1855 Kellogg slug restrike by CHS is certified by PCGS
Zoins
Posts: 34,117 ✭✭✭✭✭
Just ran across this PCGS certified California Historical Society (CHS) restrike of the 1855 Kellogg slug. These were originally issued with promotional inserts but are being properly slabbed now. Of note, the MS69 population is 36 and this is an older slab so it's not a completely new thing. I wonder how many 70s there are.
Tagged:
3
Comments
.
A few years ago I bought one in an NGC slab that was graded "GEM PROOF" from a BST listing by a forum member who was also a dealer. I paid a little over melt value for it. These were produced in limited numbers by Monaco Precious Metal and the dies were made by Ron Landis who is currently one of the best die engravers. The actual date of manufacture is punched into the coin just above the eagle. The ones with the date September 11, 2001 carry an additional premium for obvious reasons.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
It's a restrike of an actual coin that's listed in the Red Book.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I would not consider this a restrike. In my Opinion Restrikes are stuck by mint made dies!
I like big gold coins.... and that is a beauty.... Cheers, RickO
Agree. This is a replica, not a restrike - from modern dies, not from original dies.
I'm trying to make out the name on the bust truncation; T.Gruner? Bruner?
I've been looking for a 9/11 piece. I've only ever seen photos of one and none for sale.
This was made from new dies by Ron Landis who used a pantograph tracing tool on the original dies owned by the California Historical Society. A pantograph was used due to the age and value of the original dies. It is a transfer die of a sort but not the strike transfer traditionally used with new hubs and master dies.
I also love collecting dies and here are the dies for the above from HA which I missed seeing when they were offered. For whoever owns this, it would be great to make some copper and silver restrikes with the cancelled dies.
I agree that this is not a restrike, but restrikes can be made from non-Mint dies.
Regarding the definition of restrike, while this wasn't struck from original dies, it seems the "hobby" uses the term restrike for these pieces, including PCGS, NGC, HA , etc. In addition to these, this term is used for the Bashlow Confederate / CSA cents, Scovill New Haven Fugios and modern day Paris Mint Libertas Americana medals.
Is there a way to get PCGS, NGC, HA, etc. to stop calling these restrikes? Would the ANA need to be involved in creating a definition everyone used?
I am sorry, but using "restrike" in this instance is simply a marketing tool to lure the credulous, not numismatically accurate. Comparing this to what the Paris Mint does with older medals is inaccurate too, as the Paris Mint has some kind of very long historic continuity as an institution and it has quite a bit of the historic dies, machinery, tooling, etc. in its vaults.
This is an item most dealers would buy way back of melt. This replica screams "melt me"!!! Wondering how many 70s exist is a pointless exercise for a piece of bullion scrap.
The definition mentioned by others and yourself above refers to original and modern dies. You wrote that modern dies means replica. Since the Paris Mint uses modern dies, are you saying your definition is flexible based on who is doing the striking, not how the striking is done?
We are on the PCGS boards and they are the ones providing the grades, so it seems like the proper place to wonder.
And what they did with some of the S.S. Central America gold bars was simply barbaric.
The thing you posted is not a restrike. Replica would be a better word, but not one that would make it easier to separate people from their money. So the original projectors search for a more comfortable, but deceptive word.
The Paris Mint has retooled older medal dies for many reasons. Many original medal dies from the reign of Louis XIV were first redone simply so that all the medals would exist in a uniform size. After those dies were 150 to 200 years old, they were redone so as not to totally destroy the older dies and also to take advantages of the improved technology since the originals were made. The older dies themselves had become historic artifacts. And yes, some of the newer Paris Mint stuff is borderline "melt me" stuff, although it is not marketed that way.
There is all kinds of attractive borderline coin stuff, but keep your head in straight and put your hand over your wallet.
This piece also used older (146 years old) dies which have become historic artifacts. The original dies were available and used in a physical way to create new dies using a pantograph by engraver, Ron Landis. This is the same was what you wrote, "they were redone so as not to totally destroy the older dies and also to take advantages of the improved technology since the originals were made." Do you know if the Paris Mint transferred the image from the old dies in any physical way, e.g. using a pantograph, or if the modern dies had no physical connection with the old dies?
Regarding marketing, I agree there is some marketing aspect to this but think it also applies to the Paris Mint. The Paris Mint would need to do something different for me to think of them differently. I did ask above how the usage of the word "restrike" could be changed from how PCGS, NGC, HA, and others use the term. The PNG created a definition for doctoring so would a similar effort be needed for restrike?
If the people wanting to sell this gold had taken the original dies (even with the cut cancels), set the dies up in a vintage coin press and used them at something approximating the original pressure, restrike would be the correct term. That didn't happen.
I would also point out that this piece has at least two phrases of commemorative verbiage on the reverse, which clearly sets it apart from being a strict restrike. I'm glad they included the extra words, but again restrike isn't the right term.
That also didn't happen for the modern Paris Mint medals but you seem to give those a pass. Can you agree restrike is also not the correct term for the modern Paris Mint medals?
Yes, that helps to avoid confusion. From what I've seen, some, but not all, of the Paris Mint modern medals also have additional verbiage, but much smaller.
I think that most interested parties consider the 19th Century (and 20th Century) Paris Mint strikings of the Louis XIV medals to be 'copies'. Kind in the vein of grandchildren or great-grandchildren. The money involved in accumulating these French copies is typically low. Also, there are generally lots of restrikes and copies in French numismatics/ collecting, compared to American numismatics/ collecting. You are trying to grasp at/ compare apples and oranges just because a lot of people are skeptical about your replica piece.
I just looked and the Redbook mentions the original piece in this thread as a "Commemorative Restrike". The piece is not illustrated (thankfully) and the brief mention could be interpreted as precautionary.
I prefer consistently applied definitions which I don't think is grasping. Definitions are hard to agree on when applied inconsistently which you seem to be okay with. The definitions you posted for this piece also apply to the Paris Mint but you choose to treat them differently.
Regarding money involved in modern Paris Mint pieces, the prices are in the same range for the gold Libertas Americana pieces.
I may be the OP but I have no involvement in these pieces other than general interest. I'm somewhat surprised having a consistent definition would be controversial.
It's good that it's listed. I think it's important to document the origin of these and other pieces.
FWIW, I looked up the definition of Restrike in The International Encyclopedic Dictionary of Numismatics by R. Scott Carlton (Krause Publications, 1996) before I first replied and the term was not included. I have that really good white paperback European-issued Numismatic dictionary too, but it is not at my fingertips.
It is true that I remember when this abomination was first uttered. Didn't like it then, don't like it now.
Most dealers would buy mint state Saints at "way back of melt" given the opportunity.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Should I have included or "Mint Authorized"?> @CaptHenway said:
I agree, but the collector market for bars of gold that weigh dozens of pounds instead of ounces.
.
.
After clicking the PCGS CERT VERIFICATION link in your post, it has the "View this coin in PCGS CoinFacts" link leading to some interesting population info. Looks like 43 total in all grades according to the pop report.
It shows only one in MS-70. Also shows one in Poor-1, which if not a mistake, would be an interesting pocket piece to see.
In my opinion, it would be more accurate to call it a commemorative replica based on original dies. CoinFacts does not have any other explanatory info for the Proof or Unc issues. Seems like it would be useful for them to post it there since they do slab them. There has been some detailed info in various auction descriptions at times.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Great info on the pops @WinLoseWin. I forgot to check that! I agree the PO-01 would be amazing to see.
CoinFacts has photos of four 69s and one 63. Interestingly, the 63 has the most yellow gold color:
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/CoinImages.aspx?s=10235
I agree there are ways this can be more clear. I wonder why PCGS, NGC, HA, the Red Book, and others call these and others restrikes. If there is a desire to change this terminology, it seems like it should start with the ANA or some other group. Anyone know someone that can spearhead this change, possibly at the ANA?
I had one, but sold it when gold was $1700.
The bust is signed "F. Gruner" for Frederick Gruner, a die sinker and jeweler in San Francisco.
I must point out here a distinction that has not been mentioned as yet. All of the various Paris Mint creations that have been commented on are some generation or iteration of a MEDAL, whereas the original 1855 Kellogg slug is a COIN. Medals, are intrinsically commemorative in nature, as their genesis developed from the intent to commemorate something. Coins, however, originally were generated to provide a medium for financial exchange.
The very first Medals authorized by the United States, as approved by the Continental Congress, were there Comitia Americana medals. The first authorized was to commemorate General George Washington's victory in siege of Boston in March 1776. French Engraver Pierre-Simon-Benjamin Duvivier executed the design, and the Paris Mint struck the medals. Here is an example struck from the "Original" Dies:
Here's a close-up of the engraver's name and location of striking:
Now, what about this one?
Or this one?
All three of these were struck from official Mint dies, but they were different sets of dies, created at different times, and the latter two use a different font on the legends. Are the later ones "restrikes," or are they just different die varieties? FWIW, in the world of medal collectors, these later pieces are labeled as first, second, third (or whatever iteration) "restrikes."
The fifty dollar slug (that this replica is based upon) was issued by a private entity and I'm thinking that the term "coin" isn't entirely accurate. The United States Mint at San Francisco was up and running when the original 50 dollar slug was uttered (in very limited quantities).
The inscription under the Libertas Americana medal denotes that the engraver was a (proud) Parisian, not that the medal itself was minted there.
Good information @cardinal
It's interesting that medal collectors use the term restrike for pieces struck from entirely different dies while some coin collectors seem to have an issue with that usage, even when a transfer die is used. I say some coin collectors, because PCGS, NGC, HA, and the Red Book don't have an issue and use the term restrike more liberally than what some prefer here.
In the coin world, it seems when an original die is used, the term restrike is acceptable regardless of who did the striking. I'm curious about this for medals as well. Using your example, the following are medals produced by the US Mint from official US Mint dies, as opposed to the Paris Mint from official Paris Mint dies. Do medal collectors also use the term restrike for these?
For medals bearing the portrait of George Washington, attributions are based on the reference book Medallic Portraits of Washington by William S. Baker, and they are assigned Baker numbers. That reference uses the terminology of "first restrike," and "second restrike," etc.
The latest reference by Neil Musante, Medallic Washington uses the terminology of "first obverse," "second obverse," "first issue," "second issue," etc.
Neither of those references include the bicentennial-era reduced-size pewter medals. They may be listed in the reference_ National Commemorative Medals of the United States Since 1873_, by William Swoger. The brass-looking Washington medal looks like a mid-20th century U.S. Mint product, and so it should appear in the reference Medals of the United States Mint, by Kenneth M. Failor & Eleonora Hayden. I do not recall whether those authors using "restrike" terminology or not.
Personally, "restrike" is used only for a piece made from original dies - not copy or transfer dies. A "replica" refers to a piece made in close imitation even if made from copy dies. (Adding the date made just confirms the replica status.) An "imitation" is made from new dies intended to present the substance of a design but it not intended to be faithful to all its details. A "novodel" is a newly created piece made from new official dies with the intent to fill gaps in some coinage sequence or to make a bit of "caviar" for some well-connected person.
Of course, if any of these resemble a legal tender (having name of issuing authority and monetary denomination) then all are counterfeits, unless compliant with HPA.
The item in question is just an expensive replica made to "catch a price" and fund a cause.
.
Hear Hear!!!
And the cause was greed.
You know @RogerB's definition means the Paris Mint pieces are replicas
I used to use a strict definition like the ones posted here. I even had several discussions on the Scovill / New Haven Restrike Fugios which didn't go anywhere as no one wanted to call them Scovill replica Fugios. Based on that and my last 10+ years here, I've realized that these opinions are not the ones that set the definitions for the hobby like the ones from PCGS, NGC, HA and the Red Book. So now I use their definition. If there's a desire to change, I'd be the first one to support an effort for change, but until then, I just go with the flow now.
Do you have some connection to these pieces beyond being a casual bystander? I ask because you seem to have a particular interest in these pieces.
I understand your choice of terminology, and that all makes sense. In my mind, as long as the collectors understand the nature of what they are being presented, that's fine. I believe the "1855" Kellogg "Comm Restrikes" came with complete details of the nature of their production, and the fact that the gold bullion that was used in striking those pieces were recovered from the sunken wreck of the S.S. Central America ship.
Now, not to be confusing, but since the U.S. Mint creates more than 10,000 die pairs to strike one-cent pieces each year, is just the first die pair the "original" dies, and all of the other dies are "close imitations" since they are separate from the "original" die pair, making the coins from those later dies pairs "replicas"? For example, original cent dies were created by the Mint in 1995, and at some point, a die was created with a doubled image. Does that make the 1955 Doubled Die Lincoln Cent a "replica" of the "original" 1955 cents? (I'm not saying that it does.)
Or, since the U.S. Mint creates all of the dies, they are all "original" dies, and only parties outside of the Mint can create something that would be deemed a replica?
Regarding Mint practices, in the old (but not too old) days there were master dies / hubs and working dies / hubs. I would consider anything struck from the initial run to be originals, typically with the working dies.
In the modern era, I believe working dies are created from scratch using laser engraving so there may no longer be such a thing as a master die or hub.
I was appalled at what they did to obtain the gold for these phoney baloney pieces. Still feel the same way years later. Totally barbaric. Besides, replica is correct, not "restrike"
.
In the 19th century, the Philadelphia Mint made officially approved restrikes from the original dies. They also made novodels of half cents so that complete proof sets could be used for diplomatic presentation and trading stock for the Mint Cabinet.
Cardinal - Yep, general collector usage is not specific, so terminology is tossed about like a Caesar ['Ky-sar"]salad. Taxay addressed this long ago in his pattern coin book, but his ideas never caught on. All mint-produced dies, used in the year on the die, are originals...used in a later year, the coins would be restrikes.
Do you collect ingots? Did you want to buy one of the ingots they used for these?
PCGS says it's a restrike on the insert and CoinFacts so the thread will stay restrike until PCGS and the hobby change.
As mentioned, in the past I carried this torch and tried to convince people to refer to the New Haven restrike Fugios as Scovill replica Fugios without success. So if someone can change this, I'll support it.
That being said, I do think this particular case and the Bashlow CSA cents need to be analyzed more than the Fugio case since these were struck using a transfer die vs. others without an original die like the Fugios and Paris Mint pieces.
Again, it is simple marketing. Perhaps the simple-minded will buy a phoney baloney restrike but balk at a replica - even if the later term is much more accurate.
It worked for you!
How did it work for me?
If you follow my posts here, you'll know I don't balk at replicas
Thank you for the clarification. THAT makes perfect sense!!
@RogerB If subsequent strikes are made using a working die made in a later year than the original, would you consider those strikes to be restrikes or replicas?
I knew that when you endorsed this sadd replica. Yours is a circular (and nonsensical) argument and World.
It's simple. I'm okay with both and can recognize the distinction. You seem to be driven by your dislike of the origin of these which I can't help.
True, I don't like the origin of these replicas, but I also feel that you have posted at least 13,000+'times too many based upon your scanty numismatic knowledge.
RE: "If subsequent strikes are made using a working die made in a later year than the original, would you consider those strikes to be restrikes or replicas?"
A post-dated working die would produce a replica since the die itself was a misrepresentation. However, it might be impossible to determine that the die and coin were made later, unless there were documentation or distinctive characteristics.
In the posted example, they are clearly replicas and documented by the issuer as such. Note also that the replica dies were altered from the originals, so they could never be called restrikes except for marketing and deceptive sales purposes. If I recall correctly, the biggest sales hook was that they were made from shipwreck gold -- essentially large gold bars that could not be sold at the profit level wanted by the owners, so this became a way to boost the gold value through a crafty gimmick. While the transfer dies were excellent, and the pieces show the workmanship to great advantage, the pieces have little more than curiosity value beyond their metal content. But --- these are just my fuddy-duddy personal opinions and of no import to the people who sell stuff and print labels.
I own one and know exactly what it is. I like it.....a lot.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......