new 1894-S dime book, a mystery unraveled
kevinj
Posts: 989 ✭✭✭
The 1894-S dime book titled “The 1894-S Dime, A Mystery Unraveled” by Kevin Flynn is now at the printers and will be available January 22, 2006.
Over a hundred years ago, only 24 dimes were struck at the San Francisco Mint for the year 1894, making them the lowest denomination regular-issue business strike for a United States Mint. Why were only 24 struck, who received them, what part of the year were they struck, who at the Mint knew about them being struck, were they released into circulation, how many dime dies were sent to San Francisco in 1894, who ordered them struck, when did the numismatic community know about these coins, and what factors determined when coins were struck at a Mint? These are only some of the questions behind one of the greatest mysteries in U.S. coins.
Today, there are only nine specimens known, two of which are in very low circulated grades. The two best specimens have recently sold for more than one million dollars each. The 1894-S dime is considered one of the top five coins for all U.S. series. Yet, how much is truly known about these rare and elusive treasures. Over the past 111 years since these coins were created, the numismatic community has propounded several theories and stories surrounding the circumstances and why people believed they were struck and how they left the San Francisco Mint.
What if almost everything the numismatic community believed about these coins for the past 111 years was incorrect? What if the truth as to why they were struck was hidden right under our noses all this time? What if there were different pieces to the puzzle that had to be used together to solve the mystery? What would it take to refute the current beliefs? What evidence could be found after 111 years that has not already been discovered? Letters from the individuals who were involved with the 1894-S dime would be a great place to learn why they were made and the circumstances around their creation. The National Archives provided the key to unraveling this story. The National Archives in Philadelphia provided some help, but the primary evidence was found at the National Archives in San Bruno, CA. These were the San Francisco Mint records from this period. From these records, most of the picture took form, the gaps closed, the mystery became unraveled.
Part of the answer came from different individuals from different time periods. Farran Zebre's 1928 Numismatist Article was an important element, as was the 1951 Numismatic Scrapbook article that stated a Ukiah woman sold two of the 1894-S dimes. There were even pieces of the puzzle provided by individuals today, such as one person who was with Guy Chapman when Earl Parker showed him the two 1894-S dimes. One individual was even good friends with Leslie Daggett and knew Hallie.
The initial objective of this book was to collect all known information on the 1894-S dimes. All articles, stories, references, auction descriptions, Mint reports, or any other type of information was collected. This information is listed in the second half of the book. From these references, the theories were analyzed with the known evidence. Then a list of questions was generated of all the unknowns, unanswered, assumptions, alleged facts, and anything that needed to be answered regarding the 1894-S dime, such as whether these coins were struck as proofs. This list was several pages long. The National Archives in Philadelphia and San Bruno were visited. Because it was not known where evidence might be found, all documents from September, 1893 through July, 1895 were examined. This encompassed thousands of documents and records. Some unexpected evidence was found, such as when the Assay Department records from San Francisco were examined, it was discovered that John Daggett's son, Ben, worked in the Assay Department in 1894. Most of the important documents came from the official general correspondence at San Bruno.
The archive documents were then analyzed, categorized by subject, and copied into the book. From these documents, a better picture was provided as to the circumstances surrounding the San Francisco Mint in 1894 and the 1894-S dime. Answers were found to many of the underlying questions. As seen in this book, the answers will surprise you, but the facts and documents speak for themselves.
Learn what drove coin production at the San Francisco Mint in 1894. Why certain coins were not struck. When and how many 1894-S dimes obv/rev working dies were prepared by the Philadelphia Mint. What day the 1894-S dimes were struck. What day and how many 1894-S dimes were assayed. Why the 1894-S dimes were not struck as proofs. Why the 1894-S dimes were struck. What collectors were told by the Mint in 1894 and 1895. That the source of Earl Parker’s two specimens was not Hallie Daggett. That John Daggett was most likely not the individual who ordered the 1894-S dimes struck. Who was Farran Zebre’s source at the Mint for his 1928 article. All of this and much, much more
This is Kevin Flynn’s 26th book. As will be seen in this book, what differentiates Mr. Flynn from other authors is his research, both at the National Archives, and his general ability to focus and research an issue. The passion, fullfilment, motivation to uncover the truth, the desire to share and teach others what he has learned is his main driving factor. This book is his legacy.
Only 500 softcover and 24 hardcovers were printed. Softcover is $32.95, hardcover is $90.00, plus $5.00 for postage for all orders. To reserve a copy, send a check or money order to Kevin Flynn, P.O. Box 538, Rancocas, NJ 08073, or email at kevinj50@comcast.net.
Over a hundred years ago, only 24 dimes were struck at the San Francisco Mint for the year 1894, making them the lowest denomination regular-issue business strike for a United States Mint. Why were only 24 struck, who received them, what part of the year were they struck, who at the Mint knew about them being struck, were they released into circulation, how many dime dies were sent to San Francisco in 1894, who ordered them struck, when did the numismatic community know about these coins, and what factors determined when coins were struck at a Mint? These are only some of the questions behind one of the greatest mysteries in U.S. coins.
Today, there are only nine specimens known, two of which are in very low circulated grades. The two best specimens have recently sold for more than one million dollars each. The 1894-S dime is considered one of the top five coins for all U.S. series. Yet, how much is truly known about these rare and elusive treasures. Over the past 111 years since these coins were created, the numismatic community has propounded several theories and stories surrounding the circumstances and why people believed they were struck and how they left the San Francisco Mint.
What if almost everything the numismatic community believed about these coins for the past 111 years was incorrect? What if the truth as to why they were struck was hidden right under our noses all this time? What if there were different pieces to the puzzle that had to be used together to solve the mystery? What would it take to refute the current beliefs? What evidence could be found after 111 years that has not already been discovered? Letters from the individuals who were involved with the 1894-S dime would be a great place to learn why they were made and the circumstances around their creation. The National Archives provided the key to unraveling this story. The National Archives in Philadelphia provided some help, but the primary evidence was found at the National Archives in San Bruno, CA. These were the San Francisco Mint records from this period. From these records, most of the picture took form, the gaps closed, the mystery became unraveled.
Part of the answer came from different individuals from different time periods. Farran Zebre's 1928 Numismatist Article was an important element, as was the 1951 Numismatic Scrapbook article that stated a Ukiah woman sold two of the 1894-S dimes. There were even pieces of the puzzle provided by individuals today, such as one person who was with Guy Chapman when Earl Parker showed him the two 1894-S dimes. One individual was even good friends with Leslie Daggett and knew Hallie.
The initial objective of this book was to collect all known information on the 1894-S dimes. All articles, stories, references, auction descriptions, Mint reports, or any other type of information was collected. This information is listed in the second half of the book. From these references, the theories were analyzed with the known evidence. Then a list of questions was generated of all the unknowns, unanswered, assumptions, alleged facts, and anything that needed to be answered regarding the 1894-S dime, such as whether these coins were struck as proofs. This list was several pages long. The National Archives in Philadelphia and San Bruno were visited. Because it was not known where evidence might be found, all documents from September, 1893 through July, 1895 were examined. This encompassed thousands of documents and records. Some unexpected evidence was found, such as when the Assay Department records from San Francisco were examined, it was discovered that John Daggett's son, Ben, worked in the Assay Department in 1894. Most of the important documents came from the official general correspondence at San Bruno.
The archive documents were then analyzed, categorized by subject, and copied into the book. From these documents, a better picture was provided as to the circumstances surrounding the San Francisco Mint in 1894 and the 1894-S dime. Answers were found to many of the underlying questions. As seen in this book, the answers will surprise you, but the facts and documents speak for themselves.
Learn what drove coin production at the San Francisco Mint in 1894. Why certain coins were not struck. When and how many 1894-S dimes obv/rev working dies were prepared by the Philadelphia Mint. What day the 1894-S dimes were struck. What day and how many 1894-S dimes were assayed. Why the 1894-S dimes were not struck as proofs. Why the 1894-S dimes were struck. What collectors were told by the Mint in 1894 and 1895. That the source of Earl Parker’s two specimens was not Hallie Daggett. That John Daggett was most likely not the individual who ordered the 1894-S dimes struck. Who was Farran Zebre’s source at the Mint for his 1928 article. All of this and much, much more
This is Kevin Flynn’s 26th book. As will be seen in this book, what differentiates Mr. Flynn from other authors is his research, both at the National Archives, and his general ability to focus and research an issue. The passion, fullfilment, motivation to uncover the truth, the desire to share and teach others what he has learned is his main driving factor. This book is his legacy.
Only 500 softcover and 24 hardcovers were printed. Softcover is $32.95, hardcover is $90.00, plus $5.00 for postage for all orders. To reserve a copy, send a check or money order to Kevin Flynn, P.O. Box 538, Rancocas, NJ 08073, or email at kevinj50@comcast.net.
Kevin J Flynn
3
Comments
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
My Proof Roosevelt dimes 1965-present
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Awhile back,Kevin's write-up promoting his book “The 1894-S Dime, A Mystery Unraveled.” Well-written books do have a way of enduring. Kudos to Kevin,eleven years after.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.---Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, 1801-1809. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
Messages sent to reverve a copy.
Anyone else reveive this mail daemon failure?
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.
kevinj50@comcast.net:
Remote host said:
550 5.1.1 Not our Customer
Kevin, please reserve a hardbound copy and verify to me PM if still available.
Lanlord it may not be possible to reserve a copy with Kevin as his email address from 11 years ago may no longer exist.Just my two cents worth. Very limited edition book,i wish i had a copy.i'm sure the scholarship is top-notch.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.---Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, 1801-1809. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
Wow ... who revived this ancient (2005) post and why? This could make for a book in itself. My, and Hallie Daggett's ice cream cones have long since melted!
Well, I guess I'm not getting a book then huh?
I didn't even notice this was a 2005 origional thread! Doh!
2 copies used on Amazon now for $125 each
Sorry Lanbord.i've not noticed date of OP on occasion either. 291fifth,i have been interested in 1894-S dimes practically my whole life. The story of the 1894-S dime is amazing.
luvcoins123 thanks for information about copies. $125 would be the most,by a good ways,than I've ever spent on a book.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.---Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, 1801-1809. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
One of my favorite books that I have written
Sorry about the changed email, my email is kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
I believe I have 10 hard bounds left of the 1894-S dime, it is a second edition hard bound.
After I did the first edition hard bound and soft cover, I learned Acting Superintendent Robert Barnett make a
public statement about the 1894-S dime in 1895. As this information was critical, I did a second edition of the
hard cover only
The books are $100 for the hard cover, plus $5 for media or $10 for first class.
To order, send a check or money order to
Kevin Flynn
P.O. Box 936
Troy, VA 22974
Please send an email so that I know to look
Thanks
Kevin
I wish Hallie Daggett received these coins, she died penny less in 1964. John Daggett was laid up most of 1894, mint operations were run by Robert Barnett. Daggett's son, Ben worked at the SF Mint in 1894.
The story of the ice cream is from a 1951 article, most likely from Earl Parker. The article stated that it was a Ukiah, who gave his daughter the three 1894-S dimes.
The incorrect version was published in 1971 by James Johnson from a letter by Guy Chapman
Kevin
I looked in my 1959 Red Book and see $3000 listed as price for an 1894-S IN "Unc." That translates into $24,540 in 2016 dollars. My November issue of Coin World lists 1894-S "Proof only" at $1,250,000.
Question for Kevin:
Why would Coin World call 1894-S dimes "Proof only" when it is fairly clear,at least to this observer and possibly many others,that 1894-S dimes are not proof strikings? I don't know what,if anything,you have to say in your book about the manufacture of 1894-S dimes being proof or special strike or business strike since I don't yet have your book but perhaps you can share your thoughts about this here.
I would add that whatever one calls 1894-S dimes,ie. proof or special strike or business strike,it's the first coin i will seek out for my collection when I win the lottery.$1M-$2M is a bargain price in my view.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.---Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, 1801-1809. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
Yeah, I have fighting this battle for several years now.
It was first called a proof in 1945, I covered it in detail in the book
PCGS is now calling them specimen coins, they are simply early die states
24 dimes struck
5 of the dimes were assayed (proof coins are not normally assayed)
some coins were released into circulation
They were listed in the mint report and other places as coins struck for circulation
There is strike doubling on the reverse
The denticles are not fully struck
10 pair of dies sent to SF, none listed as especially prepared
Fields are satin, not mirror like
JD does not believe they are proofs, Ken Bressett does not believe they are proofs
......
They are not proofs
Kevin
I have handled two of the high grade ones (and one of the circs.) and in my opinion neither of the high grade ones qualified as a Proof. I agree with our hosts in calling them Specimen coins.
one of the basic problems, is how a proof coin is defined, especially those that have been called proofs from the branch mints, and also some patterns that have been or not been called proofs.
IMO, the greatest authority on proofs is JD, who is writing a book on all 19th century proof die marriages. I believe the
gold proof book will be out mid next year.
I am also working on a book which covers the first 100 years of the mint, and will strive to create a clear definition
of each category (proof/pattern/specimen/restrike...) as part of this book, and show how it applies to each of those controversial coins. This might become a project in itself.
In general, a coin is a proof based upon
1. The method of manufacture, which is reflective of the optimal methods available at the time they were created.
2. The intent of manufacture, what was the objective they were struck
3. The coin is authorized and approved according to those standards during that period.
These 'rules' of course may change depending on the analysis, archive records, coins themselves, and other factors.
I agree some of these general statements I make above might be arguable, but in the book I did things such as compare the 1894-S dimes to 1894 Proof dimes from Philadelphia, also to 1893-S dimes.
I know some might disagree with some of this, please wait until I am done my analysis and present my definition in this forum.
Thanks
Kevin
Mint records are on pages 69 through 74 in the book, Acting Director Robert Barnett's statement is on page 64
Of the 24, 5 were assayed, 10 are known today, of these 2 are highly circulated.
On assay, there are no records of 19th century proof coins assayed. If the intent was to strike these coins as proofs for presentation, why would you assay. Of course it is possible, but I believe improbable.
On striking, one of the clear definitions of a proof is the method of manufacture, which includes using a process to fully strike these coins. It is of course possible, but would demonstrate poor quality.
On striking doubling, you would not expect a loose die if only striking 24 coins and attempting to optimize the appearance of the coin.
I believe TPG services are going in the right direction with JD driving PCGS and David Lange driving NGC, both consider history and what has been printed, but also analyze the coins from all perspectives.
Hopefully I will make it clearer in my next book, which will cover in detail the 19th century proofs.
One of the best tests is to compare against the proofs of the day, and also the coins struck for circulation of the day.
Thanks
Kevin
Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....
Cheers, RickO
Agreed. Having owned and/or transacted the finest 3-known examples, I have had an opportunity to view these in hand.
I also agree with the above (and our hosts) that the coins are not "proof" in the 1894, 1895, 1896 sense. They simply do not look like proof coins of the era. (They are made differently than business strikes of the era, too...)
But, and to my reason for posting, we are in danger here of turning a fun story into a physics lesson. 94-S dimes are great, awesome, wonderful, etc. And it never mattered to me, or any of my clients, whether the coin was a Proof, Specimen, or Business strike. It's simply a 94-S dime... and magical... like one of the rings of Middle Earth.
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
But, and to my reason for posting, we are in danger here of turning a fun story into a physics lesson. 94-S dimes are great, awesome, wonderful, etc. And it never mattered to me, or any of my clients, whether the coin was a Proof, Specimen, or Business strike. It's simply a 94-S dime... and magical... like one of the rings of Middle Earth.
I heartily agree with the sentiment above. As the millennials say,"it is what it is."
but what I don't get is why mainstream publications like _Coin World _don't appear to recognize concurring expert opinions on method of manufacture of 1894-S dimes?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.---Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, 1801-1809. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
Specimen covers it nicely. It is what it is. Rare & wonderful
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......
_we are in danger here of turning a fun story into a physics lesson.
_
Something that has become prevalent with many a good post these days.
Afford
You are correct that sometimes individual attributes can sometimes be confusing. For example, all of the planchets for the Isabella quarters were polished as the Coiner wanted to do something special for the ladies. This is why they all look proof-like, but they are not proofs.
I agree when taken separately, the individual facts can be questionable. But when you consider the cumulative nature of the evidence. As the diagnostics and physical characteristics match what the mint records and Barnett state, they support each other. The physical characteristics also match those of an early die state of a 1893-S dime, which therefore supports that these coins were not greater that the normal coin, which a proof should be.The circumstantial evidence such as 5 of were assayed, when no other proofs in the 19th century were assayed also support this. Its not just that 2 coins are in highly circulated condition, but that 24 were struck, 5 were assayed, leaving 19, Of these only 10 are known, 9 are not, which implies 9 were dumped into circulation and are now not known. This again in is cumulative in the evidence.
You bring up a good point, grading services and other sources have changed over the years.
They know this, I work with them constantly, it is very difficult to make changes, as they know reputation is important, and they do not want to be perceived as just jumping on the latest claims.
IMO, in 1945, it was first called a proof as being called a proof was believed to imply something special and they were trying to associate the coin with a greater attribute to seek greater profit. Even though as a coin struck for circulation, it has the lowest mintage, which IMO makes it rarer.
I enjoy the debate as IMO, we all learn from all of our perspectives.
I believe Coin World and others will change what they classify it over time.
I agree calling it a specimen is a great idea, as it implies something special, which they are.
One of the first coins I will buy if I win the lottery.
Kevin
John,
I remember still viewing the finest 1894-S specimen at your table before one of the auctions years ago and far away. You also were extremely helpful in loaning many photographs of these coins for my book which I was grateful for.
I believe at the same time, you had for viewing and sale the 1855-S half and quarter that were especially struck, and which are in my opinion proofs. Man, how can someone ask for anything more, being able to view all three of these treasures in one sitting, taking many many photos, heart rushing adrenalin, kinda like a coin heaven if there is one, LOL
Kevin
An idle thought...why were five sent to the assay commission? Normally only one coin would have sufficed for up to a few thousand coins.
It is commonly believed that a variety of rarities were "rescued" from the Assay Commission by some unknown insider at the Philadelphia Mint. Is it possible that some of the five were deliberately intended for this mysterious collector, who would have the means (and the motive) to rescue them at the Assay meeting?
i read somewhere that 1894-S dimes were trading for $50 apiece by year's end 1894. Some of the mint workers acquired pieces and were simply interested in making a quick more-than-a-few bucks it seems.
LanLord, sorry I got your name wrong in a previous post.LanLord not Lanbord.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.---Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, 1801-1809. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
Found this interesting comment in The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes,
"Stack's notes most high-grade specimens display faint vertical striations,indicating hasty planchet
preparation."
btw john,my copy of BARBER DIMES By David Lawrence I ordered directly from your dad in 1991.He signed it for me. One of my numismatic book treasures...
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.---Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, 1801-1809. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
That's really cool. He loved signing books for folks -- it meant a lot to him. Thank you for saying so. -John
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
Does anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that Michelle Pfeiffer owned a '94 S at one time ? I seem to remember one selling at auction in the early 80's for 80 grand. I was told that she was the buyer. I thought then that she sure had some good investment advisors.
Tom,
Two 1894-S dimes were sent to Director of Mint on June 9th, 1894 in Wash D.C. The two 1894-S dimes that were part of the Special Assay coins sent to the Director of the Mint were melted and assayed at the Philadelphia Mint
On June 25th, two 1894-S dimes were listed as part of the coins assayed by SF during the month of June 1894
A single 1894-S dime was sent to Supt of Phila Mint on June 28th as part of the annual assay. The single 1894-S dime that was part of the annual assay was not listed as assayed or melted in any record.
Kevin
Thanks, Kevin. That makes sense. Two were tested in Philadelphia as part of routine quality control, two were tested in SF as part of routine quality control, and one went into the official Annual Assay.
That does strengthen the argument that these are regular issue coins, as most people believe them to be!
TD
Kevin Flynn's research and the document located illustrate, again, the problems of believing anything Farran Zerbe wrote; and of separating bologna (aka 'numismyth') from prime beef fillet.
Sadly, far too many collectors prefer to repeat false material, rather than learn from and encourage the truth.