@northcoin said:
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.
Just came across Doug Winter's article on the subject of collecting Type I Double Eagles by mint. His comments about the 1861-S Paquet Reverse are instructive with regard to the commentary here on this thread as to whether the Paquet Reverse is a requisite coin for a complete type set of Double Eagles:
Here is the excerpt concluding that at least for a complete set of San Francisco minted Double Eagles, the 1861-S Paquet is needed:
"Between 1854 and 1866, the San Francisco mint produced 14 Type One double eagles. This includes the 1861-S and the 1861-S Paquet reverse. With the exception of the 1861-S Paquet and the 1866-S No Motto, all are reasonably easy to locate in circulated grades. Before the discovery of the three shipwrecks cited above, assembling a high grade set of Type One San Francisco double eagles would have been nearly impossible. Today, it is far more realistic. It is still theoretically impossible to finish this set in Uncirculated, as no 1861-S Paquet reverse double eagles have been graded MS60 or higher by the two services as of the middle of 2014.
A complete set of Type One San Francisco double eagles in EF40 to AU50 costs at least $125,000, with around half of this amount dedicated to the 1861-S Paquet and the 1866-S No Motto. An AU55 to AU58 set costs at least $250,000; again with a significant amount of the cost focused on the two rarities."
I do not consider the 1854 $3 gold with the small word DOLLARS to be a different type than the 1855-1889 coins with the larger DOLLARS. I consider the Paquet coins to be wonderful varieties, but not a different "type."
Your mileage may vary. Batteries not included. Void where prohibited. Slightly higher west of the Rockies.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
I do not consider the 1854 $3 gold with the small word DOLLARS to be a different type than the 1855-1889 coins with the larger DOLLARS. I consider the Paquet coins to be wonderful varieties, but not a different "type."
That is a most interesting observation. Are there those who do consider the change from small word DOLLARS to larger word DOLLARS to rise to the level of being a new type for $3 gold?
In the realm of $20 gold it is accepted that the change from D. to DOLLARS was sufficient to create a new type. Q. David Bowers in his "A Guide Book of Double Eagle Coins" states at page 148. "The denomination, formerly expressed as TWENTY D., was changed to read TWENTY DOLLARS, thus creating a new type."
I can understand how there can be a disincentive to term a significant change in a coin's design as a separate type when there are limited numbers of that changed design to be collectable. In the case of the 1861 Paquets, a case can certainly be made that the changes were at least, if not more, significant than was the substituting of DOLLAR for D. To term the 1851-P and 1851-S Paquets together as a "variety" is further complicated by the fact that they actually exist as two different varieties of a similar type between themselves.
at auction my estimate is that it will bring between 3 and 5 Mio USD. There are just very very few coins that ever sold at auction for more than 3 Mio USD and many of them brought less than we all thought they would bring, including the 1804 Dollar at pogue.
@CaptHenway said:
I do not consider the 1854 $3 gold with the small word DOLLARS to be a different type than the 1855-1889 coins with the larger DOLLARS. I consider the Paquet coins to be wonderful varieties, but not a different "type."
That is a most interesting observation. Are there those who do consider the change from small word DOLLARS to larger word DOLLARS to rise to the level of being a new type for $3 gold?
In the realm of $20 gold it is accepted that the change from D. to DOLLARS was sufficient to create a new type. Q. David Bowers in his "A Guide Book of Double Eagle Coins" states at page 148. "The denomination, formerly expressed as TWENTY D., was changed to read TWENTY DOLLARS, thus creating a new type."
I can understand how there can be a disincentive to term a significant change in a coin's design as a separate type when there are limited numbers of that changed design to be collectable. In the case of the 1861 Paquets, a case can certainly be made that the changes were at least, if not more, significant than was the substituting of DOLLAR for D. To term the 1851-P and 1851-S Paquets together as a "variety" is further complicated by the fact that they actually exist as two different varieties of a similar type between themselves.
Look at the Seated Liberty half dollar reverses before and after 1842 (ignoring the 1840 Medium Letters mule.) The change in font did not create a new "type."
The Paquet reverse was a change in font. There was no change in the design of the coin, as there was when "D." changed to "DOLLARS."
As I said, your mileage may vary.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
I do not consider the 1854 $3 gold with the small word DOLLARS to be a different type than the 1855-1889 coins with the larger DOLLARS. I consider the Paquet coins to be wonderful varieties, but not a different "type."
That is a most interesting observation. Are there those who do consider the change from small word DOLLARS to larger word DOLLARS to rise to the level of being a new type for $3 gold?
In the realm of $20 gold it is accepted that the change from D. to DOLLARS was sufficient to create a new type. Q. David Bowers in his "A Guide Book of Double Eagle Coins" states at page 148. "The denomination, formerly expressed as TWENTY D., was changed to read TWENTY DOLLARS, thus creating a new type."
I can understand how there can be a disincentive to term a significant change in a coin's design as a separate type when there are limited numbers of that changed design to be collectable. In the case of the 1861 Paquets, a case can certainly be made that the changes were at least, if not more, significant than was the substituting of DOLLAR for D. To term the 1851-P and 1851-S Paquets together as a "variety" is further complicated by the fact that they actually exist as two different varieties of a similar type between themselves.
The Paquet reverse was a change in font. There was no change in the design of the coin, as there was when "D." changed to "DOLLARS."
>
To a degree this is a semantic distinction based upon one's definition of "variety" vs "type." That said, there actually are substantial differences that go beyond "a change in front" on the 1861 $20 Paquets. In addition, to say that there was "no change in the design" is also subject to contradiction. Those changes in design are detailed in the following Heritage Auction description of the 1861Paquet Reverse $20:
"The obverse is identical to the design created by James Longacre for the Liberty Head double eagle, which was introduced to regular issue coinage in 1850. In fact, the obverse die is from the same coinage hub that was introduced in 1859, a slight modification of the original hub. Anthony C. Paquet prepared a modified reverse design in 1860. The Paquet reverse is essentially a copy of the Longacre design, made from new letter punches that provide a taller and more compact appearance, leaving more space between words. The rays are closer to the lettering, providing more room for the oval of stars. The actual die field is slightly larger in diameter, with a narrower rim, and this was the downfall of Paquet's design. "
If the definition of a new "type" is a change in design that should be definitive as to the 1861 Paquet Reverse $20 coins rising above being nothing more than a mere variety. As discussed earlier on this thread, David Bowers in his book on Double Eagles assigned the Type 1a to identify the coin, not Variety x.
@CaptHenway said:
I do not consider the 1854 $3 gold with the small word DOLLARS to be a different type than the 1855-1889 coins with the larger DOLLARS. I consider the Paquet coins to be wonderful varieties, but not a different "type."
That is a most interesting observation. Are there those who do consider the change from small word DOLLARS to larger word DOLLARS to rise to the level of being a new type for $3 gold?
In the realm of $20 gold it is accepted that the change from D. to DOLLARS was sufficient to create a new type. Q. David Bowers in his "A Guide Book of Double Eagle Coins" states at page 148. "The denomination, formerly expressed as TWENTY D., was changed to read TWENTY DOLLARS, thus creating a new type."
I can understand how there can be a disincentive to term a significant change in a coin's design as a separate type when there are limited numbers of that changed design to be collectable. In the case of the 1861 Paquets, a case can certainly be made that the changes were at least, if not more, significant than was the substituting of DOLLAR for D. To term the 1851-P and 1851-S Paquets together as a "variety" is further complicated by the fact that they actually exist as two different varieties of a similar type between themselves.
The Paquet reverse was a change in font. There was no change in the design of the coin, as there was when "D." changed to "DOLLARS."
>
To a degree this is a semantic distinction based upon one's definition of "variety" vs "type." That said, there actually are substantial differences that go beyond "a change in front" on the 1861 $20 Paquets. In addition, to say that there was "no change in the design" is also subject to contradiction. Those changes in design are detailed in the following Heritage Auction description of the 1861Paquet Reverse $20:
"The obverse is identical to the design created by James Longacre for the Liberty Head double eagle, which was introduced to regular issue coinage in 1850. In fact, the obverse die is from the same coinage hub that was introduced in 1859, a slight modification of the original hub. Anthony C. Paquet prepared a modified reverse design in 1860. The Paquet reverse is essentially a copy of the Longacre design, made from new letter punches that provide a taller and more compact appearance, leaving more space between words. The rays are closer to the lettering, providing more room for the oval of stars. The actual die field is slightly larger in diameter, with a narrower rim, and this was the downfall of Paquet's design.
If the definition of a new "type" is a change in design that should be definitive as to the 1861 Paquet Reverse $20 coins rising above being nothing more than a mere variety. As discussed earlier on this thread, David Bowers in his book on Double Eagles assigned the Type 1a to identify the coin, not Variety x.
Let's talk about the differences between a "Type" change and a "Variety" change. The design differences between a 1916-1917 quarter and a 1917-1924 quarter are much more significant than those between an 1860 Double Eagle and an 1861 Paquet Double Eagle, yet the Redbook calls the quarters "Varieties." Likewise the two different 1883 Liberty Head nickels. How great does the design change need to be to constitute a new "Type?"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Ablinky said:
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.
Even the most hyperbolic copywriters at Heritage avoid the word "type" on these pieces, instead opting for the far less substantial "sub-type". And they go so far as to say that even that designation is not the norm:
"Although it is usually not thought of in this way, the Paquet Reverse seen on a few of the San Francisco and Philadelphia double eagles of 1861 also makes the design a one-year subtype -- and assembling a set by subtypes is certainly a method that many numismatists employ in collecting this long and challenging series."
Ownership apparently adds $2M.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
"Although it is usually not thought of in this way, the Paquet Reverse seen on a few of the San Francisco and Philadelphia double eagles of 1861 also makes the design a one-year subtype -- and assembling a set by subtypes is certainly a method that many numismatists employ in collecting this long and challenging series."
Certainly seems to be consistent with the above stated observation:
"As discussed earlier on this thread, David Bowers in his book on Double Eagles assigned the Type 1a to identify the [1861 Paquet Reverse $20s], not Variety x."
... and just when we thought some consensus had been reached here on this board as to what a U.S. minted pre 1854 "Proof coin" was or was not - given that the term was not even in use by the mint until at least that date.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily clarify things because PCGS calls this a "major variety" so we have:
type
subtype
major variety
variety
I invite somebody to do an overlay to verify or refute this, but it does not look as though the oval of stars above the eagle has moved significantly. Rather, it appears that Paquet shortened the inner ends of the rays, presumably so as not to overlap the stars so much.
(Note that neither the stars nor the rays are exact duplicates of the Longacre stars and rays. Paquet simply copied them freehand, and in doing so made tiny variations from the original. This does not constitute a change of design.
I would also not say that the rays are closer to the lettering, but rather that the taller font of the lettering brought them closer to the rays, just as the lettering at six o'clock is closer to the eagle's tail.
And, I thought of another font change example, the 1864 Small Motto and Large Motto two cent pieces. As the Small Motto obverse appears with pattern reverses, it is likely that the Small Motto obverse was a pattern obverse that was considered to be close but not quite right. Nevertheless it was good enough to be pressed into regular production while the Large Motto Dies were being prepared. A fascinating variety, but not a different "Type" or even a "Sub-Type."
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Here's a comparison of the 1867 Shield Nickel. PCGS calls these two different types while some articles call these two different subtypes. Are the types or subtypes?
Does the font on the Anthony C. Paquet reverse remind anyone else of US Mint medal fonts? I'm wondering if Paquet used available mint die punches for medals. Were punches of similar style and size used elsewhere at the time in the US Mint?
@Zoins said:
Does the font on the Anthony C. Paquet reverse remind anyone else of US Mint medal fonts? I'm wondering if Paquet used available mint die punches for medals. Were punches of similar style and size used elsewhere at the time in the US Mint?
As I understand the situation then, each Engraver made his own punches and used them on his work. If Paquet liked this style he would have used it on medals he engraved as well. Other Engravers making other medals would have used their own punches.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@amwldcoin said:
The Paguet's got a tiny little s MM also!
Thanks for pointing that out as I had never noticed that additional difference. I am guessing that makes the 1861-s Paquet $20 as unique with regard to having both enlarged and made smaller lettering on the same coin.
Just came across this interesting (and relevant to the type vs. variety discussion above) commentary in The Official Red Book series book titled, "A Guide Book of United States Type Coins" written by Q. David Bowers at Page 269 under the heading of COLLECTING A TYPE SET OF DOUBLE EAGLES:
"Forming a type set of the six major double eagle designs (with the 1861 Paquet reverse added as a sub-type if desired) can be a pleasurable pursuit."
Just out of curiosity I went through the Bowers double eagle book described in earlier posts [which assigned 1a as the type designation for the 1861 Paquets) to see if there were any other sub-types of the double eagle series beginning in 1850 and extending to 1933. No other sub-types were identified.
It appears that the 1861 Paquet reverses remain the one and only sub-type of the entire series.
@northcoin said:
Just came across this interesting (and relevant to the type vs. variety discussion above) commentary in The Official Red Book series book titled, "A Guide Book of United States Type Coins" written by Q. David Bowers at Page 269 under the heading of COLLECTING A TYPE SET OF DOUBLE EAGLES:
"Forming a type set of the six major double eagle designs (with the 1861 Paquet reverse added as a sub-type if desired) can be a pleasurable pursuit."
Just out of curiosity I went through the Bowers double eagle book described in earlier posts [which assigned 1a as the type designation for the 1861 Paquets) to see if there were any other sub-types of the double eagle series beginning in 1850 and extending to 1933. No other sub-types were identified.
It appears that the 1861 Paquet reverses remain the one and only sub-type of the entire series.
Adding to the discussion, it is noteworthy that although Q. David Bowers identifies only one sub-type of the entire Double Eagle series (The 1861 Paquets), there are multiple varities referenced in his definitive book, "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins." At page 51 the following varieties are described:
"There are several interesting varieties in the double eagle series. Those that are publicized, such as the "1853/2," the overdate status of which has been questioned, may sell for a large premium, due in part to its listing in "A Guide Book of United States Coins." On the other hand, a rarer, but largely unknown, variety such as the 1888 with doubled die reverses, or the 1896 with double punched date, or the 1909-D with large D over small D mintmark, can often be cherrypicked with no extra premium needed.
"Collecting varieties has never caught on in a significant way in the double eagle series, and there is little interest in whether an 1854 is a medium date or a large date variety, or whether an 1873 has a Closed 3 or Open 3."
This certainly adds to the allure of the 1861 $20 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles as the only type beyond the major six types that one need collect to have a complete Double Eagle type set to include the one existent sub-type.
1861-S Paquet Reverse: Early in the life of the Type One design, it was determined that it was hard to strike and it did not always wear properly. Nothing was done about this until 1859-1860 when the assistant Mint Engraver Anthony Paquet produced a new reverse with tall, narrow letters. Coins were produced early in 1861 at the Philadelphia mint but it was quickly determined that this design was faulty due to the fact that the inner border was too narrow which allowed the surfaces to easily abrade. Coinage at Philadelphia was quickly stopped but by the time this information reached the San Francisco mint, close to 20,000 1861-S double eagles with the Paquet Reverse had been produced.
The 1861-S Paquet reverse was mostly unknown until the early 1950's when examples were found in Europe. Today there an estimated 100-125 known with most in the EF40 to AU50 range. The best that I have seen are two or three that I grade AU58; most of the coins in AU55 and AU58 holders, in my opinion, are overgraded. The current auction record is $184,000 for an NGC AU58 sold as Lot 5039 in Heritage's 1/12 auction. I know of at least two that have sold for over $200,000 via private treaty.
Values for this issue increased dramatically during the late 1990's and early 2000's; to the point where the average quality example was probably overvalued. In 2012, I see very few offered for sale and I believe that a nice AU is worth at least what it was during the strong market of 2007-2008, if not even more.
The 1861-S Paquet reverse double eagle has been accepted as an integral member of the Type One set since the early 1960's and it will continue to be a highly prized issue. It is the rarest double eagle of any date or type from the San Francisco mint and I expect that the current low range of $40,000-50,000 for a presentable example is coming to an end. In the not-so-distant future, expect to pay in the $60,000-80,000+ range for the "right" coin.
@northcoin said:
Just came across this interesting (and relevant to the type vs. variety discussion above) commentary in The Official Red Book series book titled, "A Guide Book of United States Type Coins" written by Q. David Bowers at Page 269 under the heading of COLLECTING A TYPE SET OF DOUBLE EAGLES:
"Forming a type set of the six major double eagle designs (with the 1861 Paquet reverse added as a sub-type if desired) can be a pleasurable pursuit."
Just out of curiosity I went through the Bowers double eagle book described in earlier posts [which assigned 1a as the type designation for the 1861 Paquets) to see if there were any other sub-types of the double eagle series beginning in 1850 and extending to 1933. No other sub-types were identified.
It appears that the 1861 Paquet reverses remain the one and only sub-type of the entire series.
Adding to the discussion, it is noteworthy that although Q. David Bowers identifies only one sub-type of the entire Double Eagle series (The 1861 Paquets), there are multiple varities referenced in his definitive book, "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins." At page 51 the following varieties are described:
"There are several interesting varieties in the double eagle series. Those that are publicized, such as the "1853/2," the overdate status of which has been questioned, may sell for a large premium, due in part to its listing in "A Guide Book of United States Coins." On the other hand, a rarer, but largely unknown, variety such as the 1888 with doubled die reverses, or the 1896 with double punched date, or the 1909-D with large D over small D mintmark, can often be cherrypicked with no extra premium needed.
"Collecting varieties has never caught on in a significant way in the double eagle series, and there is little interest in whether an 1854 is a medium date or a large date variety, or whether an 1873 has a Closed 3 or Open 3."
This certainly adds to the allure of the 1861 $20 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles as the only type beyond the major six types that one need collect to have a complete Double Eagle type set to include the one existent sub-type.
Thank you for reminding me of this thread. I had written to Q.David Bowers about the issue, but got distracted when my wife had some minor knee surgery earlier this week.
Here is Dave's response, reposted verbatim with permission:
"If it were an earlier coin with a different letter size it would be called a variety.
I called it a subtype as it is late and also famous, with a different letter font style, although these reasons are more to accommodate popular usage. A corollary can be made with dates, such as Large Date and Medium Date among later coins.
To be strict, probably the listings should be as varieties as:
1861-S Normal reverse letters
1861-S Tall reverse letters (new font by Paquet)
.
Will copy J.D. and Dennis
.
My best,
Dave Bowers"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@northcoin said:
Just came across this interesting (and relevant to the type vs. variety discussion above) commentary in The Official Red Book series book titled, "A Guide Book of United States Type Coins" written by Q. David Bowers at Page 269 under the heading of COLLECTING A TYPE SET OF DOUBLE EAGLES:
"Forming a type set of the six major double eagle designs (with the 1861 Paquet reverse added as a sub-type if desired) can be a pleasurable pursuit."
Just out of curiosity I went through the Bowers double eagle book described in earlier posts [which assigned 1a as the type designation for the 1861 Paquets) to see if there were any other sub-types of the double eagle series beginning in 1850 and extending to 1933. No other sub-types were identified.
It appears that the 1861 Paquet reverses remain the one and only sub-type of the entire series.
Adding to the discussion, it is noteworthy that although Q. David Bowers identifies only one sub-type of the entire Double Eagle series (The 1861 Paquets), there are multiple varities referenced in his definitive book, "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins." At page 51 the following varieties are described:
"There are several interesting varieties in the double eagle series. Those that are publicized, such as the "1853/2," the overdate status of which has been questioned, may sell for a large premium, due in part to its listing in "A Guide Book of United States Coins." On the other hand, a rarer, but largely unknown, variety such as the 1888 with doubled die reverses, or the 1896 with double punched date, or the 1909-D with large D over small D mintmark, can often be cherrypicked with no extra premium needed.
"Collecting varieties has never caught on in a significant way in the double eagle series, and there is little interest in whether an 1854 is a medium date or a large date variety, or whether an 1873 has a Closed 3 or Open 3."
This certainly adds to the allure of the 1861 $20 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles as the only type beyond the major six types that one need collect to have a complete Double Eagle type set to include the one existent sub-type.
Thank you for reminding me of this thread. I had written to Q.David Bowers about the issue, but got distracted when my wife had some minor knee surgery earlier this week.
Here is Dave's response, reposted verbatim with permission:
"If it were an earlier coin with a different letter size it would be called a variety.
I called it a subtype as it is late and also famous, with a different letter font style, although these reasons are more to accommodate popular usage. A corollary can be made with dates, such as Large Date and Medium Date among later coins.
To be strict, probably the listings should be as varieties as:
1861-S Normal reverse letters
1861-S Tall reverse letters (new font by Paquet)
.
Will copy J.D. and Dennis
.
My best,
Dave Bowers"
Cool, I hope you sent him the whole thread which I am sure he would have found of interest.
Would you mind sharing what you wrote to Q. David Bowers?
@northcoin said:
Just came across this interesting (and relevant to the type vs. variety discussion above) commentary in The Official Red Book series book titled, "A Guide Book of United States Type Coins" written by Q. David Bowers at Page 269 under the heading of COLLECTING A TYPE SET OF DOUBLE EAGLES:
"Forming a type set of the six major double eagle designs (with the 1861 Paquet reverse added as a sub-type if desired) can be a pleasurable pursuit."
Just out of curiosity I went through the Bowers double eagle book described in earlier posts [which assigned 1a as the type designation for the 1861 Paquets) to see if there were any other sub-types of the double eagle series beginning in 1850 and extending to 1933. No other sub-types were identified.
It appears that the 1861 Paquet reverses remain the one and only sub-type of the entire series.
Adding to the discussion, it is noteworthy that although Q. David Bowers identifies only one sub-type of the entire Double Eagle series (The 1861 Paquets), there are multiple varities referenced in his definitive book, "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins." At page 51 the following varieties are described:
"There are several interesting varieties in the double eagle series. Those that are publicized, such as the "1853/2," the overdate status of which has been questioned, may sell for a large premium, due in part to its listing in "A Guide Book of United States Coins." On the other hand, a rarer, but largely unknown, variety such as the 1888 with doubled die reverses, or the 1896 with double punched date, or the 1909-D with large D over small D mintmark, can often be cherrypicked with no extra premium needed.
"Collecting varieties has never caught on in a significant way in the double eagle series, and there is little interest in whether an 1854 is a medium date or a large date variety, or whether an 1873 has a Closed 3 or Open 3."
This certainly adds to the allure of the 1861 $20 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles as the only type beyond the major six types that one need collect to have a complete Double Eagle type set to include the one existent sub-type.
Thank you for reminding me of this thread. I had written to Q.David Bowers about the issue, but got distracted when my wife had some minor knee surgery earlier this week.
Here is Dave's response, reposted verbatim with permission:
"If it were an earlier coin with a different letter size it would be called a variety.
I called it a subtype as it is late and also famous, with a different letter font style, although these reasons are more to accommodate popular usage. A corollary can be made with dates, such as Large Date and Medium Date among later coins.
To be strict, probably the listings should be as varieties as:
1861-S Normal reverse letters
1861-S Tall reverse letters (new font by Paquet)
.
Will copy J.D. and Dennis
.
My best,
Dave Bowers"
Cool, I hope you sent him the whole thread so he had both sides of the " debate."
Would you mind sharing what you wrote to Q. David Bowers?
Even better if we can get him to come on to these forums
@northcoin said:
Just came across this interesting (and relevant to the type vs. variety discussion above) commentary in The Official Red Book series book titled, "A Guide Book of United States Type Coins" written by Q. David Bowers at Page 269 under the heading of COLLECTING A TYPE SET OF DOUBLE EAGLES:
"Forming a type set of the six major double eagle designs (with the 1861 Paquet reverse added as a sub-type if desired) can be a pleasurable pursuit."
Just out of curiosity I went through the Bowers double eagle book described in earlier posts [which assigned 1a as the type designation for the 1861 Paquets) to see if there were any other sub-types of the double eagle series beginning in 1850 and extending to 1933. No other sub-types were identified.
It appears that the 1861 Paquet reverses remain the one and only sub-type of the entire series.
Adding to the discussion, it is noteworthy that although Q. David Bowers identifies only one sub-type of the entire Double Eagle series (The 1861 Paquets), there are multiple varities referenced in his definitive book, "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins." At page 51 the following varieties are described:
"There are several interesting varieties in the double eagle series. Those that are publicized, such as the "1853/2," the overdate status of which has been questioned, may sell for a large premium, due in part to its listing in "A Guide Book of United States Coins." On the other hand, a rarer, but largely unknown, variety such as the 1888 with doubled die reverses, or the 1896 with double punched date, or the 1909-D with large D over small D mintmark, can often be cherrypicked with no extra premium needed.
"Collecting varieties has never caught on in a significant way in the double eagle series, and there is little interest in whether an 1854 is a medium date or a large date variety, or whether an 1873 has a Closed 3 or Open 3."
This certainly adds to the allure of the 1861 $20 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles as the only type beyond the major six types that one need collect to have a complete Double Eagle type set to include the one existent sub-type.
Thank you for reminding me of this thread. I had written to Q.David Bowers about the issue, but got distracted when my wife had some minor knee surgery earlier this week.
Here is Dave's response, reposted verbatim with permission:
"If it were an earlier coin with a different letter size it would be called a variety.
I called it a subtype as it is late and also famous, with a different letter font style, although these reasons are more to accommodate popular usage. A corollary can be made with dates, such as Large Date and Medium Date among later coins.
To be strict, probably the listings should be as varieties as:
1861-S Normal reverse letters
1861-S Tall reverse letters (new font by Paquet)
.
Will copy J.D. and Dennis
.
My best,
Dave Bowers"
Cool, I hope you sent him the whole thread so he had both sides of the " debate."
Would you mind sharing what you wrote to Q. David Bowers?
Even better if we can get him to come on to these forums
I did reference the thread and invited him to join us here.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Is this the case here? Did Paquet use a different hub for his design? From the photos, it seems so to me. If so, does it follow that the Paquet reverse is a different type?
A new hub does not automatically mean a new type. Look at the hub differences on the 1886 cent obverse, yet nobody calls the revision a new "Type." Likewise the 1859 Half Dime obverse, which was made from a new hub with measurable differences, but it is not called a new "Type."
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
As to the smaller mint mark on the 1861-S Paquet $20, how does it compare to the new smaller mint mark found on 1863 and later coins? It is possible that the change took place in 1861, but that after the new Paquet reverse die(s) with the new style mint mark was used then rejected, the San Francisco Mint simply continued to use up previously stockpiled reverse dies until they were all used up. Look at the $2-1/2 Liberty series. The Engraving Dept. introduced a new reverse in Philadelphia in 1859, but that Mint continued using up old reverse dies until 1861. In San Francisco, they continued using up old reverse dies until 1879!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Was going through some old papers this morning and came across this from 2002.
This would be the other Philadelphia minted Paquet Reverse referenced in the original post on this thread:
"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."
@RogerB said:
Where are Paquet's DE dies mentioned in contemporary documents?
Suggesting they may still be in existence? That would be exciting to learn if true. To the best of my recollection (without going back to check sources) the dies that made it to San Francisco were returned to the Philadelphia Mint but even if that were the fact i believe you have suggested on another thread that the mint has preserved at least some of its dies no longer used.
@northcoin said:
Was going through some old papers this morning and came across this from 2002.
This would be the other Philadelphia minted Paquet Reverse referenced in the original post on this thread:
"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."
Thanks for the article. That's some amazing history for the Dallas Bank specimen. Sold in 1877 auction for $20.25, to resurface almost 90 years later in a Swiss vault.
@northcoin said:
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. "
Were you able to find the image of A.W. 334a? I'd love to see it.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
at auction my estimate is that it will bring between 3 and 5 Mio USD. There are just very very few coins that ever sold at auction for more than 3 Mio USD and many of them brought less than we all thought they would bring, including the 1804 Dollar at pogue.
so this has obviously changed in the last 12 months...
@northcoin said:
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. "
Were you able to find the image of A.W. 334a? I'd love to see it.
I guess my attention was focused on the Pony Express historical tie-in and had not made any effort to see what happened to the Newcomber Copper specimen trial piece of the Paquet Reverse. @yosclimber has had success in locating auction history records for another elusive coin I own (a unique specimen of the 1850 Double Eagle traced back to having been in the collection of its designer, James B. Longacre, suggesting it may have even been the first one minted) so perhaps he will be able to provide some insight.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
at auction my estimate is that it will bring between 3 and 5 Mio USD. There are just very very few coins that ever sold at auction for more than 3 Mio USD and many of them brought less than we all thought they would bring, including the 1804 Dollar at pogue.
so this has obviously changed in the last 12 months...
I noticed that when I went back and read this thread from the past.
@privaterarecoincollector said:
at auction my estimate is that it will bring between 3 and 5 Mio USD. There are just very very few coins that ever sold at auction for more than 3 Mio USD and many of them brought less than we all thought they would bring, including the 1804 Dollar at pogue.
so this has obviously changed in the last 12 months...
I noticed that when I went back and read this thread from the past.
In going back and looking at some of my earlier posts on this thread I note the same seems to have been projected for my 1861-S Paquet Reverse as well, albeit in the six figure realm rather than in the 7 figure realm for your Philidelphia minted Paquet Reverse.
Quoting from the earlier post:
"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." "
@privaterarecoincollector said:
at auction my estimate is that it will bring between 3 and 5 Mio USD. There are just very very few coins that ever sold at auction for more than 3 Mio USD and many of them brought less than we all thought they would bring, including the 1804 Dollar at pogue.
so this has obviously changed in the last 12 months...
Was TDN correct in suggesting the 4 million dollars?
@privaterarecoincollector said:
at auction my estimate is that it will bring between 3 and 5 Mio USD. There are just very very few coins that ever sold at auction for more than 3 Mio USD and many of them brought less than we all thought they would bring, including the 1804 Dollar at pogue.
so this has obviously changed in the last 12 months...
Was TDN correct in suggesting the 4 million dollars?
Im ranking the coins in value like this:
1.) Brasher Doubloon
2.) Paquet
3.) 1822 5 and 1804 Ten
Comments
Just came across Doug Winter's article on the subject of collecting Type I Double Eagles by mint. His comments about the 1861-S Paquet Reverse are instructive with regard to the commentary here on this thread as to whether the Paquet Reverse is a requisite coin for a complete type set of Double Eagles:
Here is the excerpt concluding that at least for a complete set of San Francisco minted Double Eagles, the 1861-S Paquet is needed:
"Between 1854 and 1866, the San Francisco mint produced 14 Type One double eagles. This includes the 1861-S and the 1861-S Paquet reverse. With the exception of the 1861-S Paquet and the 1866-S No Motto, all are reasonably easy to locate in circulated grades. Before the discovery of the three shipwrecks cited above, assembling a high grade set of Type One San Francisco double eagles would have been nearly impossible. Today, it is far more realistic. It is still theoretically impossible to finish this set in Uncirculated, as no 1861-S Paquet reverse double eagles have been graded MS60 or higher by the two services as of the middle of 2014.
A complete set of Type One San Francisco double eagles in EF40 to AU50 costs at least $125,000, with around half of this amount dedicated to the 1861-S Paquet and the 1866-S No Motto. An AU55 to AU58 set costs at least $250,000; again with a significant amount of the cost focused on the two rarities."
I do not consider the 1854 $3 gold with the small word DOLLARS to be a different type than the 1855-1889 coins with the larger DOLLARS. I consider the Paquet coins to be wonderful varieties, but not a different "type."
Your mileage may vary. Batteries not included. Void where prohibited. Slightly higher west of the Rockies.
That is a most interesting observation. Are there those who do consider the change from small word DOLLARS to larger word DOLLARS to rise to the level of being a new type for $3 gold?
In the realm of $20 gold it is accepted that the change from D. to DOLLARS was sufficient to create a new type. Q. David Bowers in his "A Guide Book of Double Eagle Coins" states at page 148. "The denomination, formerly expressed as TWENTY D., was changed to read TWENTY DOLLARS, thus creating a new type."
I can understand how there can be a disincentive to term a significant change in a coin's design as a separate type when there are limited numbers of that changed design to be collectable. In the case of the 1861 Paquets, a case can certainly be made that the changes were at least, if not more, significant than was the substituting of DOLLAR for D. To term the 1851-P and 1851-S Paquets together as a "variety" is further complicated by the fact that they actually exist as two different varieties of a similar type between themselves.
at auction my estimate is that it will bring between 3 and 5 Mio USD. There are just very very few coins that ever sold at auction for more than 3 Mio USD and many of them brought less than we all thought they would bring, including the 1804 Dollar at pogue.
Look at the Seated Liberty half dollar reverses before and after 1842 (ignoring the 1840 Medium Letters mule.) The change in font did not create a new "type."
The Paquet reverse was a change in font. There was no change in the design of the coin, as there was when "D." changed to "DOLLARS."
As I said, your mileage may vary.
>
To a degree this is a semantic distinction based upon one's definition of "variety" vs "type." That said, there actually are substantial differences that go beyond "a change in front" on the 1861 $20 Paquets. In addition, to say that there was "no change in the design" is also subject to contradiction. Those changes in design are detailed in the following Heritage Auction description of the 1861Paquet Reverse $20:
"The obverse is identical to the design created by James Longacre for the Liberty Head double eagle, which was introduced to regular issue coinage in 1850. In fact, the obverse die is from the same coinage hub that was introduced in 1859, a slight modification of the original hub. Anthony C. Paquet prepared a modified reverse design in 1860. The Paquet reverse is essentially a copy of the Longacre design, made from new letter punches that provide a taller and more compact appearance, leaving more space between words. The rays are closer to the lettering, providing more room for the oval of stars. The actual die field is slightly larger in diameter, with a narrower rim, and this was the downfall of Paquet's design. "
If the definition of a new "type" is a change in design that should be definitive as to the 1861 Paquet Reverse $20 coins rising above being nothing more than a mere variety. As discussed earlier on this thread, David Bowers in his book on Double Eagles assigned the Type 1a to identify the coin, not Variety x.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-double-eagles/1861-20-paquet-ms61-pcgs-only-three-regular-issue-us-coins-are-unique-the-1870-s-half-dime-the-1873-cc-no-arrows-dime/a/414-5623.s
What coin are you looking at with the "mirror" fields?
Let's talk about the differences between a "Type" change and a "Variety" change. The design differences between a 1916-1917 quarter and a 1917-1924 quarter are much more significant than those between an 1860 Double Eagle and an 1861 Paquet Double Eagle, yet the Redbook calls the quarters "Varieties." Likewise the two different 1883 Liberty Head nickels. How great does the design change need to be to constitute a new "Type?"
What coin are you looking at with the "mirror" fields?
@Insider2
I believe this is the coin to which mariner67 was making the "mirror" reference:
Even the most hyperbolic copywriters at Heritage avoid the word "type" on these pieces, instead opting for the far less substantial "sub-type". And they go so far as to say that even that designation is not the norm:
"Although it is usually not thought of in this way, the Paquet Reverse seen on a few of the San Francisco and Philadelphia double eagles of 1861 also makes the design a one-year subtype -- and assembling a set by subtypes is certainly a method that many numismatists employ in collecting this long and challenging series."
Ownership apparently adds $2M.
--Severian the Lame
Certainly seems to be consistent with the above stated observation:
"As discussed earlier on this thread, David Bowers in his book on Double Eagles assigned the Type 1a to identify the [1861 Paquet Reverse $20s], not Variety x."
What are the definitions of type, subtype and variety?
They aren't in the PCGS Glossary:
https://www.pcgs.com/glossary
... and just when we thought some consensus had been reached here on this board as to what a U.S. minted pre 1854 "Proof coin" was or was not - given that the term was not even in use by the mint until at least that date.
To better understand the type vs. subtype vs. variety discussion, here's a photo comparison from PCGS CoinFacts:
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/8936
Of course, this doesn't necessarily clarify things because PCGS calls this a "major variety" so we have:
@northcoin
Thanks, I saw the coin but did not see anything resembling a "mirror" surface. That is some coin!
I invite somebody to do an overlay to verify or refute this, but it does not look as though the oval of stars above the eagle has moved significantly. Rather, it appears that Paquet shortened the inner ends of the rays, presumably so as not to overlap the stars so much.
(Note that neither the stars nor the rays are exact duplicates of the Longacre stars and rays. Paquet simply copied them freehand, and in doing so made tiny variations from the original. This does not constitute a change of design.
I would also not say that the rays are closer to the lettering, but rather that the taller font of the lettering brought them closer to the rays, just as the lettering at six o'clock is closer to the eagle's tail.
And, I thought of another font change example, the 1864 Small Motto and Large Motto two cent pieces. As the Small Motto obverse appears with pattern reverses, it is likely that the Small Motto obverse was a pattern obverse that was considered to be close but not quite right. Nevertheless it was good enough to be pressed into regular production while the Large Motto Dies were being prepared. A fascinating variety, but not a different "Type" or even a "Sub-Type."
Here's a comparison of the 1867 Shield Nickel. PCGS calls these two different types while some articles call these two different subtypes. Are the types or subtypes?
Does the font on the Anthony C. Paquet reverse remind anyone else of US Mint medal fonts? I'm wondering if Paquet used available mint die punches for medals. Were punches of similar style and size used elsewhere at the time in the US Mint?
As I understand the situation then, each Engraver made his own punches and used them on his work. If Paquet liked this style he would have used it on medals he engraved as well. Other Engravers making other medals would have used their own punches.
The Paguet's got a tiny little s MM also!
Thanks for pointing that out as I had never noticed that additional difference. I am guessing that makes the 1861-s Paquet $20 as unique with regard to having both enlarged and made smaller lettering on the same coin.
Just came across this interesting (and relevant to the type vs. variety discussion above) commentary in The Official Red Book series book titled, "A Guide Book of United States Type Coins" written by Q. David Bowers at Page 269 under the heading of COLLECTING A TYPE SET OF DOUBLE EAGLES:
"Forming a type set of the six major double eagle designs (with the 1861 Paquet reverse added as a sub-type if desired) can be a pleasurable pursuit."
Just out of curiosity I went through the Bowers double eagle book described in earlier posts [which assigned 1a as the type designation for the 1861 Paquets) to see if there were any other sub-types of the double eagle series beginning in 1850 and extending to 1933. No other sub-types were identified.
It appears that the 1861 Paquet reverses remain the one and only sub-type of the entire series.
Adding to the discussion, it is noteworthy that although Q. David Bowers identifies only one sub-type of the entire Double Eagle series (The 1861 Paquets), there are multiple varities referenced in his definitive book, "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins." At page 51 the following varieties are described:
"There are several interesting varieties in the double eagle series. Those that are publicized, such as the "1853/2," the overdate status of which has been questioned, may sell for a large premium, due in part to its listing in "A Guide Book of United States Coins." On the other hand, a rarer, but largely unknown, variety such as the 1888 with doubled die reverses, or the 1896 with double punched date, or the 1909-D with large D over small D mintmark, can often be cherrypicked with no extra premium needed.
"Collecting varieties has never caught on in a significant way in the double eagle series, and there is little interest in whether an 1854 is a medium date or a large date variety, or whether an 1873 has a Closed 3 or Open 3."
This certainly adds to the allure of the 1861 $20 Paquet Reverse Double Eagles as the only type beyond the major six types that one need collect to have a complete Double Eagle type set to include the one existent sub-type.
Here is some information from Doug Winter, emphasis mine. What is included in the "Type One set" mentioned by Doug?
Major Varieties of Type One Liberty Head Double Eagles - October 02, 2012
https://raregoldcoins.com/blog/articles/major-varieties-of-type-one-liberty-head-double-eagles
What is the importance of this being classified as a type (or subtype) or variety (or major variety)?
This is a great, interesting, historic coin. I'm just wondering why the classification seems so important.
Thank you for reminding me of this thread. I had written to Q.David Bowers about the issue, but got distracted when my wife had some minor knee surgery earlier this week.
Here is Dave's response, reposted verbatim with permission:
"If it were an earlier coin with a different letter size it would be called a variety.
I called it a subtype as it is late and also famous, with a different letter font style, although these reasons are more to accommodate popular usage. A corollary can be made with dates, such as Large Date and Medium Date among later coins.
To be strict, probably the listings should be as varieties as:
1861-S Normal reverse letters
1861-S Tall reverse letters (new font by Paquet)
.
Will copy J.D. and Dennis
.
My best,
Dave Bowers"
Cool, I hope you sent him the whole thread which I am sure he would have found of interest.
Would you mind sharing what you wrote to Q. David Bowers?
Even better if we can get him to come on to these forums
Ah, I didn't edit that fast enough.
I did reference the thread and invited him to join us here.
@RogerB indicated that different types are assigned when different hubs are used:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/996330/three-distinct-types-of-1908-d-double-eagle#latest
Is this the case here? Did Paquet use a different hub for his design? From the photos, it seems so to me. If so, does it follow that the Paquet reverse is a different type?
A new hub does not automatically mean a new type. Look at the hub differences on the 1886 cent obverse, yet nobody calls the revision a new "Type." Likewise the 1859 Half Dime obverse, which was made from a new hub with measurable differences, but it is not called a new "Type."
As to the smaller mint mark on the 1861-S Paquet $20, how does it compare to the new smaller mint mark found on 1863 and later coins? It is possible that the change took place in 1861, but that after the new Paquet reverse die(s) with the new style mint mark was used then rejected, the San Francisco Mint simply continued to use up previously stockpiled reverse dies until they were all used up. Look at the $2-1/2 Liberty series. The Engraving Dept. introduced a new reverse in Philadelphia in 1859, but that Mint continued using up old reverse dies until 1861. In San Francisco, they continued using up old reverse dies until 1879!
Interesting video clip featuring Q. David Bowers describing the 1861-S Paquet $20 as "a unique reverse Type."
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OQXao3vOBPQ
Was going through some old papers this morning and came across this from 2002.
This would be the other Philadelphia minted Paquet Reverse referenced in the original post on this thread:
"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."
Where are Paquet's DE dies mentioned in contemporary documents?
Suggesting they may still be in existence? That would be exciting to learn if true. To the best of my recollection (without going back to check sources) the dies that made it to San Francisco were returned to the Philadelphia Mint but even if that were the fact i believe you have suggested on another thread that the mint has preserved at least some of its dies no longer used.
Not necessarily dies, but the hubs or master dies that Paquet prepared. Is there mention in 1860-61 mint documents that Paquet was doing the work?
FWIW, the coin again became available for public viewing at the Philadelphia ANA World's Fair of Money show in August of 2018.
I like the Paquest design here is another one of his. I was lucky enough to pick it up.
Thanks for the article. That's some amazing history for the Dallas Bank specimen. Sold in 1877 auction for $20.25, to resurface almost 90 years later in a Swiss vault.
Were you able to find the image of A.W. 334a? I'd love to see it.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
so this has obviously changed in the last 12 months...
I guess my attention was focused on the Pony Express historical tie-in and had not made any effort to see what happened to the Newcomber Copper specimen trial piece of the Paquet Reverse. @yosclimber has had success in locating auction history records for another elusive coin I own (a unique specimen of the 1850 Double Eagle traced back to having been in the collection of its designer, James B. Longacre, suggesting it may have even been the first one minted) so perhaps he will be able to provide some insight.
I noticed that when I went back and read this thread from the past.
In going back and looking at some of my earlier posts on this thread I note the same seems to have been projected for my 1861-S Paquet Reverse as well, albeit in the six figure realm rather than in the 7 figure realm for your Philidelphia minted Paquet Reverse.
Quoting from the earlier post:
"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." "
Was TDN correct in suggesting the 4 million dollars?
Im ranking the coins in value like this:
1.) Brasher Doubloon
2.) Paquet
3.) 1822 5 and 1804 Ten
Or to add:
1.) 1933 20
2.) Brasher Doubloon
3.) Paquet
4.) 1822 5 and 1804 Ten