Agree. These are mostly Period 2 pieces made for collectors, souvenir seekers, and the jewelry trade so it's not surprising many were made with proof like finishes. Also, since Period 2 coins didn't usually circulate as money, many survived in fairly high Mint State grades. I specially like those with the Indian head designs.
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
You can say what you want about dealer playing unethical games with auction results, but I will guarantee you that some of those items that "sold" at that "auction" for $5 or $6 thousand in 1980 would not bring that much in a real sale today. Unethical behavior deserves to be condemned period, not defended.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Originally posted by: SeattleSlammer I like the cameo-PL-DMPL examples quite a lot.
Agree. These are mostly Period 2 pieces made for collectors, souvenir seekers, and the jewelry trade so it's not surprising many were made with proof like finishes. Also, since Period 2 coins didn't usually circulate as money, many survived in fairly high Mint State grades. I specially like those with the Indian head designs.
There are a fair number of calfracs period 2s that are prooflike. PCGS doesn't give the prooflike designation out to calfracs but NGC does. Having said that, many calfrac bidders in auction bid a premium with prooflike designations and I feel that is in error. Also, there are a decent amount of period 1s that I have that should be designated as prooklike so bidders don't go paying a premium for prooflike calfracs without having knowledge about the BG#.
Again, Bill is am in totally agreement with you. Many calfracs auction prices were "played" with some time ago. Sometimes I feel that the telemarketers sell calfracs to not knowledgeable public for large premiums and that is just plain wrong. On the other hand, if a collector desires to become a student of the series and learn about these rare coins, there is alot of misattribution and that can lead to cherry picking. Knowledge is king! and this applies to all series.
I think one thing that could help with collectibility of these is different slab gaskets. Since the pieces are so small, a lot of the gaskets obscure a large percentage of the face near the edge. I'm not sure if it's possible to design new gaskets for these that obstruct less but they would help enjoyment of slabbed pieces IMO. Without these, TrueViews and other out-of-slab photos are the best.
Originally posted by: Zoins I think one thing that could help with collectibility of these is different slab gaskets. Since the pieces are so small, a lot of the gaskets obscure a large percentage of the face near the edge. I'm not sure if it's possible to design new gaskets for these that obstruct less but they would help enjoyment of slabbed pieces IMO. Without these, TrueViews and other out-of-slab photos are the best.
Excellent point - I will mention this to the PCGS folks at FUN.
Originally posted by: PerryHall The Breen-Gillio reference book addresses the issue of whether the Period 1 pieces actually circulated and they lay to rest any doubt that they did actually circulate. Several contemporary newspaper articles are cited including the New York Times. Also, too many surviving specimens show normal circulation wear to think otherwise.
Breen-Gillio is also an excellent reference for anyone interested in learning more about the series.
I am also convinced that period 1 circulated and i have a BG518 in VF20 (low pop).
Regarding the auction activities of the past and high water mark "prices realized" - while some of those will not come back for common material R1- R4/5 ... some of the rarer examples continue to hold value over time.
Current results at FUN will be interesting as there are several round period 1 dollars and other rare examples.
1853 Arms of California BG-435 Half Dollar Is especially good looking as well
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
Here's some comments on the California Fractionals from the 1871 Mint Report that may not have been mentioned before:
"I refer to small pieces designated as 'half dollars' and 'quarter dollars,' with some claim to be considered gold coins, as they really contain as much of that metal as is to be found in common jewelry. The pieces which began to be issued in San Francisco, in 1859, and perhaps have been coined more recently, may not have been actually pushed into circulation, but may rather have served as play-pieces or curiosities. However, they were sold at their pretended value, while in fact the half dollar, weighing six grains on an average, and about 425-thousandths fine, was worth eleven cents; the quarter dollar nearly in the same proportions, some pieces being actually worth six cents. No doubt they have been imposed upon ignorant persons as real money. Their shapes were various, some octagonal, some circular.
A similar case has recently occurred of a large issue of 'half dollars' from a private mint in Leavenworth, Kansas. On the obverse is a female head with thirteen stars, and the date 1871; on the reverse is a wreath inclosing the words, 'Half dollar, Cal.' The weight of a specimen tried here was 7.6 grains, and the fineness 520 thousandths, making a value of just seventeen cents. The case has been properly taken in hand by the judicial authorities of that district."
The pieces from Kansas sound like the pieces mentioned by Zoins in a post on page three.
Here's some comments on the California Fractionals from the 1871 Mint Report that may not have been mentioned before:
"I refer to small pieces designated as 'half dollars' and 'quarter dollars,' with some claim to be considered gold coins, as they really contain as much of that metal as is to be found in common jewelry. The pieces which began to be issued in San Francisco, in 1859, and perhaps have been coined more recently, may not have been actually pushed into circulation, but may rather have served as play-pieces or curiosities. However, they were sold at their pretended value, while in fact the half dollar, weighing six grains on an average, and about 425-thousandths fine, was worth eleven cents; the quarter dollar nearly in the same proportions, some pieces being actually worth six cents. No doubt they have been imposed upon ignorant persons as real money. Their shapes were various, some octagonal, some circular.
A similar case has recently occurred of a large issue of 'half dollars' from a private mint in Leavenworth, Kansas. On the obverse is a female head with thirteen stars, and the date 1871; on the reverse is a wreath inclosing the words, 'Half dollar, Cal.' The weight of a specimen tried here was 7.6 grains, and the fineness 520 thousandths, making a value of just seventeen cents. The case has been properly taken in hand by the judicial authorities of that district."
The pieces from Kansas sound like the pieces mentioned by Zoins in a post on page three.
That's very interesting Dave. I've always wondered about the actual gold content / value of these pieces. Has anyone done a study of the major specimens to measure their gold content vs. face value?
I would have a hard time believing the Leavenworth, Kansas specimen, underweight by 66% (17 cent gold value on 50 cent face value), would be used as currency if people avoided the Baldwin double eagles which were underweight by just 3% ($19.40 value on $20.00 face value).
Dave G: Here's some comments on the California Fractionals from the 1871 Mint Report that may not have been mentioned before: ....
The cited report is a biased source of information. Police Detectives almost never like to admit that there is sometimes a need for victims of crimes to hire private detectives to solve cases. Some U.S. Treasury Dept. officials did not want to acknowledge that private issuers were producing true coins to meet needs in commerce that were not properly and efficiently met by the U.S. Mints.
IIRC, California Fractionals were not that much underweight. Moreover, as I mention in my article, people in the SF area during the mid 1850s had to pay a PREMIUM for U.S. federal coins. It is unsurprising that money-changers and assayers elsewhere in the U.S. would often focus on the bullion value of such pieces. Nevertheless, there is almost no doubt in my mind that California Fractionals, for a while, circulated at face value in the SF area. Newspaper reports by themselves do not prove this point, though I am glad that these are cited in the BG book. I put forth logical and historical points to support this thesis in my article.
Also, Zoins, it is important to keep in mind that there was an acute shortage of coins valued at less than $5 each. In order to keep business going, merchants and other sellers would often accept coins in terms of familiar units (quarter-dollar, 50c, $1, etc.) even if the coins did not have precisely the bullion value of corresponding U.S. coins. There were then many foreign coins circulating in the SF area, which usually did not precisely correspond with U.S. coins.
Though acceptance was not unanimous, and there nasty rumors about some issuers, I really believe that pioneer gold coins circulated a face value. Consider that merchants now are willing to pay fees to credit card companies to have more sales than they would have if they did not accept credit cards, and to get transactions done quickly. In 1853, people in California did not wish to spend hours negotiating payments for each transaction. They had a motive to agree to accept widely recognized private coins at face value.
At the FUN Heritage auction they offered the most desirable Calfrac known BG-604!! - its a round dollar from period 1 and there only 2 known to exists and referred to as the holy grail. One is a PCGS 62 that was part of the Jay Roe collection and the other one was offered at FUN and it was in private hands since the late 50s. Now that its placed in private hands, I suspect that these 2 will not be offered for a really long time! The one offered at FUN was an NGC holdered coin and it is AU or mint state details but it has obverse scratches. The scratches are not that bad.It realized right where I expected it to be - $82,250. For your viewing pleasure.......
Here's the HA link to the BG-604 Waldo Newcomer specimen that sold at FUN. It looks like a gorgeous pattern graded AU details by NGC. PCGS also indicates AU details on PCGS CoinFacts. This seems reasonable given what looks like wear on the Liberty's hair braids and the eagle's breast. From the photos, it looks AU details or possibly net graded to XF to me. Love the toning on the fields.
It's interesting that HA didn't mention that this is a pattern in the description which they do for Stellas. Out of the 50 or so period 1 round pieces that survived, how many types were circulated types vs. patterns?
60 years in the last private collection? Hopefully the new owner gets some non-prong photos done, e.g. TrueView. It's nice when coins come up rarely - but more so if it's one's own collection!
Regarding the Jay Roe specimen, it was upgraded to ATS MS63 from PCGS MS62 back in 2005. Does anyone know if it's still in the ATS holder or in another holder now, e.g. PCGS?
Here's a photo of the Jay Roe specimen from Bowers Morena (via PCGS CoinFacts) where you can see more detail:
> It's interesting that HA didn't mention that this is a pattern in the description which they do for Stellas.
Well. In BG-2, pattern and regular calfracs are mixed together. In BG-2 book, many silver die trials have its own BG numbers and PCGS listed them as a completion requirement as a full set. If you study calfracs carefully, BG-604 and BG-410/411/412/413 has the same obverse design and they all were believed to be pattern coins.
> Out of the 50 or so period 1 round pieces that survived, how many are patterns or other non-circulating pieces?
I believe BG-604 is the only pattern of all period one calfracs round dollar. BG-606 (an unique one) is an MIA and without seeing it, it is hard to decide whether it is a pattern (Breen is the last documented person who saw the coin). We love to know where the lone mint state BG-607 is (does anyone have info?). The two other BG-607 are very low grade (BG-2 book only listed one since one was identified (previously mis-attributed) after 2003).
I really like the Period 1 pieces, and I have a few inexpensive ones in my own collection. And FWIW, I think that the Period 1 pieces would be worth multiples of their current levels if the Period 2 and 3 pieces did not exist.
Just read about the Period 3 pieces. Interesting that they are backdated to Period 1 dates. Given that Period 3 pieces are slabbed, I can see this requiring more research before getting into Period 1 vs. 3 types.
I really like the Period 1 pieces, and I have a few inexpensive ones in my own collection. And FWIW, I think that the Period 1 pieces would be worth multiples of their current levels if the Period 2 and 3 pieces did not exist.
Just read about the Period 3 pieces. Interesting that they are backdated to Period 1 dates. Given that Period 3 pieces are slabbed, I can see this requiring more research before getting into Period 1 vs. 3 types.
Not many folks knew what period 3 is. Some will define them as minted after 1882, some will said no denomination cal charms are period 3 and some even would say any bear in the back is period 3. We need a clearly definition first. Actually, period 3 started much early than 1882 and it is overlapped with period 2. When was the last time you saw Washington head on quarter charm? The obverse used the same dies as BG-722-724 but reverse is different without denomination.
The Jay Roe's period 3 and charms did not went to auction in 2003 and were all purchased by a researcher. I wish he has time to publish a book about period 3 (of course, after I acquire most of key pieces )
I really like the Period 1 pieces, and I have a few inexpensive ones in my own collection. And FWIW, I think that the Period 1 pieces would be worth multiples of their current levels if the Period 2 and 3 pieces did not exist.
Just read about the Period 3 pieces. Interesting that they are backdated to Period 1 dates. Given that Period 3 pieces are slabbed, I can see this requiring more research before getting into Period 1 vs. 3 types.
Not many folks knew what period 3 is. Some will define them as minted after 1882, some will said no denomination cal charms are period 3 and some even would say any bear in the back is period 3. We need a clearly definition first. Actually, period 3 started much early than 1882 and it is overlapped with period 2. When was the last time you saw Washington head on quarter charm? The obverse used the same dies as BG-722-724 but reverse is different without denomination.
The Jay Roe's period 3 and charms did not went to auction in 2003 and were all purchased by a researcher. I wish he has time to publish a book about period 3 (of course, after I acquire most of key pieces )
Max Spiegel of ATS, who slab Period 3 pieces, has what looks like a good discussion on Period 3 pieces. Some that are back-dated with denominations include:
[ Easton: At the FUN Heritage auction they offered the most desirable Calfrac known BG-604!! - its a round dollar from period 1 and there only 2 known to exists and referred to as the holy grail. One is a PCGS 62 that was part of the Jay Roe collection and the other one was offered at FUN and it was in private hands since the late 50s. Now that its placed in private hands, I suspect that these 2 will not be offered for a really long time! The one offered at FUN was an NGC holdered coin and it is AU or mint state details but it has obverse scratches. The scratches are not that bad.It realized right where I expected it to be - $82,250.
Why was it not expected to bring more than $82,250? All First Period $1 Rounds are so extremely rare! The total known for all varieties, BG 60X series, must be small. To the best of my recollection at the moment (and I am tired), the BG-604 is the only $1 Round with an Eagle motif in the reverse design. If so, there are just two known of a whole subtype?
Zoins: It's interesting that HA didn't mention that this is a pattern in the description which they do for Stellas. Out of the 50 or so period 1 round pieces that survived, how many types were circulated types vs. patterns? <<br>
JCping: Well. In BG-2, pattern and regular calfracs are mixed together. In BG-2 book, many silver die trials have its own BG numbers and PCGS listed them as a completion requirement as a full set. If you study calfracs carefully, BG-604 and BG-410/411/412/413 has the same obverse design and they all were believed to be pattern coins.
Indeed, this topic is interesting. Logically, an obverse that is used for patterns can also be used for regular issues. If the BG-604 pieces are patterns, then their pattern status might directly relate to a fair answer to the question that I just asked above. All other factors being equal, regular issues tend to be worth far more than patterns. In any event, why are the varieties cited by JCping thought to be patterns?
Would jewelers in the SF area really have undergone a planning and approval process before deciding on designs for regular issues? The gold rush was raging and there was an urgent need for 25c, 50c and $1 coins.
Indeed, this topic is interesting. Logically, an obverse that is used for patterns can also be used for regular issues. If the BG-604 pieces are patterns, then their pattern status might directly relate to a fair answer to the question that I just asked above. All other factors being equal, regular issues tend to be worth far more than patterns. In any event, why are the varieties cited by JCping thought to be patterns?
Would jewelers in the SF area really have undergone a planning and approval process before deciding on designs for regular issues? The gold rush was raging and there was an urgent need for 25c, 50c and $1 coins.
BG-604 was made for a New York City jeweler, Gaime, Guillemot & Co. (hence the "G.G." initials on the obverse). It was struck by Frontier, Deviercy & Co. in SF but they presumably would need review and approval from Gaime, Guillemot & Co. in NYC for any final design.
Actually - I heard one time that the 604 and the 411 and so were patterns. Any folks that mentioned that to me why they believe they are patterns - i asked why they thought so or what evidence would lead them to believe that they were patterns. About 10 years ago, i asked Jack Totheroh (expert in calfracs) and he did not know of any solid evidence on that fact.
At this time, i can't confirm or agree that the 604 is a pattern. I do agree that there are alot of good arguments that they are patterns.
> In any event, why are the varieties cited by JCping thought to be patterns?
> Would jewelers in the SF area really have undergone a planning and approval process
BG-604, 410, 411, 412, 413 had GG (Gaime, Guillemot & Co.) mint mark on them, so were 217, 218, 219 and 414. Based on BG-2 book, these coins were made by Frontier, Deviercy & Co. for them. All these coins were dated 1853 and other than 414, all these coins were R7 or rarer. Very likely, these coins were pattern coins for approval purpose.
Of course, I could be wrong. These coins could be for store card purpose where store card was popular at the time. Will coin collectors consider all Calfracs on store cards were patterns?
Comments
I like the cameo-PL-DMPL examples quite a lot.
Agree. These are mostly Period 2 pieces made for collectors, souvenir seekers, and the jewelry trade so it's not surprising many were made with proof like finishes. Also, since Period 2 coins didn't usually circulate as money, many survived in fairly high Mint State grades. I specially like those with the Indian head designs.
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 like the cameo-PL-DMPL examples quite a lot.
Agree. These are mostly Period 2 pieces made for collectors, souvenir seekers, and the jewelry trade so it's not surprising many were made with proof like finishes. Also, since Period 2 coins didn't usually circulate as money, many survived in fairly high Mint State grades. I specially like those with the Indian head designs.
There are a fair number of calfracs period 2s that are prooflike. PCGS doesn't give the prooflike designation out to calfracs but NGC does. Having said that, many calfrac bidders in auction bid a premium with prooflike designations and I feel that is in error. Also, there are a decent amount of period 1s that I have that should be designated as prooklike so bidders don't go paying a premium for prooflike calfracs without having knowledge about the BG#.
On the other hand, if a collector desires to become a student of the series and learn about these rare coins, there is alot of misattribution and that can lead to cherry picking.
Knowledge is king! and this applies to all series.
I think one thing that could help with collectibility of these is different slab gaskets. Since the pieces are so small, a lot of the gaskets obscure a large percentage of the face near the edge. I'm not sure if it's possible to design new gaskets for these that obstruct less but they would help enjoyment of slabbed pieces IMO. Without these, TrueViews and other out-of-slab photos are the best.
Excellent point - I will mention this to the PCGS folks at FUN.
The Breen-Gillio reference book addresses the issue of whether the Period 1 pieces actually circulated and they lay to rest any doubt that they did actually circulate. Several contemporary newspaper articles are cited including the New York Times. Also, too many surviving specimens show normal circulation wear to think otherwise.
Breen-Gillio is also an excellent reference for anyone interested in learning more about the series.
I am also convinced that period 1 circulated and i have a BG518 in VF20 (low pop).
Regarding the auction activities of the past and high water mark "prices realized" - while some of those will not come back for common material R1- R4/5 ... some of the rarer examples continue to hold value over time.
Current results at FUN will be interesting as there are several round period 1 dollars and other rare examples.
It's all in the quest !
Top 10 Cal Fractional Type Set
successful BST with Ankurj, BigAl, Bullsitter, CommemKing, DCW(7), Downtown1974, Elmerfusterpuck, Joelewis, Mach1ne, Minuteman810430, Modcrewman, Nankraut, Nederveit2, Philographer(5), Proofcollection, Realgator, Silverpop, SurfinxHI, TomB and Yorkshireman(3)
1853 Arms of California BG-435 Half Dollar Is especially good looking as well
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......
I love the one dollar in round. Sexy
1853 Arms of California BG-435 Half Dollar Is especially good looking as well
mark
Agreed. I believe 2 are offered at FUN this year.
Top 10 Cal Fractional Type Set
successful BST with Ankurj, BigAl, Bullsitter, CommemKing, DCW(7), Downtown1974, Elmerfusterpuck, Joelewis, Mach1ne, Minuteman810430, Modcrewman, Nankraut, Nederveit2, Philographer(5), Proofcollection, Realgator, Silverpop, SurfinxHI, TomB and Yorkshireman(3)
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
bob
"I refer to small pieces designated as 'half dollars' and 'quarter dollars,' with some claim to be considered gold coins, as they really contain as much of that metal as is to be found in common jewelry. The pieces which began to be issued in San Francisco, in 1859, and perhaps have been coined more recently, may not have been actually pushed into circulation, but may rather have served as play-pieces or curiosities. However, they were sold at their pretended value, while in fact the half dollar, weighing six grains on an average, and about 425-thousandths fine, was worth eleven cents; the quarter dollar nearly in the same proportions, some pieces being actually worth six cents. No doubt they have been imposed upon ignorant persons as real money. Their shapes were various, some octagonal, some circular.
A similar case has recently occurred of a large issue of 'half dollars' from a private mint in Leavenworth, Kansas. On the obverse is a female head with thirteen stars, and the date 1871; on the reverse is a wreath inclosing the words, 'Half dollar, Cal.' The weight of a specimen tried here was 7.6 grains, and the fineness 520 thousandths, making a value of just seventeen cents. The case has been properly taken in hand by the judicial authorities of that district."
The pieces from Kansas sound like the pieces mentioned by Zoins in a post on page three.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
Here's some comments on the California Fractionals from the 1871 Mint Report that may not have been mentioned before:
"I refer to small pieces designated as 'half dollars' and 'quarter dollars,' with some claim to be considered gold coins, as they really contain as much of that metal as is to be found in common jewelry. The pieces which began to be issued in San Francisco, in 1859, and perhaps have been coined more recently, may not have been actually pushed into circulation, but may rather have served as play-pieces or curiosities. However, they were sold at their pretended value, while in fact the half dollar, weighing six grains on an average, and about 425-thousandths fine, was worth eleven cents; the quarter dollar nearly in the same proportions, some pieces being actually worth six cents. No doubt they have been imposed upon ignorant persons as real money. Their shapes were various, some octagonal, some circular.
A similar case has recently occurred of a large issue of 'half dollars' from a private mint in Leavenworth, Kansas. On the obverse is a female head with thirteen stars, and the date 1871; on the reverse is a wreath inclosing the words, 'Half dollar, Cal.' The weight of a specimen tried here was 7.6 grains, and the fineness 520 thousandths, making a value of just seventeen cents. The case has been properly taken in hand by the judicial authorities of that district."
The pieces from Kansas sound like the pieces mentioned by Zoins in a post on page three.
That's very interesting Dave. I've always wondered about the actual gold content / value of these pieces. Has anyone done a study of the major specimens to measure their gold content vs. face value?
I would have a hard time believing the Leavenworth, Kansas specimen, underweight by 66% (17 cent gold value on 50 cent face value), would be used as currency if people avoided the Baldwin double eagles which were underweight by just 3% ($19.40 value on $20.00 face value).
Dave G:
The cited is a biased source of information. Police Detectives almost never like to admit that there is sometimes a need for victims of crimes to hire private detectives to solve cases. Some U.S. Treasury Dept. officials did not want to acknowledge that private issuers were producing true coins to meet needs in commerce that were not properly and efficiently met by the U.S. Mints.
IIRC, California Fractionals were not that much underweight. Moreover, as I mention in my article, people in the SF area during the mid 1850s had to pay a PREMIUM for U.S. federal coins. It is unsurprising that money-changers and assayers elsewhere in the U.S. would often focus on the bullion value of such pieces. Nevertheless, there is almost no doubt in my mind that California Fractionals, for a while, circulated at face value in the SF area. Newspaper reports by themselves do not prove this point, though I am glad that these are cited in the BG book. I put forth logical and historical points to support this thesis in my article.
Also, Zoins, it is important to keep in mind that there was an acute shortage of coins valued at less than $5 each. In order to keep business going, merchants and other sellers would often accept coins in terms of familiar units (quarter-dollar, 50c, $1, etc.) even if the coins did not have precisely the bullion value of corresponding U.S. coins. There were then many foreign coins circulating in the SF area, which usually did not precisely correspond with U.S. coins.
Though acceptance was not unanimous, and there nasty rumors about some issuers, I really believe that pioneer gold coins circulated a face value. Consider that merchants now are willing to pay fees to credit card companies to have more sales than they would have if they did not accept credit cards, and to get transactions done quickly. In 1853, people in California did not wish to spend hours negotiating payments for each transaction. They had a motive to agree to accept widely recognized private coins at face value.
Coin Collecting Strategies – $1, 50¢ and 25¢ Gold Pieces of the 1850s – California Fractionals
It's interesting that HA didn't mention that this is a pattern in the description which they do for Stellas. Out of the 50 or so period 1 round pieces that survived, how many types were circulated types vs. patterns?
60 years in the last private collection? Hopefully the new owner gets some non-prong photos done, e.g. TrueView. It's nice when coins come up rarely - but more so if it's one's own collection!
Regarding the Jay Roe specimen, it was upgraded to ATS MS63 from PCGS MS62 back in 2005. Does anyone know if it's still in the ATS holder or in another holder now, e.g. PCGS?
Here's a photo of the Jay Roe specimen from Bowers Morena (via PCGS CoinFacts) where you can see more detail:
Well. In BG-2, pattern and regular calfracs are mixed together. In BG-2 book, many silver die trials have its own BG numbers and PCGS listed them as a completion requirement as a full set. If you study calfracs carefully, BG-604 and BG-410/411/412/413 has the same obverse design and they all were believed to be pattern coins.
> Out of the 50 or so period 1 round pieces that survived, how many are patterns or other non-circulating pieces?
I believe BG-604 is the only pattern of all period one calfracs round dollar. BG-606 (an unique one) is an MIA and without seeing it, it is hard to decide whether it is a pattern (Breen is the last documented person who saw the coin). We love to know where the lone mint state BG-607 is (does anyone have info?). The two other BG-607 are very low grade (BG-2 book only listed one since one was identified (previously mis-attributed) after 2003).
Two words....thin market!
Is that a bad thing?
I really like the Period 1 pieces, and I have a few inexpensive ones in my own collection. And FWIW, I think that the Period 1 pieces would be worth multiples of their current levels if the Period 2 and 3 pieces did not exist.
Just read about the Period 3 pieces. Interesting that they are backdated to Period 1 dates. Given that Period 3 pieces are slabbed, I can see this requiring more research before getting into Period 1 vs. 3 types.
Two words....thin market!
Is that a bad thing?
I really like the Period 1 pieces, and I have a few inexpensive ones in my own collection. And FWIW, I think that the Period 1 pieces would be worth multiples of their current levels if the Period 2 and 3 pieces did not exist.
Just read about the Period 3 pieces. Interesting that they are backdated to Period 1 dates. Given that Period 3 pieces are slabbed, I can see this requiring more research before getting into Period 1 vs. 3 types.
Not many folks knew what period 3 is. Some will define them as minted after 1882, some will said no denomination cal charms are period 3 and some even would say any bear in the back is period 3. We need a clearly definition first. Actually, period 3 started much early than 1882 and it is overlapped with period 2. When was the last time you saw Washington head on quarter charm? The obverse used the same dies as BG-722-724 but reverse is different without denomination.
The Jay Roe's period 3 and charms did not went to auction in 2003 and were all purchased by a researcher. I wish he has time to publish a book about period 3 (of course, after I acquire most of key pieces
Two words....thin market!
Is that a bad thing?
I really like the Period 1 pieces, and I have a few inexpensive ones in my own collection. And FWIW, I think that the Period 1 pieces would be worth multiples of their current levels if the Period 2 and 3 pieces did not exist.
Just read about the Period 3 pieces. Interesting that they are backdated to Period 1 dates. Given that Period 3 pieces are slabbed, I can see this requiring more research before getting into Period 1 vs. 3 types.
Not many folks knew what period 3 is. Some will define them as minted after 1882, some will said no denomination cal charms are period 3 and some even would say any bear in the back is period 3. We need a clearly definition first. Actually, period 3 started much early than 1882 and it is overlapped with period 2. When was the last time you saw Washington head on quarter charm? The obverse used the same dies as BG-722-724 but reverse is different without denomination.
The Jay Roe's period 3 and charms did not went to auction in 2003 and were all purchased by a researcher. I wish he has time to publish a book about period 3 (of course, after I acquire most of key pieces
Max Spiegel of ATS, who slab Period 3 pieces, has what looks like a good discussion on Period 3 pieces. Some that are back-dated with denominations include:
BG-1307A: Period 3 1863 back-dated dollar
BG-1304A: Period 3 1854 back-dated half dollar
BG-1301A: Period 3 1857 back-dated quarter dollar
Easton:
Why was it not expected to bring more than $82,250? All First Period $1 Rounds are so extremely rare! The total known for all varieties, BG 60X series, must be small. To the best of my recollection at the moment (and I am tired), the BG-604 is the only $1 Round with an Eagle motif in the reverse design. If so, there are just two known of a whole subtype?
Zoins: <<br>
JCping:
Indeed, this topic is interesting. Logically, an obverse that is used for patterns can also be used for regular issues. If the BG-604 pieces are patterns, then their pattern status might directly relate to a fair answer to the question that I just asked above. All other factors being equal, regular issues tend to be worth far more than patterns. In any event, why are the varieties cited by JCping thought to be patterns?
Would jewelers in the SF area really have undergone a planning and approval process before deciding on designs for regular issues? The gold rush was raging and there was an urgent need for 25c, 50c and $1 coins.
Coin Collecting Strategies – $1, 50¢ and 25¢ Gold Pieces of the 1850s – California Fractionals
insightful10@gmail.com
Indeed, this topic is interesting. Logically, an obverse that is used for patterns can also be used for regular issues. If the BG-604 pieces are patterns, then their pattern status might directly relate to a fair answer to the question that I just asked above. All other factors being equal, regular issues tend to be worth far more than patterns. In any event, why are the varieties cited by JCping thought to be patterns?
Would jewelers in the SF area really have undergone a planning and approval process before deciding on designs for regular issues? The gold rush was raging and there was an urgent need for 25c, 50c and $1 coins.
BG-604 was made for a New York City jeweler, Gaime, Guillemot & Co. (hence the "G.G." initials on the obverse). It was struck by Frontier, Deviercy & Co. in SF but they presumably would need review and approval from Gaime, Guillemot & Co. in NYC for any final design.
At this time, i can't confirm or agree that the 604 is a pattern. I do agree that there are alot of good arguments that they are patterns.
> Would jewelers in the SF area really have undergone a planning and approval process
BG-604, 410, 411, 412, 413 had GG (Gaime, Guillemot & Co.) mint mark on them, so were 217, 218, 219 and 414. Based on BG-2 book, these coins were made by Frontier, Deviercy & Co. for them. All these coins were dated 1853 and other than 414, all these coins were R7 or rarer. Very likely, these coins were pattern coins for approval purpose.
Of course, I could be wrong. These coins could be for store card purpose where store card was popular at the time. Will coin collectors consider all Calfracs on store cards were patterns?