It is true that Anthony Paquet designed the obverse (only) of the 1859 (P) Liberty Seated half dime, but it does not carry any premium for that reason. It is considered a one year type, as the obverse design was used for just the one year; in 1860 a new obverse design was implemented, moving the legend (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) to the obverse, and resuming the Robert Ball Hughes revised device of the seated Miss Liberty. In my opinion, the Paquet obverse of 1859 is rather bland, is of extremely low relief, and is perhaps the least attractive design in the denomination's 36 year history, although I may be in the minority with that opinion.
They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
The mint director's plan was to use the new half dollar design with wreath reverse as part of revision of the circulating coinage. See the transcription, below.
December 18, 1859
Hon. Howell Cobb.
Sec. of the Treasury
Washington City
Sir,
I acquiesce, with great cheerfulness, in your decision as to the proposed changes in the devices of the silver coinage. It would seem inexpedient at the present time to make so great a change as the one heretofore recommended. We will therefore make no alterations in the dollar, nor the half-dollar, nor the quarter dollar.
On the dime and half-dime the eagle has always been omitted, a wreath having been adopted which encloses the denomination of the Coin. The wreath which I proposed for the half-dollar, or presented in the specimen pieces, is much superior to the present wreath. I propose therefore, with your permission, to place the new wreath on the dime and half dime.
A modification of the devices on the reverse of the Cent is desirable. I propose to introduce the shield upon the reverse. This will give it a more national character, this and as a decided improvement upon the present Coin. I enclose a few specimen pieces I have caused to be struck.
The dies for the dime and half-dime and cent are now being made, and I will be happy to have your early approval of the views herein recommended.
I have the honor of being, with great respect,
Your faithful servant,
James Ross Snowden
Director of the Mint
@abcde12345 said:
I wish we had half dimes, or the equivalent, today in modern times.
Makes some sense. The nickel has 4.23358 cents of metal value now and may cost more than that with manufacturing costs added in. A clad half dime would save money since it would only have 0.85373 cents of metal value.
@MrHalfDime said:
It is true that Anthony Paquet designed the obverse (only) of the 1859 (P) Liberty Seated half dime, but it does not carry any premium for that reason. It is considered a one year type, as the obverse design was used for just the one year; in 1860 a new obverse design was implemented, moving the legend (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) to the obverse, and resuming the Robert Ball Hughes revised device of the seated Miss Liberty. In my opinion, the Paquet obverse of 1859 is rather bland, is of extremely low relief, and is perhaps the least attractive design in the denomination's 36 year history, although I may be in the minority with that opinion.
If I might pick a nit, Paquet did not "design" the 1859 Half Dime Obverse. The design of the 1859 is the same as the 1858. He merely created a new Master Die and/or Hub with some minor differences in execution, most noticeably by using stars with hollow centers.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@golden said:
I think that the 1859 Half Dime should be a separate type. By the way that is a beautiful example.
I agree that MS70's 1859 half dime is a nice coin, but the differences are not enough to rate another type unless you are a big time nit picker. That are other coins that have differences that are more significant, like the 1794 half cents and the 1796 - 8 With Stars Quarter Eagles that are even more obvious. If you want to include it in your collection fine, but don't make it a requirement for everyone else.
As for the 1859 half dime, it was just one more example of Paquet's design failures when he ventured away from designing medals and got into designing coins. The Stars were hollow for no good reason, and Ms. Liberty was shaped more like a ship's bottle than a statue.
For the record I have a raw one in EF that I bought many years ago. I view it more as a couriousity than a type. At least It's a lot cheaper to buy that than the Paquet reverse $20 gold coin, which another of his failed designs. That one costs a fortune.
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 ... ?
@golden said:
I think that the 1859 Half Dime should be a separate type. By the way that is a beautiful example.
I agree that MS70's 1859 half dime is a nice coin, but the differences are not enough to rate another type unless you are a big time nit picker. That are other coins that have differences that are more significant, like the 1794 half cents and the 1796 - 8 With Stars Quarter Eagles that are even more obvious. If you want to include it in your collection fine, but don't make it a requirement for everyone else.
As for the 1859 half dime, it was just one more example of Paquet's design failures when he ventured away from designing medals and got into designing coins. The Stars were hollow for no good reason, and Ms. Liberty was shaped more like a ship's bottle than a statue.
For the record I have a raw one in EF that I bought many years ago. I view it more as a couriousity than a type. At least It's a lot cheaper to buy that than the Paquet reverse $20 gold coin, which another of his failed designs. That one costs a fortune.
Since the Paquet reverse is listed separately for the Coronet double eagles, would you say the differences on the Paquet 1959 Half Dime are larger or smaller than on the double eagle?
@golden said:
I think that the 1859 Half Dime should be a separate type. By the way that is a beautiful example.
.....
Since the Paquet reverse is listed separately for the Coronet double eagles, would you say the differences on the Paquet 1959 Half Dime are larger or smaller than on the double eagle?
Seems we had this discussion once before, at least as to the 1861-S Paquet Double Eagle. Of course another opinion is always welcome.
My prior posting:
"Definitely a coin that appeals to those who find the history of a coin to be of special interest. As noted in the auction posting narrative posted above, "Q. David Bowers considers the 1861-S Paquet Double Eagle the rarest coin of this denomination issued by the San Francisco Mint."
As also noted in a post above, Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth in their 2008 Third Edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins" had placed the 1861 San Francisco minted paquet at number 83 and note that "there are probably 200 to 300 examples known in all grades." An AU example is given an historical value by the authors of $85,000.00. No known uncirculaed examples exist."
It has now moved up to number 50 in the 2015 Fourth Edition with an updated to 2015 value for the AU coin at $100,000.00.
The authors comment in their 2015 Fourth Edition, "Today, the 1861-S Paquet double eagle ranks as one of the most desirable of the denomination. Prices for the issue have surged in recent years. About Uncirculated examples have nearly tripled since the first edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins was published. ..... prices for this coin will most likely continue their steady rise."
Add to that the story itself that begins with the fact there would likely be no 1861-S Paquet Double Eagles if the transcontinental telegraph had been completed earlier in 1861 so that the delays consequent from use of the Pony Express to transmit the halt production order would have been mooted. Then on top of that is the fact that it took until 1937 for the coin to be "discovered" with the result that by then only circulation examples were existant.
Also intriguing is that of the thousands of shipwreck Double Eagles that have been found in recent years only one 1861-S Paquet was among them, and that one did not qualify as mint state. When the Saddle Ridge Hoard came to light after being buried since the late 1800s it too had no 1861-S Paquets despite the fact that hundreds of the coins in the hoard were double eagles from the San Francisco Mint.
Now that is just the 1861-S Paquet. The Philadelphia mint version has its own mystique that includes the controversy as to its origins that has been alluded to in posts above.
The 1861 Paquets are not viewed by knowledgeable numismatists as a mere variety. They are of a different design and for type collectors of Double Eagles there is enough difference in the Paquet Reverse to qualify as an essential coin to complete a full type set collection. That said, one must concede that there is enough similarity to other $20 gold pieces of its era for at least the 1861-S Paquets to have remained hidden in plain sight until their "discovery" decades after they escaped into circulation.
Just referencing the basic design, the following distinctions are evident as described in another of the Heritage Auction listings:
"Many individual modifications to the Longacre reverse are evident. The most obvious difference is the tall lettering, featuring heavier vertical elements including uprights and serifs. The scroll work is separated from the eagle's tail, and the constellation of stars is lower, almost entirely below the glory of rays. The eagle's wingtips point to different letters in the legend. The shield has a border consisting of two individual lines, rather than a single line. The border is much narrower, .....""
Thanks @northcoin. That was a good discussion and prompted my question here. There, the debate was whether the Paquet Coronet was a type or a variety, with opinions on both sides.
PCGS CoinFacts (www.PCGScoinfacts.com) states that the 1861-P Paquet Reverse is slightly modified from the regular version. When engraver Anthony C. Paquet of the Philadelphia Mint began designing the reverse in 1859, he endowed slight yet notable differences. The coin’s lettering on Paquet’s version is tall and slender compared to the short, broad lettering of the traditional reverse. Also, the crown-like display of stars positioned above the eagle’s head is larger on Paquet’s coin, with the top stars prominently displayed beneath rays of sunlight. The same stars are partially buried on the regular reverse.
The question here is whether the Paquet half dime is worthy of a type, or a variety.
Regarding being a type with font style, the 1976 Eisenhower dollar Type 1 and Type 2 are differentiated by font, so if the font is different enough, it can be a different type. Here, Type 1 is by Dennis R. Williams while the font on Type 2 is by Gasparro.
Using your logic, Nothcoin, a type collector would have to almost become Bolender - Bowers early dollar die variety specialist to have a complete type set of early dollars. There are large and small letters on the reverse. The number of stars varies. One would even have to have a 1794 dollar because the Flowing Hair bust on the 1795 coins is different.
I pointedly disagree with this statement:
The 1861 Paquets are not viewed by knowledgeable numismatists as a mere variety. They are of a different design and for type collectors of Double Eagles there is enough difference in the Paquet Reverse to qualify as an essential coin to complete a full type set collection.
The Paquet reverse is a variety, and type collectors should not feel compelled to own one. It is a variation on a basic design, and such variations are very common on the early U.S. coinage when every die was hand made. This one came later, but it is no more essential to a complete type set than those early coins are.
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 ... ?
I think where one stands on this issue is probably largely influenced by whether the type collector has one or not.
I gave you an honest opinion, and you came back with a snippy response.
Your write-up on this issue reads like an auction catalog that is more aimed at drumming up bids than really addressing the issue. The same thing applies to the Four Dollars Gold Piece or “Stella” which was a pattern piece, not a coin. Some people want to that to be a type coin, which it is not since it’s not a regular issue coin. If you really want to slice hairs, you could say that type collector must have both the Coiled Hair and Flowing Hair designs.
Can you expand your type set? Sure. I have high grade examples of the 1794 and 1795 half cents and cents because they display subtle design differences on the same theme, but I would never advocate that those coins should be added to a type album or a formal list of “must have” type coins. That would open up a huge can of worms because there are so many minor design differences that could noted in early U.S. coinage.
The same thing applies here. If you want a Paquet reverse double eagle in your collection, go ahead and add it, but don’t lay challenge on others that you type set is not complete without it. There are far more important coins that don’t make cut than Paquet reverse double eagle.
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 ... ?
Each time the hub changes, that can be considered a separate "type", since it could be used on more than one die (and date/mintmark). As I recall, the 1859 half dime Paquet obverse was used on both 1859 and 1859-O, plus the infamous 1859 with 1860 reverse (proof only), so it spans multiple Redbook entries and multiple die varieties.
As for whether a person would seek it out for their type set, well that's a personal judgement call.
Hub changes vary greatly in the extent of their changes. The most minor one for Liberty Seated half dimes is probably the obverse hub changed midway in 1857 - it's tricky to spot. The biggest hub change for LS half dimes would be the 1860 obverse and reverse.
Then there are the arrows. Very easy to spot and usually considered a separate "type". They are apparently on the hub (or at least the master die) in 1853 for dimes and higher denominations. I don't know if that's true for half dimes. They are not on the hub for 1854 half dimes as I recall. They are a feature for multiple dies and multiple years/mintmarks, though.
sharkyrex
Posts: 23 ✭
Comments
Not sure, but I'm curious. I think the more pieces attributed to Paquet the better.
BTW, your avatar coin is gorgeous!
It is true that Anthony Paquet designed the obverse (only) of the 1859 (P) Liberty Seated half dime, but it does not carry any premium for that reason. It is considered a one year type, as the obverse design was used for just the one year; in 1860 a new obverse design was implemented, moving the legend (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) to the obverse, and resuming the Robert Ball Hughes revised device of the seated Miss Liberty. In my opinion, the Paquet obverse of 1859 is rather bland, is of extremely low relief, and is perhaps the least attractive design in the denomination's 36 year history, although I may be in the minority with that opinion.
Thanks! Its a pattern for the gold eagle,
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/coin/detail/537330
Buying all low end varieties of the $1 bill.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I think that the 1859 Half Dime should be a separate type. By the way that is a beautiful example.
The mint director's plan was to use the new half dollar design with wreath reverse as part of revision of the circulating coinage. See the transcription, below.
December 18, 1859
Hon. Howell Cobb.
Sec. of the Treasury
Washington City
Sir,
I acquiesce, with great cheerfulness, in your decision as to the proposed changes in the devices of the silver coinage. It would seem inexpedient at the present time to make so great a change as the one heretofore recommended. We will therefore make no alterations in the dollar, nor the half-dollar, nor the quarter dollar.
On the dime and half-dime the eagle has always been omitted, a wreath having been adopted which encloses the denomination of the Coin. The wreath which I proposed for the half-dollar, or presented in the specimen pieces, is much superior to the present wreath. I propose therefore, with your permission, to place the new wreath on the dime and half dime.
A modification of the devices on the reverse of the Cent is desirable. I propose to introduce the shield upon the reverse. This will give it a more national character, this and as a decided improvement upon the present Coin. I enclose a few specimen pieces I have caused to be struck.
The dies for the dime and half-dime and cent are now being made, and I will be happy to have your early approval of the views herein recommended.
I have the honor of being, with great respect,
Your faithful servant,
James Ross Snowden
Director of the Mint
I wish we had half dimes, or the equivalent, today in modern times.
Great info from MrHalfDime & RogerB. Thanks!
And thanks golden! PCGS MS67
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
What a boot licker!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Makes some sense. The nickel has 4.23358 cents of metal value now and may cost more than that with manufacturing costs added in. A clad half dime would save money since it would only have 0.85373 cents of metal value.
If I might pick a nit, Paquet did not "design" the 1859 Half Dime Obverse. The design of the 1859 is the same as the 1858. He merely created a new Master Die and/or Hub with some minor differences in execution, most noticeably by using stars with hollow centers.
I agree that MS70's 1859 half dime is a nice coin, but the differences are not enough to rate another type unless you are a big time nit picker. That are other coins that have differences that are more significant, like the 1794 half cents and the 1796 - 8 With Stars Quarter Eagles that are even more obvious. If you want to include it in your collection fine, but don't make it a requirement for everyone else.
As for the 1859 half dime, it was just one more example of Paquet's design failures when he ventured away from designing medals and got into designing coins. The Stars were hollow for no good reason, and Ms. Liberty was shaped more like a ship's bottle than a statue.
For the record I have a raw one in EF that I bought many years ago. I view it more as a couriousity than a type. At least It's a lot cheaper to buy that than the Paquet reverse $20 gold coin, which another of his failed designs. That one costs a fortune.
About as much difference as a No Drapery Half Dime vs With Drapery Half Dime.
Since the Paquet reverse is listed separately for the Coronet double eagles, would you say the differences on the Paquet 1959 Half Dime are larger or smaller than on the double eagle?
.....
Seems we had this discussion once before, at least as to the 1861-S Paquet Double Eagle.
Of course another opinion is always welcome.
My prior posting:
"Definitely a coin that appeals to those who find the history of a coin to be of special interest. As noted in the auction posting narrative posted above, "Q. David Bowers considers the 1861-S Paquet Double Eagle the rarest coin of this denomination issued by the San Francisco Mint."
As also noted in a post above, Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth in their 2008 Third Edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins" had placed the 1861 San Francisco minted paquet at number 83 and note that "there are probably 200 to 300 examples known in all grades." An AU example is given an historical value by the authors of $85,000.00. No known uncirculaed examples exist."
It has now moved up to number 50 in the 2015 Fourth Edition with an updated to 2015 value for the AU coin at $100,000.00.
The authors comment in their 2015 Fourth Edition, "Today, the 1861-S Paquet double eagle ranks as one of the most desirable of the denomination. Prices for the issue have surged in recent years. About Uncirculated examples have nearly tripled since the first edition of "100 Greatest U.S. Coins was published. ..... prices for this coin will most likely continue their steady rise."
Add to that the story itself that begins with the fact there would likely be no 1861-S Paquet Double Eagles if the transcontinental telegraph had been completed earlier in 1861 so that the delays consequent from use of the Pony Express to transmit the halt production order would have been mooted. Then on top of that is the fact that it took until 1937 for the coin to be "discovered" with the result that by then only circulation examples were existant.
Also intriguing is that of the thousands of shipwreck Double Eagles that have been found in recent years only one 1861-S Paquet was among them, and that one did not qualify as mint state. When the Saddle Ridge Hoard came to light after being buried since the late 1800s it too had no 1861-S Paquets despite the fact that hundreds of the coins in the hoard were double eagles from the San Francisco Mint.
Now that is just the 1861-S Paquet. The Philadelphia mint version has its own mystique that includes the controversy as to its origins that has been alluded to in posts above.
The 1861 Paquets are not viewed by knowledgeable numismatists as a mere variety. They are of a different design and for type collectors of Double Eagles there is enough difference in the Paquet Reverse to qualify as an essential coin to complete a full type set collection. That said, one must concede that there is enough similarity to other $20 gold pieces of its era for at least the 1861-S Paquets to have remained hidden in plain sight until their "discovery" decades after they escaped into circulation.
Just referencing the basic design, the following distinctions are evident as described in another of the Heritage Auction listings:
"Many individual modifications to the Longacre reverse are evident. The most obvious difference is the tall lettering, featuring heavier vertical elements including uprights and serifs. The scroll work is separated from the eagle's tail, and the constellation of stars is lower, almost entirely below the glory of rays. The eagle's wingtips point to different letters in the legend. The shield has a border consisting of two individual lines, rather than a single line. The border is much narrower, .....""
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/11642477#Comment_11642477
Thanks @northcoin. That was a good discussion and prompted my question here. There, the debate was whether the Paquet Coronet was a type or a variety, with opinions on both sides.
You quoted the following from PCGS:
https://www.pcgs.com/News/coin-worthy-of-a-king-graded
The question here is whether the Paquet half dime is worthy of a type, or a variety.
Regarding being a type with font style, the 1976 Eisenhower dollar Type 1 and Type 2 are differentiated by font, so if the font is different enough, it can be a different type. Here, Type 1 is by Dennis R. Williams while the font on Type 2 is by Gasparro.
Using your logic, Nothcoin, a type collector would have to almost become Bolender - Bowers early dollar die variety specialist to have a complete type set of early dollars. There are large and small letters on the reverse. The number of stars varies. One would even have to have a 1794 dollar because the Flowing Hair bust on the 1795 coins is different.
I pointedly disagree with this statement:
The Paquet reverse is a variety, and type collectors should not feel compelled to own one. It is a variation on a basic design, and such variations are very common on the early U.S. coinage when every die was hand made. This one came later, but it is no more essential to a complete type set than those early coins are.
@ BillJones
I think where one stands on this issue is probably largely influenced by whether the type collector has one or not.
Since both known P-mint survivors (Norweb and Browning) are in Brian Hendelson's holdings, moot on
I gave you an honest opinion, and you came back with a snippy response.
Your write-up on this issue reads like an auction catalog that is more aimed at drumming up bids than really addressing the issue. The same thing applies to the Four Dollars Gold Piece or “Stella” which was a pattern piece, not a coin. Some people want to that to be a type coin, which it is not since it’s not a regular issue coin. If you really want to slice hairs, you could say that type collector must have both the Coiled Hair and Flowing Hair designs.
Can you expand your type set? Sure. I have high grade examples of the 1794 and 1795 half cents and cents because they display subtle design differences on the same theme, but I would never advocate that those coins should be added to a type album or a formal list of “must have” type coins. That would open up a huge can of worms because there are so many minor design differences that could noted in early U.S. coinage.
The same thing applies here. If you want a Paquet reverse double eagle in your collection, go ahead and add it, but don’t lay challenge on others that you type set is not complete without it. There are far more important coins that don’t make cut than Paquet reverse double eagle.
Apologies for coming across that way. I thought the
clarified my attempt to add a touch of humor.
Each time the hub changes, that can be considered a separate "type", since it could be used on more than one die (and date/mintmark). As I recall, the 1859 half dime Paquet obverse was used on both 1859 and 1859-O, plus the infamous 1859 with 1860 reverse (proof only), so it spans multiple Redbook entries and multiple die varieties.
As for whether a person would seek it out for their type set, well that's a personal judgement call.
Hub changes vary greatly in the extent of their changes. The most minor one for Liberty Seated half dimes is probably the obverse hub changed midway in 1857 - it's tricky to spot. The biggest hub change for LS half dimes would be the 1860 obverse and reverse.
Then there are the arrows. Very easy to spot and usually considered a separate "type". They are apparently on the hub (or at least the master die) in 1853 for dimes and higher denominations. I don't know if that's true for half dimes. They are not on the hub for 1854 half dimes as I recall. They are a feature for multiple dies and multiple years/mintmarks, though.
Free to choose....
I'll second that opinion on your avatar! Very nice.