Gobrechts - Original vs Restrike Discussion
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
Ok - so let me see if I've got this straight. Will the experts please chime in? If I understand correctly, the newest theory is that the beak on the eagle dictates whether an 1838 or 1839 is an original or a restrike:
1838 Early Original - smooth as a baby's bottom - could be a Master Coin
1838 A bit later Original - still nice and smooth
1838 Restrike all the way - 17 year old with terrible acne
4
Comments
Note that if my interpretation is correct, that there are two originals listed under the restrike section in Coin Facts and one restrike under the original section, Everything is topsy turvy,
I see enough to call it a different die state, that's for sure.
Here are the 1839 Originals pictured on Coin Facts
Smooth baby smooth!
Pimply
And again pimply
http://gobrechtdollars.com/index.html
Great reading
I'll have to fish mine out of the safe deposit box to check alignment, but it seems to me like there have been multiple theories thus far as to original and restrike coins.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Very interesting.
Clearly not an area I collect in, but the difference certainly seems quite clear to me.
It would be great if we could settle the Gobrecht emission sequence issues with some definitive die state evidence instead of the confusing and often inconclusive die rotation theories. The eagle's pimples are probably from some good old Philadelphia humidity induced die rust.
Like many others I will probably never own an 1838-9 Gobrecht Dollar, but it's interesting to note that it might be possible to nail down which coins are the "originals" and which ones are the "restrikes."
Wasn't there a coin overstruck on an 1859 seated dollar? The die state of that one would be revealing.
Coin Facts #1 and #3 seem to be the same die; #2 differs. Scratches in mouth of #2, not in others?
Here's the overstrike:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/gobrecht-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1838-p-1-name-omitted-judd-84-restrike-pollock-93-overstruck-on-an-1859-dollar-pr64-ngc/a/1143-3285.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
Image not perfect but appears to be the later die state.
Indeed.
Got nothing to add but a sidebar. Coincidentally today just finished studying the letter from Mint Director Patterson to Sec of Treasury Woodbury dated April 9, 1836, transmitting the die of the onward and upward eagle for Woodbury's and the President's approbation. Patterson got rid of the absurd shield sticking in the breast of the bird, and removed the arrows and branches as contrary to nature and good taste. In what appears to be Woodbury's response via a note at the end of the letter, he had no problem to the proposed emblems worth noting, except for a couple of points, including that the eagle's mouth should be closed.
The originals aren't patterns - too bad you don't understand numismatics.
I believe that the original 36 and 39's were very clearly struck for circulation. Same as with 1792 Half Dismes and 1836 Reeded Edge Half Dollars, which were also considered patterns by some back in the old days.
Anyway, don't take our word for it. A few minutes of research should clear up any doubts.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
TDN,
That is one of the key points I look at to determine Original versus Restrike. The others are Liberty's arms, especially the "shield" arm, and the "pole" hand. Since the rust on the eagle's beak shows up much better in photos than the rust on Liberty, I use the beak as the starting point.
JD and I figured this out while we were doing the emission sequences. I had originally used the letters, but we found that unreliable when looking at photos. The beak is about 95% reliable looking at photos. "Coin-in-hand" the rust is very easy to see on all the devices.
The Norweb coin was long thought to be an Original, but when JD looked at it, his comment was there was rust all over the place. Turned out that the die stated proved it was one of the very earliest restrikes - probably a piece traded by Snowden. There are only two others currently known in that die state (which fits with the documentation on what Snowden traded). One is in the ANS, the other is PCGS 30774103 (in case you're interested
).
I would not call any J84 (1838) a "Master Coin." Master Coin was the Mint's original term for what we call a proof today - i.e., a current issue coin that is specially struck from specially prepared dies and planchets. Since J84's are patterns, IMHO, they properly should not be called Master Coins (even though DuBois referred to one of Eckefeldt pieces he sent to Stickney in 1854 as such).
There are three Original J84s documented in the DuBois-Stickney papers. One is in the ANS. I believe the second is the one you posted. JD is not sure, I need to keep working on him
.
CoinFacts photos and TPG inserts cannot be relied upon. Many of these pieces were holdered before we did the emission sequences. Note that on J104's (1839), the piece certified as a "Cameo" is actually a late state restrike from rusted and over-polished dies! The "cameo" results not from acid-etch, but from rusting of the devices. See the image below. It's actually a pretty horrid coin when you put a glass on it. Note the thinning of the lower letters, "dishing" of the field around UNI, LAR, and the eagle's tail, along with the rough patch at the junction of tail and wing.
There is currently one J60 Original Master Coin that JD, Saul, and I agree upon, that being the only cameo J60 Original, the Korein 47 coin now in the ANS. I do believe the very PL J60 auctioned by Heritage a little while ago is also a Master Coin. JD doesn't like it because there's no frost and the letters and rim are not fully squared-off. However, we see the same in Seated and Trade Dollars, so I feel it's just a not so great strike. I had also once thought that the Jackson Presentation coins could be later Master Coins, but JD has convinced me these were just early production strikes.
Gobrecht dollar Restrikes are all technically "proofs" since they were struck using the screw press in "proof mode" and the dies were polished to some extent as were the planchets. However, I would not call them "Master Coins" as they were not struck in the year of issue or for official purposes.
The issue is settled with die states. See the website: http://gobrechtdollars.com/index.html, as TDN noted.
@Rittenhouse
excellent numismatic analysis!
Lot's of reading mileage to get to------
"so I feel it's just a not so great strike."
So.....will Pcgs change the label on my coin from restrike to original based upon the new research?
Nice pic.
There appear to be at least two competing theories on these issues. More information is likely awaiting discovery, so any "decision" would be premature.
I don't disagree - but note the strike characteristics: softly struck on the toe and wingtip. That was likely done in the 1830's, not 1850's or 1870's. Combined with the lack of rust and progressive die markers, the evidence is compelling.
Just to play devil's advocate, I can see a soft strike representing either earlier, less effective equipment, or representing the quasi-clandestine nature of the restrikes. Striking a Gobrecht dollar over an 1850's Seated dollar does not scream "quality control" at me.
Is it universally accepted that all Gobrecht restrikes were made with Mint front office knowledge and approval, or is it possible that some were struck by the so-called "midnight minter" who purportedly struck an 1804 dollar over an 1857 Swiss SHooting Thaler?
quasi-clandestine nature of the restrikes
There really was no such thing. The Gobrechts were well made and well marketed. It was only after the 1804 dollar restrike fiasco that clandestine entered the equation - for that date.
It's pointillism art technique on a coin!
Flying Eagle dollars have been the subject of printed debate for many decades. Maybe it is time for a public debate, sponsored by the ANA at this summer’s convention.
The format for each side might be:
1. 5 minute introduction.
2. 20 minute presentation of
a. Theory
b. Data & Analysis
c. Test and Predictions of theory
d. Conclusions
3. 5 minute summary.
4. Audience straw poll (count)
This might move things beyond the present back-and-forth approach, and into a more immediate and productive discourse.
Die sequence studies would appear to be much more definitive than any other theories
The die...cannot lie...
Nice theory. I agree die state is a good approach.
Here's a pimply 1839 restrike:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/gobrecht-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1839-p-1-name-omitted-judd-104-restrike-pollock-116-r3-pr64-ngc/p/1254-15138.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515#
Contact PCGS. What they choose to do is out of my control. Like I said, from the photos, it's 90 - 95% that your coin is an Original, but I would need to see it in person to confirm. Perhaps the best approach is to discuss it with JD next PCGS show in LV. However, as the 1841 quarter eagle debate shows, PCGS does not always agree with us.
Just acquired my first Gobrecht. It's a J-104 1839 with medallic alignment and a level eagle. PCGS previously called it a restrike but this thread makes me think I should take a fresh look at that designation.
I have researched https://gobrechtdollars.com quite a bit. I also read a 2022 article from PCGS (https://www.pcgs.com/news/christian-gobrecht-part-three) which states that Gobrechts "can be identified as restrikes because of a tiny reverse die break. Although this crack is tiny, it is the most accurate diagnostic for restrikes." Where exactly is this crack?
As of October 2024, do we know for sure what standard PCGS uses to differentiate between originals and restrikes?
If the comment from the PCGS article is correct, why go to the trouble of debating the Breen-Julian theory vs. the DTS theory if PCGS thinks one die crack is the deciding factor?
On my coin, Liberty's left foot looks weak, the eagle and letters on the reverse are smooth not pimply and there is no noticeable rust so I'm hopeful but really just want the right answer.
If you're a Gobrecht expert and you submit a Gobrecht dollar to PCGS, are you confident they will get it right? Do you submit info from gobrechtdollars.com to PCGS to support your argument if you think you have an original?
I know this is a long post with many questions but it seems like the restrike vs. original issue is still being figured out and is above my pay grade.
Thanks in advance.
oh, to have the original posters on here still around
capthenway is still here, zoins, too
don't see the others
perhaps this will re-awaken the subject for you
Photo?
Yes any supporting facts help PCGS. As you getting it right no one really knows it’s just a best guess.
Here you go...
You almost never see an original 1839 Dollar.
It looks a lot like lighting angles are making a difference.
Coin Photographer.
Without a doubt my best Coinstar find ever
Too bad many of the best and most knowledgeable posters are banned or absent. These type of threads used to make this forum special
Latin American Collection
No.
If you are a Gobrecht expert, you do not need PCGS to attribute your coin.
You can classify it yourself using the DTS (Dannreuther, Teichman, Sholley) Gobrecht Dollars website.
https://gobrechtdollars.com/
[Edited:]
PCGS has Coin numbers for both Original and Restrike for J-60, J-84 and J-104 (not for J-61 apparently, though).
So they can attribute both for these.
I don't know their exact attribution rules.
If they were specific on their rules, it would create more confidence.
Although it is complicated for existing slabbed coins, because their rules may have changed over time, now that the new research exists.
These are the PCGS Coin number listings for Seated and Gobrecht dollars on the PCGS Dollars and Patterns 1792-1859 page, in the Proof tab:
1836 $1 J-58, Gobrecht Restrike (#11217)
1836 $1 J-59 Restrike (#11219)
1836 J-60, Gobrecht Original (#11225) DTS agree some J60s are Originals
1836 J-60 Original, Medal Alignment (#11226)
1836 $1 J-60, Gobrecht Restrike (#11227)
1836 $1 J-61 Restrike (#11229) DTS indicate some J61s are Originals
1836 $1 J-62 Restrike (#11233)
1836 $1 J-63 Restrike (#11239)
1836 $1 J-64 Restrike (#11243)
1836 $1 J-65 Restrike (#11249)
1836 $1 J-66 Restrike (#11253)
...
1838 $1 J-84 Original (#11350) DTS agree some J84s are Originals and some are Restrikes
1838 $1 J-84, Gobrecht Restrike (#11352)
1838 $1 J-85 Restrike (#11354)
1838 $1 J-86 Original (#11358) J86 does not exist see https://uspatterns.com/pat17.html
1838 $1 J-87 Restrike (#11364)
1838 $1 J-88 Restrike (#11370)
1838 $1 J-89 Restrike (#11374)
1838 $1 J-90 Restrike (#11380)
...
1839 Gobrecht, Original (#11444) DTS agree some J104s are Originals
1839 $1 J-104, Gobrecht Restrike (#11446)
1839 $1 J-104 Restrike (#811446) (811446 is for a Cameo)
1839 $1 J-105 Restrike (#11448)
1839 $1 J-106 Restrike (#11452)
1839 $1 J-107 Restrike (#11462)
1839 $1 J-108 Restrike (#11468)
1839 $1 J-109 Restrike (#11473)
from:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/dollars/liberty-seated-dollar/type-1-flying-eagle-reverse-stars-1836/740
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/dollars/liberty-seated-dollar/type-2-flying-eagle-reverse-no-stars-1839/739
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/patterns/patterns/795
I can't answer for PCGS, but the DTS page on J104 describes
Under State B:
"Develops a very faint “die line” from second dentil over T to left upper serif of E in UNITED. This “line” is seen on all sharply struck late state J104 Originals, and J84 and J104 restrikes before being polished off for the striking of most of the Starless Reverse mules. However, it is very faintly visible on J63 and J65. It then returns on the very late J104 restrikes, showing that this “die line” is actually a faint crack."
Note that this die crack exists on both originals and restrikes, so it does not fully fit the PCGS description you quoted.
https://gobrechtdollars.com/J104.html
DTS, on their webpages, and in this thread, indicate that the main diagnostic for a Restrike is die rust, not a die crack.
At the top of the J104 page they state:
If you want another third party attribution which can distinguish between a J104 Original and a J104 Restrike, you might ask @messydesk if varslab.com handles this (using a sticker with photo that goes on your existing PCGS Slab).
https://varslab.com/index.html
I purchased this 1839 Gobrect Dollar at the recent Tampa coin show, much to my surprise. The piece has die Alignment III which means it's officially a restrike. The restrikes are supposed to have a light die break through the "AMER" in "AMERICA" and in "OF." From what I can see with a 10X glass and and a 30X scope, it's not there.
The eagle's beak does seem to have some rust, which says "restrike." Ms. Liberty's "shield arm" does not appear to have rust. Since I'm more interested in the design type than when it was made, these are secondard concerns.
Here are two photographic interpretations.
My 1836 Gobrecht Dollar is an Alignment I piece. All of the experts agree that one was part of the 1,000 pieces made in December 1836.
I'm not sure but maybe that's because PCGS only use Judd numbers for patterns/restrikes? I don't think I've ever seen a PCGS slab for an original coin with a Judd number. 11444 is for original 1839s. DTS seems to use Judd numbers only to denote alignment regardless of originality.
I don't want to subscribe to DTS just because it's the most helpful for my coin but die rust is hard to argue with. Mine has zero rust, no cameo, weak left foot, non-pimply eagle and reverse letters, satiny finish and has PL but not proof mirrors.
I can't see a damn thing where the ITE, MERI, LLAR cracks are supposed to be. I can see why the DTS guys needed high-resolution photos to analyze these cracks.
The 2022 article from PCGS cites 3 different works from Breen and/or Julian so it looks safe to say they aren't buying DTS yet. I guess I can send to PCGS then to a company like VSS if I'm not happy or I can look into another TPG.
Thank you - I stand corrected.
I forgot to check the non-Pattern pages.
I have updated my prior post to add those PCGS Coin numbers.
DTS use the "short" Judd numbers based on the combination of:
Alignment is at a more detailed level, and multiple alignments are known for some Judd numbers.
Similar die cracks are fairly easy to see on some Starry Reverse coins.
Here is a J-60 Restrike with die cracks at NITED_STATES_O , OLLA.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1836-1-j-60-gobrecht-restrike/images/11227
For reverse die cracks on the Starless reverse, like J104, the cracks seem to be much lighter and harder to see. Note: PCGS TrueView photos are generally great, but not the best for seeing die cracks. TrueViews seem to use diffuse lighting, while die cracks are most easily seen with lighting from the side.
ITE tops
MERI tops
LAR bases
if things haven't been settled. sending it to another tpg or vss may not give you the results you seek, the risk is financial of course
I have studied these too and I have come to my own conclusion, imho the noted experts do not know for sure because they are theorizing and were not there when these pieces were minted. I get it about the die cracks and rust spots being a pick up point(s) but as was mentioned here die cracks can sometimes be oh so faint making there usage as a definitive pick up point iffy, same with rust spots too. Some examples can show all the pic up points clearly and some not so much. I understand the experts reasoning of what should come before to be called whatever but it still remains its all conjecture and that therein lies the problem. So I have ended up staying away from buying these beauties unless it doesn't matter to me whether theories change or not since these are still great examples of the abilities of our former Mint's incredible workmanship and all of them whether they be restrikes or originals are all great pieces of art
It is not merely a theory or conjecture.
The DTS theory fits the coins better than the old theory, which makes it the best explanation of what happened.
Given enough wear, some coins may not have sufficient observable features to accurately attribute them to a die state or die variety. This is true for many coins that circulated. For some, you cannot even determine the date or mint mark. This does not mean the theory is weak. It is just the reality that some coins don't have sufficient observable features.
When comparing 2 alternative theories, ideally one would like to choose the simpler one. However, they both have to explain all the observed data. For the Gobrecht dollars, they have a complex history of the originals and then restrikes up to several decades later. So a simple theory of die alignment to explain everything has some initial appeal, but it is not enough to cover all the different times they were struck. And the die alignment itself has more distinct positions than were originally listed....