mainly because of the greater force of the hydraulic press used for proofs. When the Mint tried to strike regular examples on the double eagle press, it became evident that a serious error had occurred. The inner diameter of the reverse die was too great, the border too narrow, and the coins (1) would not stack, (2) would of necessity be beveled and have the obverse border misstruck, after the slightest giving way of the collar (normal in striking silver dollars and double eagles). One copper trial piece exists (A.W. 334a, ex Newcomer coll.) showing this beveled and imperfect periphery, and was undoubtedly the reason why the Mint director stopped any further action with the Paquet die at Philadelphia. On Jan. 5, 1861, he sent orders to the New Orleans and San Francisco branch Mints to 'use the old $20. reverse and not the new one.' The directive to New Orleans reached that branch in time to prevent any coinage of Paquet twenties. That to San Francisco, sent by Pony Express, was delayed en route and did not reach that branch until Feb. 2nd. The San Francisco Mint had reopened for coinage on Jan. 10th, and the superintendent had complained earlier to the director about trouble in hardening and adapting to the presses the new $20. reverse. There followed a letter of 2/9/1861: 'I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of your favor of the 5th ulto., overland which however did not come to hand until the 2nd inst. "
And here is a statement from a Stack's Bowers auction catalogue also in accord with the above:
Because no transcontinental telegraph wires extended to San Francisco from the East, by the time Snowden’s edict reached the West Coast facility, it had already struck 19,250 of the coins, all of which are reported to have entered circulation. Today, approximately 100 examples of the 1861-S Coronet, Paquet Reverse double eagle are extant, with no examples certified in Mint State.
@KellenCoin said:
I wonder why there are no Mint State coins from San Francisco. Thank you for sharing!
Doing some further research, I was able to locate a specific reference to the above referenced discovery by "an astute collector" of the 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagle. As set forth in a Heritage Auction catalogue listing from 2008, the following is chronicled:
This issue was unknown to the numismatic community until 1937, when an example was found in a barn in Hull, Texas."
TALK ABOUT A "BARN FIND!"
A. The reverse design or layout of the Philly pieces is slightly different from that of the SF pieces. This point is mentioned in QDB's books on double eagles, which was published by Whitman in 2003 or 2004.
B. Only two Philly pieces are currently known. The subject of this thread is the Norweb piece, which brought $660k in the Norweb III sale in November 1988. IIRC at the moment, the $660k result was then the third highest auction price for a U.S. coin, and possibly the fourth highest auction price for any numismatic item. One of the Garrett Collection Brasher Doubloons had sold for more, 725k.
The Top Ten Auction Records for Coins & Patterns, as of Feb. 2013
C. The other Philly Paquet is the "Dallas Bank Collection" piece, which was owned by Jeff Browning. Although this piece brought less than $400k in 2001 (shortly after "9/11"), it sold for more than $1.5m in 2006 and in 2014. Adam Crum was probably the successful bidder in 2006. Doug Winter was the top bidder in 2014.
Million Dollar Coins in August 2014 ANA auctions, Part 1
>
>
Thanks for the adding that point regarding the "reverse design or layout" being possibly different between the Philadelphia and San Francisco Mints. We do know that dies were sent to both the San Francisco and New Orleans mints, although apparently no coins were ever struck in New Orleans. We will likely never know whether there was yet another different "reverse design or layout." In any event those differences must be minimal based upon just comparing the reverses as posted above on this thread which appear to look identical as between the 1861-P and 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagles.
The differences are fairly easy to see, actually.
Look at the wing tips relative to the Es in the legend:
1861 [P]: tips point to Es
1861-S: tips point below Es (closer to R on the right side)
It seems to me that the difference in condition between the Philadelphia and San Francisco coins can be accounted for if the Philadelphia coins are numismatic delicacies (made for collectors) while the San Francisco coins are true business strikes. The numismatic delicacy theory was put forth by Hodder, Ford and Rubin. This seems to make some sense since the Paquet dies were taken out of production by Philadelphia officials due to concern with striking problems and no evidence of these problems exist on the Philadelphia specimens.
On the other hand, Akers, Breen and others consider the Philadelphia specimens to be regular issue coins. If they are regular issue coins, the conditions of the Philadelphia specimens are even more remarkable due to the production problem concerns.
Here's some information on this from Heritage:
@ Zoins - Very interesting to learn that, unlike the true to date 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagles, the two known 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles are likely (at least in the opinion of Hodder, Ford and Rubin) restrikes that were struck in a subsequent year.
This would not be the first time that the U.S. Mint has used old dies to replicate a coin in later years while leaving the original date unaltered.
I have a $3 pattern in copper (PF-63) that is believed to have been actually struck in a year subsequent to the date shown on the coin. (It was the first rare coin I purchased so I have had it for a number of years and it was once in the collection of Pittman and is so attributed. Per Judd, it has a total population of 9.)
J. Hewitt Judd in his book, "United States Pattern Coins" has this to say about it:
" J-441; 1865 $3
Restrike made circa 1872"
Given that both the 1861-P Reverse Paquet Double Eagle and my 1865 $3 Pattern were coins of close date it is evident that coins of that era were being restruck. It would be very interesting to confirm when the 1861-P Reverse Paquet $20 was actually struck. Since David Hall notes the first reference to the coins existence to be March of 1865. That, or a year or two prior, may well be the year of their striking.
The question remains for the 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagle, "What motivated this 'special numismatic issue?'" What were the circumstances that led to the two or more coins being restruck?
Was there some clandestine "restriking" that gave us the 1861-P Reverse Paquet Double Eagles as has been shown to be the case for some of the other rarities that have escaped from the U.S. Mint back in the same century? Would the arguments that the government has advanced in the Langford Case regarding the legality of the 1933 Double Eagles be applicable to the 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles that were never released for circulation (unlike the1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagles which had been released into circulation)? Is their legality even more so at stake if they were unauthorized restrikes?
We know, for example, that at least one other rarity was initially "restruck" for the purpose of providing gifts to foreign heads of state. The 1804 Dollar was first struck for the above referenced gifting purpose in 1834, apparently using altered1803 dies as there were no 1804 dollars struck with the date of 1804 in 1804, In addition there were subsequent true restrikes of the 1834-1804 Dollar in 1858 and 1876 - although arguably under suspicious circumstances.
Where is the evidence other than rampant conjecture? And why would anyone want one at the time?
It seems the numismatic delicacy theory may address the following issues:
It seems the business strike theory suggests that the Mint stopped using the Paquet dies due to unfounded fears which leaves the above questions open. How likely is it that the Philadelphia Mint would stop using dies due to fears of production problems which were not encountered with actually struck coins in Philadelphia? The following is from 100 Greatest U.S. Coins which seems to suggest exactly that, that the US Mint removed dies from production due to unrealized fears.
Is the question directed to the two known 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles or the 1858 and 1876 restrikes of the 1834-1804 Dollar?
As to the latter this is from Wikipedia:
"During the nineteenth century, Mint employees produced unauthorized copies of medals and coins, sometimes backdated.[36] Although coin restrikes were created openly at the Philadelphia Mint from the 1830s, the practice became clandestine by the end of the 1850s.[37] In the decades after the first 1804 dollars were produced, collectors became aware of their existence and desired to obtain them.[38] Several were struck at the Mint in 1858.[39] Those coins, which became known as "Class II" 1804 dollars, had plain, unlettered edges, as opposed to standard issue Draped Bust dollars and those struck as diplomatic gifts, all of which had edge lettering applied by the Castaing machine.[39] In 1859, James Ross Snowden unsuccessfully requested permission from the Treasury Secretary to create patterns and restrikes of rare coins for sale to collectors, and in that year, dealers began offering plain edge 1804 dollars to the public.[39] At least three were offered for sale by various dealers in 1859, and coin dealer Ebenezer Locke Mason claimed that he was offered three by Theodore Eckfeldt, a Mint employee and nephew of Adam Eckfeldt (who had died in 1852).[40] After the public became aware that Mint officials had permitted restrikes, there was a minor scandal which resulted in a Congressional investigation and the destruction of outdated coinage dies. The controversy prompted William E. DuBois, Mint Assayer, to try, in 1860, to recall the examples of the 1804 dollar in private hands.[41][39] According to DuBois, five coins were known to be privately owned, of which four were recovered.[39] He stated that three were destroyed in his presence, and one was added to the Mint's coin cabinet (of which he was curator, and which is today the National Numismatic Collection), where it remains today.[42] The coin, which is the sole known Class II specimen in existence, was struck over an 1857 Swiss shooting thaler minted for a shooting festival in the Canton of Bern.[36] The fifth coin, alluded to by DuBois, is not currently accounted for, although its edge may have been lettered after its recovery in an attempt to pass it as an original.[43] Coins with added lettering are known as "Class III" 1804 dollars.[44] The obverse coinage die used to strike the Class II and Class III 1804 dollars was deposited in safekeeping in 1860, and the reverse die was destroyed in that year.[44] The obverse die was defaced in 1869.[45]"
As to the 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles, the likely restrike date circa 1865 (based upon their first appearance in March of 1865 as referenced by David Hall) does match the above described time period during which "unauthorized copies of coins" were being made and of a "practice [which] became clandestine by the end of the 1850s."
From what I recall in reading about the 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles there has been a suggestion that there may have been a third. Anyone know if that has been confirmed?
Interesting take though it is not just the lettering that is different - it is a different design. For type collectors of Double Eagles there is enough difference in the Paquet Reverse to qualify as an essential coin to complete a full type collection.
OK, I finally got the photo posting feature back up and working. Here is the auction listing from the 2008 Heritage catalogue that identified that it was not until 1937 that the 1861-S Paquet Reverse was actually "discovered." As noted in my comment, "Talk about a barn find! "
Enjoyed watching the video - quite the coin!
Yeah, I don't really get it, either.
I mean I get that the lettering is different. But I think the idea that "it's a different design" is a stretch.
It's a very slight variation on the design which had been used for years and would continue to be used for years after. An attempt to make minor improvements which proved to be ineffective. We've seen the same thing in many series--Indian cents, flying eagle cents, V nickels. Small stars, without arrows, no cents, no drapery, 7 tail feathers, etc, etc, etc.
It's an unusual variety. A scarce variety, even. But, to me at least, that's all it is: a variety. The mint made almost 4 million $20 gold pieces in 1861. Oh hey: they made some that year with a slightly modified design and different font.
--Severian the Lame
Not something that gets my blood racing. Just not a variety guy...
Definitely a coin that appeals to those who find the history of a coin to be of special interest. As noted in the auction posting narrative posted above, "Q. David Bowers considers the 1861-S Paquet Double Eagle the rarest coin of this denomination issued by the San Francisco Mint."
As also noted in a post above, Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth in their 2008 Third Edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins" had placed the 1861 San Francisco minted paquet at number 83 and note that "there are probably 200 to 300 examples known in all grades." An AU example is given an historical value by the authors of $85,000.00. No known uncirculaed examples exist."
It has now moved up to number 50 in the 2015 Fourth Edition with an updated to 2015 value for the AU coin at $100,000.00.
The authors comment in their 2015 Fourth Edition, "Today, the 1861-S Paquet double eagle ranks as one of the most desirable of the denomination. Prices for the issue have surged in recent years. About Uncirculated examples have nearly tripled since the first edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins was published. ..... prices for this coin will most likely continue their steady rise."
Add to that the story itself that begins with the fact there would likely be no 1861-S Paquet Double Eagles if the transcontinental telegraph had been completed earlier in 1861 so that the delays consequent from use of the Pony Express to transmit the halt production order would have been mooted. Then on top of that is the fact that it took until 1937 for the coin to be "discovered" with the result that by then only circulation examples were existant.
Also intriguing is that of the thousands of shipwreck Double Eagles that have been found in recent years only one 1861-S Paquet was among them, and that one did not qualify as mint state. When the Saddle Ridge Hoard came to light after being buried since the late 1800s it too had no 1861-S Paquets despite the fact that hundreds of the coins in the hoard were double eagles from the San Francisco Mint.
Now that is just the 1861-S Paquet. The Philadelphia mint version has its own mystique that includes the controversy as to its origins that has been alluded to in posts above.
The 1861 Paquets are not viewed by knowledgeable numismatists as a mere variety. They are of a different design and for type collectors of Double Eagles there is enough difference in the Paquet Reverse to qualify as an essential coin to complete a full type set collection. That said, one must concede that there is enough similarity to other $20 gold pieces of its era for at least the 1861-S Paquets to have remained hidden in plain sight until their "discovery" decades after they escaped into circulation.
Just referencing the basic design, the following distinctions are evident as described in another of the Heritage Auction listings:
"Many individual modifications to the Longacre reverse are evident. The most obvious difference is the tall lettering, featuring heavier vertical elements including uprights and serifs. The scroll work is separated from the eagle's tail, and the constellation of stars is lower, almost entirely below the glory of rays. The eagle's wingtips point to different letters in the legend. The shield has a border consisting of two individual lines, rather than a single line. The border is much narrower, ....."
Yeah, no. I still don't see it.
--Severian the Lame
One could also add that the 1861-P Paquet Reverse, pictured above in its former NGC holder, and now in a PCGS MS-67 holder, as can be seen on the video clip currently being featured by David Hall on this website, is one of the few coins in the world that has the potential to surpass the current record setting $10,000,000 bid that TDN's 1874 Dollar achieved. Another of course would be the non Paquet version of the original Longacre designed Double Eagle from 1849 that resides in the Smithsonian. As it is the1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagle was insured for at least 8 million dollars when it was at FUN in its prior holder.
No question that when the 1861-P Paquet goes on display at the upcoming Long Beach show it will, to use TDN's terminology, "get the blood racing" for many.
Hmmmmm. THE first dollar ever struck for the United States or a transitional gold coin with a slightly modified reverse.
I dunno - tough choice. Shrug
Gold vs. Silver?
(As has been commented here before, it is an honor that TDN joins us here on this forum. One of the highlights of the PCGS website United States Coins forum IMHO.)
It's a rare variety, in a series where very few people collect by variety, so the demand will always be limited.
A comparable rarity in bust halves would be very high value.
Similarly, there are several midyear hub changes in liberty seated half dimes, but most people don't collect them, so they don't generate much of a premium. Examples would be the 1840 drapery and the 1857. Another example is the 1892 Barber quarter reverse. Folks who collect trade dollars also mention from time to time that the only thing rarer than some trade dollar varieties are people who collect the varieties! :-)
Your point is well taken with regard to bust halves. I collect $20 Gold Liberties and for me the 1861-S Paquet Reverse is an essential coin to complete my type set as it is not merely a variety, but a separate type. Unlike esoteric varieties, such as the VAM attributions for Morgans and Peace Dollars, the 1861-S Paquet Reverse is a unique design shared only by the 1861-P Paquet Reverse. For the Paquets you have a completely separate and identifiable designer designing the reverse - Mr. Paquet.
That said, I agree that an argument can be made that between the 1861-S Paquet Reverse and the 1861-P Paquet Reverse, the two represent esoteric varieties of the same design. Since I am not into esoteric varieties, akin to VAMS, I have no personal need to add the 1861-P Paquet Reverse to complete my $20 Gold Liberty/Double Eagle type set. I believe this view is shared by serious collectors of United States Double Eagles seeking to have a complete type set - at least by those who have been fortunate enough to be able to obtain either an 1861-S Paquet Reverse Double Eagle or an 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagle.
I agree - they are not from the same hub (as we discussed earlier).
One of the great things about collecting a type set (or a variety set) is that you are free to define how the set is composed.
In my own type set, I got tired of collecting the same design variations for all the different denominations of the Liberty Seated, so I branched out a little wider in the half dime denomination instead.
Of course with regard to the 1861Paquet Reverse Double Eagles though, it is to be noted that an actual type has been assigned to them. In the Official Red Book series, the Q.David Bowers authored "A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins" the 1861 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles have been designated as "Type 1A: Modified Reverse."
As an added point of interest, in addition to the above discussed variety distinction between the Philadelphia minted Type 1A and the San Francisco minted Type 1A, there is also a subtle variety esoteric difference between the coins minted in San Francisco. At the San Francisco mint two separate dies were used to strike the reverses of the Paquets. The two dies have a slightly separate placement of the "s" mintmark.
The result is that three known varieties exist within the type, although all three are of a single identified type - Type 1A. One needs to collect only one of the three to complete a full type set of Double Eagle Gold Coins.
Not only is that a rare coin by design, but having it in MS-67 is just a rare.
Here is my Washington Quarter Variety Registry Set
This is my Washington Quarter Proof Variety Registry Set
Zoins:
It may be true that the "production problems" slowed down the process rather than adversely affecting each coin struck. While it may have been predicted that dies would become damaged after being used for a not long enough amount of time, it does not necessarily follow that the dies would noticeably suffer from one short production run. There were concerns about the number of coins that could be produced in a given amount of time. Also, it is normal to mint a few pieces before initiating a major production run.
NorthCoin:
The section from the Wikipedia cited NorthCoin is inaccurate and terribly misleading. It would make more sense to ask R. W. Julian an Roger Burdette.
IMO, it was legal to make restrikes and these fell into the category of patterns, which included an enormous variety of items. I discuss the definition of the term pattern in my current article and in others in the same series of articles:
U.S. Coin Patterns for Less Than $5,000 Each, Part 5: “Standard Silver” Dimes
U.S. Coin Patterns for Less Than $5,000 Each, Part 4: 1866-71 5¢ Nickels
In any event, 'clandestine' is not the right word; it was widely known that restrikes, novodels, fantasies, aluminum sets and other unsual items were being made. Most were openly distributed. It would certainly have been legal to restrike 1861 Paquet double eagles in 1865. If Zoins and Northcoin wonder, however, if the 1861 strikings would have been problematic, why would they think that strikings in 1865 would be better in terms of striking quality? Nice pieces could easily have been made in 1861.
Also, it is important to try to find records of strikings at the Philadelphia Mint. 1861 Philly Paquet pieces could have been included in data relating to 1861 standard Longacre reverse double eagles. It would have been perfectly legal to include some of the Paquet pieces in a ledger entry that referred to a batch of typical 1861 double eagles.
Zoins:
I would be willing to testify under oath that both the Norweb and Dallas Bank 1861 Philly Paquet coins are business strikes. I have examined each on multiple occasions, under different lighting conditions. Curiously, however, they are different in terms of finish. The reverse of the Dallas Bank piece has mint frost. The Norweb piece has more of a satiny finish. They both, though, have business strike mint luster. Did Zoins theorize that the SF pieces are regular coins, while the Philly pieces fall under the category of patterns? To support such a theory, there is a need for evidence that cannot be found from inspecting the coins. Besides, if Philly Paquet pieces were made in 1861, they probably meet the requirements of true coins as I indicated above.
Million Dollar Coins in August 2014 ANA auctions, Part 1
"FWIW" here's my example......
It's worth A LOT !!!!
@ Analyst
A most interesting analysis with regard to the question raised initially by Ford, et. al. with regard to whether the two known surviving 1861-P Paquet Reverse $20s were struck in 1861 or several years later. Your own personal viewing of both coins finding them to be different in finish may even suggest a third possibility - that one escaped melting from the original strikings and the other was a restrike several years later.
I guess we will never know for sure one way or the other but that just adds to the mystique and interesting history of the 1861 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles - the most unique and exciting of all of the separate Types of United States Double Eagle Gold Coins!
(Just curious as to your separate comment about "testifying." Were you one of the expert witnesses in the Langford case that is now pending a possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether the Government had the right to confiscate the Langfords' 1933 Gold Double Eagles?
If so, do you have an opinion as to whether the U.S. Government could make the same claims to attempt to confiscate the 1861-P Paquets since they were also ordered to have been melted similar to the order that went out as to the already minted 1933 Double Eagles? In addition, do you think it is important that the Philadelphia Mint's Paquets be viewed as business strikes, and not restrikes, in order to lessen the threat of their being confiscated by the U.S. Government?)
NorthCoin:
It is a fact that the luster on the two coins is different, not 'my personal view.' It is fair to conclude that the two were not made in the same press run on the same day. Even so, they could have been made during the same calendar year, or even in the SAME WEEK. I am really not aware of evidence that any 1861 Philadelphia Paquet double eagles were minted after 1861. If they were minted in 1861, people who had them from 1861 to 1865 might not have had a reason to make announcements. Also, at the time, these would have been considered modern coins.
NorthCoin:
Although the Paquet reverse double eagles are very important and very intriguing, I cannot agree that one is needed for a complete type set of double eagles. Different engravers were working from the same general, conceptual model. If these pieces had additional words in the legend, or a Gobrecht-style flying eagle in the center, then they would constitute an additional design type.
NorthCoin:
No, I have never worked for the Switt-Langbord family or for Barry Berke in any capacity. I was never asked to do so.
I did not receive a lot of money for the articles that I wrote on 1933 double eagles. Furthermore, my compensation would have been the same regardless of the views expressed in my articles on 1933 double eagles. I was never under any pressure from anyone to espouse a particular position, nor was I ever asked to take a particular position.
Other than the peculiar and untenable notion that coins that were not explicitly listed in the Cashier's ledger (after having been delivered by the Coiner) are 'stolen,' I am not aware of any evidence that any 1933 double eagles were stolen. As QDB has said, anyone could have gone to the Philadelphia Mint and legally traded old double eagles for 1933 double eagles. My belief is that the people involved honestly believed that they were not legally required to keep explicit records of trades of old double eagles for new double eagles, or trades of old Lincoln Cents for new Lincoln Cents.
Hundreds of thousands of 1933 double eagles were struck, starting in February 1933. In my view, it was perfectly legal for collectors or dealers to trade for them at least until some point in April 1933. Regardless of whether I am paid to commentate upon this topic in the future, my viewpoint will not change.
NorthCoin:
Although there is no solid evidence that any 1933 double eagles were stolen, other than the notion that there must be a clear entry in a Cashier's ledger or other accounting book of such coins being released, lawyers for the U.S. Treasury Department still managed to convince a jury that 1933 double eagles were stolen. Is there clear evidence that 1861 Philadelphia Mint Paquet double eagles were delivered by the Coiner to the Superintendent or the to Cashier as representative of the Superintendent? I do not know.
In my view, the lack of such an entry, if there is not one, does not indicate that anything was stolen. Moreover, as I said in post above, Philadelphia Paquet double eagles could have been included in a delivery of 1861 double eagles with the typical reverse design. If so, the Paquet pieces would probably not have been itemized.
The same people who think that 1933 double eagles were stolen might very well think that 1861 Paquet double eagles were stolen, too, in addition to thinking that a large number of other coins and patterns now in PCGS holders were stolen from the U.S. Mint shortly after being made. If the U.S. Supreme Court affirms the U.S. District Court decision in the Switt-Langbord case, this could be a horrid outcome for coin collectors as it would allow for a simplistic, counter-intuitive and untenable definition of the term stolen in regard to U.S. numismatic items and could place the titles of many items in jeopardy.
My pre-trial article on the Switt-Langbord case shared the NLG award for best article to be published on a web site.
The fate of the ten Switt-Langbord 1933 Double Eagles
My post-trial article includes comments by Q. David Bowers and David Ganz:
Analysis of the Verdict in the Switt-Langbord Case
Those far reaching consequences need to be argued by the Langfords' attorneys in their briefing to attempt to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the case merits its review.
In added support to the fact that the 1861 Paquet Reverses constitute a separate "Type," one need only refer to the summary of the unique differences in the design of the 1861Paquet Reverse Double Eagles as included in the PCGS reporting currently featured on this website and sourced from PCGS CoinFacts. (Note there is an express recognition of the reverse being "designed" and the differences go far beyond "the coins lettering"):
".....[the] Paquet Reverse is slightly modified from the regular version. When engraver Anthony C. Paquet of the Philadelphia Mint began designing the reverse in 1859, he endowed slight yet notable differences. The coin’s lettering on Paquet’s version is tall and slender compared to the short, broad lettering of the traditional reverse. Also, the crown-like display of stars positioned above the eagle’s head is larger on Paquet’s coin, with the top stars prominently displayed beneath rays of sunlight. The same stars are partially buried on the regular reverse.
https://pcgs.com/News/coin-worthy-of-a-king-graded?utm_source=pcgs&utm_medium=spotlight&utm_content=paquet
Here's the Long Beach ad for the Paquet Reverse for posterity:
Thanks for posting the Long Beach ad. Interesting to see it described as the "$8M Paquet Reverse." If it actually went to auction curious if someone might make a nuclear bid to set a new record besting the $10M 1794 Dollar that was also being displayed at Long Beach?
It will be interesting to learn if and when it becomes available again for public viewing.
I asked Laura what she thought it was worth during a conversation at Long Beach. Curiously, we had the exact same estimate: $4-5M
I think we can safely say there are at least two people who will not be making a nuclear bid this time.
As to the discussion above about one or more of the two known 1861-P Paquet Reverse Double Eagles being a restrike, there exists a discussion of restrikes (authorized or clandestine) during this time period that those following this thread might find of interest. Here is the link:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/972384/abuse-of-distributing-patterns-and-restriking-coins-from-old-dies-1861#latest