@RogerB said:
At the present incomplete state of knowledge, it might be better to simply report each suspect, rather than attempt to draw conclusions. I base this on a substantial mistrust of Breen and other old reports. They have equal chance of being right or wrong, so let's observe closely, then compare.
Makes sense to me! That's why I've posted a question. I wish to COMPARE something in my notes with an 1850 Proof $20 that @northcoin has graciously shared with us. That may add to our incomplete knowledge. Perhaps the coin I examined long ago was just a DMPL. Then again, they may match.
@RogerB said:
At the present incomplete state of knowledge, it might be better to simply report each suspect, rather than attempt to draw conclusions. I base this on a substantial mistrust of Breen and other old reports. They have equal chance of being right or wrong, so let's observe closely, then compare.
I Agree! That's why I posted my question. Some time ago, I recorded some diagnostics of a Proof 1850 $20 Liberty. I wished to COMPARE what I wrote with the "markers" on the Proof that @northcoin has graciously posted. It may add something to the "incomplete state of our knowledge." At the least, it may indicate that the coin I examined was just a DMPL.
@Regulated said:
My personal experiences have led me to believe that 20th century numismatic research has a 50% chance of being right (if you're lucky), so you may as well disregard all of it and just try and find what you can in primary source material or by forensic analysis of the coins themselves.
I will only agree with you for the first forty years of the 20th Century. For the next thirty years, the research was much more reliable (that may not be saying a lot).
IMO, during the last thirty years of the last Century there were extraordinary things accomplished in the way we examine coins and record what we see. For example, a Large cent collector from the turn of the Century would be bowled over at all the images on the internet of his S-63!
@Regulated said:
My personal experiences have led me to believe that 20th century numismatic research has a 50% chance of being right (if you're lucky), so you may as well disregard all of it and just try and find what you can in primary source material or by forensic analysis of the coins themselves.
I will only agree with you for the first forty years of the 20th Century. For the next thirty years, the research was much more reliable (that may not be saying a lot).
IMO, during the last thirty years of the last Century there were extraordinary things accomplished in the way we examine coins and record what we see. For example, a Large cent collector from the turn of the Century would be bowled over at all the images on the internet of his S-63!
I agree with you on the advances in forensic numismatics, but the Fords, Newmans, and Breens of the world were far too comfortable making stories up in the absence of fact.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
When the early pioneers examined a coin they rarely looked beyond the "macro" level. Examples:
"leaf slightly right of.."
"date dips down at the end"
"large final 8"
I believe Newcomb was the first to mention large and obvious die polish on a few specific dies.
Incidentally, that possibly inspired the "rookie" authenticator to develop the "Die Scratch Method" of counterfeit detection that I learned was used at the Certification Service. Later when he discovered that a state-of-the-art counterfeit had "picked-up" and transferred major die polish on a $20, it changed the way diagnostics were kept from then on!
If the coin in the Bibliotheque Nationale is indeed a proof, that may lend credence to the claim (Breen's) that as many as five could have been struck.... Interesting how little bits and pieces of information slowly come together... Cheers, RickO
In Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins 1722-1989, he says 2+ specimens .....
And he gives sources for 3 potential specimens, including citing the 1850 Patterson letter @RogerB has shown, and 2 auction lots:
Gold Dollar, Quarter Eagle, Half Eagle, Eagle. [1+] Unknown, though at least one of each must have been struck in proof for the set made up for the Congressional Committee on the Library, per Patterson letter 9/26/50.
Double Eagle. [2+] Large coronet beads, Y recut, different hub from 1849; continued through 1858 on business strikes from all mints. (1) J. B. Longacre estate, 1870: 178, at a then astonishing $27, "from the first dies used for the double eagle." (2) Dr. Green: 719 (at a then extraordinary $315), which was questioned, and which I have never seen -though the price reportedly realized was fantastic for the time, well after the postwar boom in gold had faded away. Another was in the gold set mentioned above.
In the Bibliography section of Breen's other Encyclopedia (Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, 1988), he cites on p.682:
Green, Dr. Charles W., coll, MBS, BMM, 4/26/49. Gold coins.
[MBS = Mail Bid Sale, BMM = B. Max Mehl]
Breen did not mention the Dr. C.W. Green specimen in his discussion of the 1850 $20 in this 1988 book on p.563.
Thanks to the Newman Numismatic Portal, we can see the auction description for lot 719 (as cited by Breen) from this 1949 sale: https://archive.org/stream/drcharleswgreenc1949mehl#page/42/mode/1up
So this yields the additional data that Dr. C.W. Green bought the coin for $350, and it sold in 1949 for $315.
The Dr. C.W. Green attribution.
With regard to Breen's described references to my coin (as again pictured above) and his estimate of possibly 5 proofs, I am continuing to search for a print copy of "Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins" which may include a table so referencing his estimated number of proofs. In the course of those efforts I did locate at a university library a print copy of the 1988 edition of his other "Encyclopedia." "Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins." Of relevance to the topic at hand regarding 1850 Double Eagle Proofs, as posted below, it does identify both the one from the set for the Congressional Committee on the Library and the one in the Longacre estate (which per numismatic author and researcher Karl V. Moulton, is the same coin as described above by Max Mehl in the quoted 1949 auction description.) Said coin is pictured above.
OK, finally was able to see a hard copy of Breen's first edition of his Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proofs and as suspected it did include a separate table. The table stated 2+ for 1850 $20 Double Eagle Proofs. Now I need to locate the later edition in print format to confirm if that was in fact where a reference was made to as many as possibly 5 in its table.
(For completeness, click the above links which include the above referenced 1949 "auction description" provided by Max Mehl for my above pictured coin.)
@northcoin said:
I have been in communication with the Bibliotheque Nationale museum in Paris and they maintain that their 1850 $20 is in fact a "proof." At some point I hope to be able to place side-by-side my 1850 $20 (graded a PR-62 by Larry Briggs) and theirs (graded a "cleaned" PR-61, based upon a viewing at the museum, by David Hall).
@RogerB said:
Unknown. Only mention seems to be hearsay. If they actually have an 1850 master coin set, then the $20 should be part of it.
I have been in communication with the Bibliotheque Nationale museum in Paris and they maintain that their 1850 $20 is in fact a "proof." At some point I hope to be able to place side-by-side my 1850 $20 (graded a PR-62 by Larry Briggs) and theirs (graded a "cleaned" PR-61, based upon a viewing at the museum, by David Hall).
Will Bibliotheque Nationale provide accession information and photos of the 1850 gold proofs they have? Interpretation of numismatic terms is fluid.
A Bibliotheque Nationale Museum sourced photo of the Paris specimen will be included in a soon to be published book on gold proofs authored by John W. Dannreuther.
As to accession information it appears that the coin was identified as being in a Paris museum collection as early as 1861 as part of The Alexandre Vattemare Collection. It will be of interest to learn from further research exactly when and how Vattemare obtained the 1850 $20 "Proof" in the United States and if there was a date before 1861 when he provided it to the Paris museum.
Given the dates referenced in the Wikipedia reporting as to Vattemare's presence in the United States one has to ask if he returned again after 1847 or if the collection containing the 1850 $20 "proof" was brought to Paris by some other means including the possibility of its being part of "an exchange." If so, perhaps there still exist records confirming such a transaction or exchange.
The possibility cannot be discounted that the "Set of Gold Master Coins" of 1850 date referenced in the OP's initial post as provided to the Committee on the Library ended up in The Library of Congress and was "exchanged" thereafter prior to the Library of Congress December 24, 1851 fire chronicled by the OP in a subsequent post. It would be ironic if this specimen now in Paris was preserved for posterity by becoming a numismatic expatriate.
OK, how about this twist - maybe the intent all along was to provide the "Set of Gold Master Coins" to Vattemare under his newly established "exchange program" as payback for the materials he had already provided to the U.S. on his 1847 visit and it was just less problematic to have the official records chronicle the coins going initially to our own "Committee on the Library." After all the way the "exchange" was set up it was impliedly between libraries/museums, not directly between the governments.
@ Insider 2
It is hard for me to imagine that Mint employees took time to strike only one proof $20 and gave it to our special foreign visitor.
Agreed, or for that matter took time to strike only one "proof" $20 to provide to the Committee on the Library. As noted above, I remain committed to at some point being able to place side-by-side my 1850 $20 (graded a PR-62 by Larry Briggs) and the Paris specimen (graded a "cleaned" PR-61, based upon a viewing at the museum by David Hall).
I'm curious how NGC and PCGS would see the extant coins; since PCGS would crack it out conditionally on a grade, and NGC would require it be raw for certification it would probably be better to send it to PCGS.
Making only one proof set (or even one proof coin) was not unusual. These were made with the large medal press and that was in regular use striking just one or two copies of medals as they were ordered. Making a master coin ("proof") was much easier than a medal - the coin took just one blow and it was done.
Note that the Engraver had no role in making master coins.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @northcoin Can you please comment on the provenance of the 1850 $20 proof coin that you own?
This is actually abbreviated, at least in part, from an earlier posting on this thread so apologies to those who have followed this thread from the beginning. Hopefully this is at least partially responsive to your request for my comment on the provenance of the 1850 $20 that I own:
"This is the coin identified as possibly unique on the [original] Coinfacts site as the first $20 proof/presentation piece, excepting the 1849 specimen in the Smithsonian. ....."
As noted on the holder, it once belonged to C.W. Green. Interestingly in reading Breen's book cataloging gold proofs I came across a reference by Breen to the very coin. He noted that there were possibly several Presentation Pieces a/k/a proofs made of the first $20 gold piece available for circulation in 1850. He went on to note that Green was reported to have one, but that he had never seen it himself. In addition, the coin is featured on CoinFacts.com as its first described "Significant example" of the 1850 Double Eagle, and CoinFacts further notes under Mintage, "Proofs: Unique?"
Here is the above referenced "Coin Facts" description of the coin and its more recent auction history:
Significant examples:
SEGS Proof-62, "Presentation/PL, enhanced surfaces". Ex - Superior Galleries' "Pre-Long Beach Sale" May 27-29, 2001, Lot 4170A, where it was described as follows: "1850 SEGS graded Proof 62 marked "Presentation/PL" and " Enhanced Surfaces". The coin is also pedigreed to Dr. C. W. Green and so noted on the holder. This is the first collectible issue of the United States Double Eagle series. This coin has a beautiful bold strike with full stars and all other details sharp and clear. The fields are Prooflike and you can see clearly with magnification that the dies and planchet were enhanced prior to striking...""
Adding to the above:
Through the efforts of poster yosclimber on this thread, an auction description written by Max Mehl for the coin was located from a 1949 auction. If one scrolls back to the first page of this thread one can read Max Mehl's description of the coin as found and posted by yosclimber. It was lot 719 in the 1949 auction.
Numismatic author and researcher Karl Moulton has further determined that this coin with the Green provenance was one and the same as that sold in an even earlier auction in 1870 as one of the coins from Longacre's Estate where it was sold as Lot 178. Of added significance another poster on this board, Rick Snow, chanced to have an original of that 1870 auction catalogue with the added information from penned in notes that the purchaser of the coin was Edward Cogan.
Each of the above described auction descriptions from 1870, 1949, and 2001 are consistent with the subject coin's unique appearance.
The existence of the located in Paris 1850 Double Eagle "Proof" specimen, which was apparently unknown to Breen, first came to my attention after coming across a reference to it in the 2016 book "1849 - The Philadelphia Mint's Gold" by Michael Moran and Jeff Garrett.
@OldIndianNutKase said: @northcoin Can you please comment on the provenance of the 1850 $20 proof coin that you own?
This is actually abbreviated, at least in part, from an earlier posting on this thread so apologies to those who have followed this thread from the beginning. Hopefully this is at least partially responsive to your request for my comment on the provenance of the 1850 $20 that I own:
"This is the coin identified as possibly unique on the [original] Coinfacts site as the first $20 proof/presentation piece, excepting the 1849 specimen in the Smithsonian. ....."
As noted on the holder, it once belonged to C.W. Green. Interestingly in reading Breen's book cataloging gold proofs I came across a reference by Breen to the very coin. He noted that there were possibly several Presentation Pieces a/k/a proofs made of the first $20 gold piece available for circulation in 1850. He went on to note that Green was reported to have one, but that he had never seen it himself. In addition, the coin is featured on CoinFacts.com as its first described "Significant example" of the 1850 Double Eagle, and CoinFacts further notes under Mintage, "Proofs: Unique?"
Here is the above referenced "Coin Facts" description of the coin and its more recent auction history:
Significant examples:
SEGS Proof-62, "Presentation/PL, enhanced surfaces". Ex - Superior Galleries' "Pre-Long Beach Sale" May 27-29, 2001, Lot 4170A, where it was described as follows: "1850 SEGS graded Proof 62 marked "Presentation/PL" and " Enhanced Surfaces". The coin is also pedigreed to Dr. C. W. Green and so noted on the holder. This is the first collectible issue of the United States Double Eagle series. This coin has a beautiful bold strike with full stars and all other details sharp and clear. The fields are Prooflike and you can see clearly with magnification that the dies and planchet were enhanced prior to striking...""
Adding to the above:
Through the efforts of poster yosclimber on this thread, an auction description written by Max Mehl for the coin was located from a 1949 auction. If one scrolls back to the first page of this thread one can read Max Mehl's description of the coin as found and posted by yosclimber. It was lot 719 in the 1949 auction.
Numismatic author and researcher Karl Moulton has further determined that this coin with the Green provenance was one and the same as that sold in an even earlier auction in 1870 as one of the coins from Longacre's Estate where it was sold as Lot 178. Of added significance another poster on this board, Rick Snow, chanced to have an original of that 1870 auction catalogue with the added information from penned in notes that the purchaser of the coin was Edward Cogan.
Each of the above described auction descriptions from 1870, 1949, and 2001 are consistent with the subject coin's unique appearance.
The existence of the located in Paris 1850 Double Eagle "Proof" specimen, which was apparently unknown to Breen, first came to my attention after coming across a reference to it in the 2016 book "1849 - The Philadelphia Mint's Gold" by Michael Moran and Jeff Garrett.
Here is a reverse view of the coin to complement my obverse photo posted previously on this thread.
In Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins 1722-1989, he says 2+ specimens .....
And he gives sources for 3 potential specimens, including citing the 1850 Patterson letter @RogerB has shown, and 2 auction lots:
Gold Dollar, Quarter Eagle, Half Eagle, Eagle. [1+] Unknown, though at least one of each must have been struck in proof for the set made up for the Congressional Committee on the Library, per Patterson letter 9/26/50.
Double Eagle. [2+] Large coronet beads, Y recut, different hub from 1849; continued through 1858 on business strikes from all mints. (1) J. B. Longacre estate, 1870: 178, at a then astonishing $27, "from the first dies used for the double eagle." (2) Dr. Green: 719 (at a then extraordinary $315), which was questioned, and which I have never seen -though the price reportedly realized was fantastic for the time, well after the postwar boom in gold had faded away. Another was in the gold set mentioned above.
In the Bibliography section of Breen's other Encyclopedia (Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, 1988), he cites on p.682:
Green, Dr. Charles W., coll, MBS, BMM, 4/26/49. Gold coins.
[MBS = Mail Bid Sale, BMM = B. Max Mehl]
Breen did not mention the Dr. C.W. Green specimen in his discussion of the 1850 $20 in this 1988 book on p.563.
Thanks to the Newman Numismatic Portal, we can see the auction description for lot 719 (as cited by Breen) from this 1949 sale: https://archive.org/stream/drcharleswgreenc1949mehl#page/42/mode/1up
So this yields the additional data that Dr. C.W. Green bought the coin for $350, and it sold in 1949 for $315.
The Dr. C.W. Green attribution.
With regard to Breen's described references to my coin (as again pictured above) ..... I am continuing to search for a print copy of "Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins" which may include a table so referencing his estimated number of proofs. In the course of those efforts I did locate at a university library a print copy of the 1988 edition of his other "Encyclopedia." "Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins." Of relevance to the topic at hand regarding 1850 Double Eagle Proofs, as posted below, it does identify both the one from the set for the Congressional Committee on the Library and the one in the Longacre estate (which per numismatic author and researcher Karl V. Moulton, is the same coin as described above by Max Mehl in the quoted 1949 auction description.)
It has taken some time and effort, but finally located a print copy of the most recent print edition of "Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins." The table contained therein maintains the same 2+ reference as in the pictured below narrative from the book.
I know nothing about any of this but found this thread and all of the posted links and history a fun read and kudos to all of you involved in doing the detective work to pull it all together.
A suggestion is for everyone to take a "clean slate" approach. Collect all the factual information from Mint, museum and similar sources. Analyze this and draw preliminary conclusions as well as identify gaps. ONLY after all this is complete, should any attention be paid to what Breen or any auction lot description has to say. Frankly, Breen is not a trusted source, and auction catalogs are sales vehicles, not research ones.
Focusing on a possible connection between the 1850 $20 Double Eagle in the"Set of Gold Master Coins" as provided to the Committee on the Library - as subject of Roger's initial post, and the subsequently referenced set of "Gold Proofs" (also including an 1850 $20 Double Eagle) in the Paris Museum, there certainly seems to be the potential of adding factual information from the Mint and museums as sources that could eventually establish if these are one and the same set of coins.
As noted above, given the dates referenced in the Wikipedia reporting as to Vattemare's presence in the United States one has to ask if he returned again after 1847 or if the collection containing the 1850 $20 "proof" was brought to Paris by some other means including the possibility of its being part of "an exchange." If so, perhaps there still exist records confirming such a transaction or exchange.
It will be interesting to learn if the intent all along was to provide the "Set of Gold Master Coins" to Vattemare under his newly established "exchange program" and it was just less problematic to have the official records chronicle the coins going initially to our own "Committee on the Library." If anyone discovers if there actually is a subsequent "paper trail" so establishing, either on this side of the Atlantic or "Over There," Roger's efforts in initiating this thread may well prove to have been the catalyst.
Thanks for providing the October 4, 1848 letter from the U.S. Mint. While the 1848 date of the above letter remains two years short of the 1850 date of the U.S. $20 Double Eagle in the Paris collection, it does appear to have been written one year after the above reported 1847 departure of Vattemare from the United States.
Unless I am reading too much into it, that suggests an ongoing relationship keeping open the possibility of an additional subsequent exchange that if verified by the other documents alluded to in my immediately prior posting could establish that the "Set of Gold Master Coins" already documented to have been provided to the U.S. Committee on the Library were one and the same as the set of "Gold Proofs" (including the U.S. $20 Double Eagle) that have now been established to still be existent in the Paris Museum.
@RogerB said:
The authorization letter of Sept 23, 1848 does not specify if Mr. Vattemare is in the U.S. or in Paris and expecting something from the US government.
The authorization letter of Sept 23, 1848 was close to exactly two years prior to the September 1850 application letter authorizing the set of "Gold Master Coins" to be delivered to the U.S. Committee on the Library as identified in Roger's initial post on this thread. This tells us that at least the $20 Double Eagle in that set was not made from the initial dies for the 1850 $20 Double Eagle.
As chronicled on Roger's separate thread titled, "First Double Eagles struck March 12, 1850" there were evidently more than two coins struck on that date. ("The first coinage of double-eagles has been executed this day, and I send two of them, for the President and yourself.")
Q. David Bower's book on Double Eagles includes a reference to the $20 Double Eagles being in circulation by April of 1850. This is consistent with the monthly list of coins reserved for the Annual Assay Commission provided by Roger in the same thread and which by extrapolation suggests over 100,000 of the 1850 $20 coins had been minted by the end of April and by the end of September, 1850 that number would have exceeded 640,000.
Regarding the coining of the first circulating 1850 $20 Double Eagles, this from "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins" at page 56, written by Q. David Bowers:
"It seems that in February 1850 Longacre's dies for regular coinage were completed. The head of Miss Liberty has signed J.B.L. on the neck truncation. Coinage in quantity was ready to begin.
"The Daily Alta California, San Francisco, May 24, 1850, included this exchange item from an eastern paper:
'The Twenty Dollar Gold Piece - we have seen a few specimens of this new coin. New York Journal of Commerce.'
James B. Longacre served with distinction at the Mint for many years, until his death on January 1, 1869. Longacre's Liberty Head design, with modifications, endured until 1907, until it was replaced by the Saint Gaudens motif."
As noted above, this is consistent with the above posts indicating that the $20 Double Eagle that was included in the set of "Gold Master Coins" made for the U.S. Committee on the Library - and which may well be one and the same as the $20 Double Eagle "Proof" in the current Paris museum collection - was not made from the original dies.
As noted above, this is consistent with the above posts indicating that the $20 Double Eagle that was included in the set of "Gold Master Coins" made for the U.S. Committee on the Library - and which may well be one and the same as the $20 Double Eagle "Proof" in the current Paris museum collection - was not made from the original dies.
Interesting to read from Bernard Edison's November 1, 1995 correspondence directed to the Paris museum the following in which he references the museum's specimen as one of "only three known" "proofs" of the 1850 Double Eagle and in which he suggests that the set provided to the U.S. Committee on the Library is the set then [and now] in the possession of the Paris museum:
I’m wondering if that’s the same Bernard Edison that was Eric Newman’s brother- in- law.
m
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......
@Justacommeman said:
I’m wondering if that’s the same Bernard Edison that was Eric Newman’s brother- in- law.
m
Yes, a relative, although Edison refers to Newman as his cousin. I guess he could also be his brother-in-law. This is from the correspondence included in the R. Tettenhorst Files: Bibliotheque Nationale Collection, including the above pictured letter.
Credit to Coinosaurus for initially providing the link to the R. Tettenhorst Files as further linked below.
Speaking of the R. Tettenhorst Files, this description contained therein of the subject 1850 Double Eagle "Proof" based upon a recorded personal viewing is of added interest:
"From the Z 2128 collection, there is ..... The 1850 $20 gold piece is clearly a proof, with an extremely strong strike; a small amount of wire rim on the reverse, but a few minor spots of rub."
@Justacommeman said:
I’m wondering if that’s the same Bernard Edison that was Eric Newman’s brother- in- law.
m
Yes, a relative, although Edison refers to Newman as his cousin. I guess he could also be his brother-in-law. This is from the correspondence included in the R. Tettenhorst Files: Bibliotheque Nationale Collection, including the above pictured letter.
Credit to Coinosaurus for initially providing the link to the R. Tettenhorst Files as further linked below.
Could be cousin. That makes sense. Just knew they were related if this was the same Bernard Edison. I recognized the handwriting. Bernard used to sign my checks up until 1995. That’s how I got to meet Eric.
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......
@northcoin said:
Regarding the coining of the first circulating 1850 $20 Double Eagles, this from "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins" at page 56, written by Q. David Bowers:
"It seems that in February 1850 Longacre's dies for regular coinage were completed. The head of Miss Liberty has signed J.B.L. on the neck truncation. Coinage in quantity was ready to begin.
"The Daily Alta California, San Francisco, May 24, 1850, included this exchange item from an eastern paper:
'The Twenty Dollar Gold Piece - we have seen a few specimens of this new coin. New York Journal of Commerce.'
James B. Longacre served with distinction at the Mint for many years, until his death on January 1, 1869. Longacre's Liberty Head design, with modifications, endured until 1907, until it was replaced by the Saint Gaudens motif."
As noted above, this is consistent with the above posts indicating that the $20 Double Eagle that was included in the set of "Gold Master Coins" made for the U.S. Committee on the Library - and which may well be one and the same as the $20 Double Eagle "Proof" in the current Paris museum collection - was not made from the original dies.
Contrasted to the specimen in the Paris museum, which as chronicled above was evidently not made from the original dies, the coin from the Longacre Estate was so identified as having been from the first dies:
As discussed and pictured in posts above, the coin from the Longacre Estate and subsequent Dr. C.W. Green auctions, is one of, if not the first, $20 Double Eagle which was minted at the Philadelphia mint in 1850, the first year of circulation. (The 1870 Longacre Estate auction description for the coin read "1850 Double Eagle Proof. This piece was from the first dies used for the double eagle, and might be termed a trial piece.")
@Coinosaurus said:
Bernard Edison was a cousin to Eric Newman's wife, Eveyln. Eric and Bernard were both executives at the family business, Edison Brothers Stores.
This is long, but might help a little. It outlines the various trials made of the Double Eagle in 1849-50.
Mint of the United States
Philadelphia
February 18, 1850
Dear Sir:
You could have conferred no privilege I value more at this moment, than the authority I received from you, to make a frank and full statement to you personally of the matters I conceive affecting my official place under your department.
I intend to be as brief as perspicuity and justice to myself will permit; but should I possibly exceed the limits you may have anticipated, I must only entreat your patience.
Since I saw you it has occurred to me, that I may have so expressed myself as to lead to a thought that I desired to shrink from the responsibility of my own statement, otherwise than in a confidential form; I assure you that I have no such purpose: while I wish to obtrude myself no farther on your attention, than is strictly necessary for my own vindication. The facts I may furnish are at your service for any object required by the public welfare.
About a year ago when the Act of Congress adding two new denominations to the gold coinage, was the subject of discussion; I was informed by a gentleman in the Mint that he feared measures would be taken thereto, prejudicial to my position; intimating that a purpose existed on the part of another officer to have the dies executed elsewhere and by some other hand than mine. Knowing the law designating my duties, I immediately waited on the Director, and apprized him that I was ready to commence the work. He assented to my suggestion, and requested me to commence making a model in wax for the head; which I accordingly executed, and subsequently engraved the dies for the Gold Dollar. The engraving was unusually minute, and required very close and incessant labor for several weeks. I made the original dies and the hubs for making the working dies twice over, to secure their perfect adaptation to the coining machinery. I had a wish to execute this work single handed; that I might thus silently reply to those who had questioned my ability for the work. The result I believe was satisfactory – but I then found I had tasked myself too severely for my health; and knowing that my labour would necessarily be increased with that which was to follow, I took occasion to say to the Director, in the month of May last, that my department was not strong enough for such an emergency, as it rested with him legally and properly to order such assistance as I might require. I was surprised to find that he objected to making any addition to the force of my department, by the employment of any person to assist me: saying, that for that matter he saw no objection to having the engraving done out of the mint. That it might be done by contract as it was in France. That if it could not be done in this City, it might be done in any other part of the country, or even in Europe. This remark closed my lips against any further application for aid. The law required that I, as the proper officer, should “Engrave all the dies” for the Mint; and left out to the discretion of the Director, as to what assistance should be given me. I could not direct or contract any work done out of the Mint, or by contract, I was not so empowered. In consequence, I proceeded as well as I was able with the work necessary to produce the dies for the Double Eagle.
I made a design and model for the reverse. The plan of operation selected for me, was to have an electrotype mould made from my model in copper, to serve as a pattern for a cast in iron. The operations of the galvanic battery for this purpose were conducted in the apartments of the Chief Coiner. The galvanic process failed; my model was destroyed, in the operation. I had however taken the precaution to make a cast in plaster from my model previous to subjecting it to the action of the galvanic battery. From this cast, as the only alternative, I procured a metallic one which however was not perfect, but I thought I should be able to correct the imperfections in the engraving of the die with more economy of time, than in making a new model. This was a laborious task but was reasonably completed entirely by my own hand – the die had then to be hardened in the coining department, it unluckily split in the process. I had then to go to work with depressed spirits to overcome this unexpected misfortune to my work. When I had got through this, the original die was still to be finished for the head, and all the hubs to be made – for all this, no assistance was yet provided for me, nor was it until late in October that I received authority to procure it. I had then to look for some one qualitied for the work and at liberty to undertake it. Through the good offices of my friend Mr. Wright of New York, I was, in November last, enabled to obtained [sic] the services of a young man whom he had instructed, and who has rendered me valuable aid. But the days had now become short and dark, and the light of my only room in the Mint rendered more obscure very frequently by the smoke of the steam engines and of the Melting and refining furnaces. The dies were finished and struck in December, but I then perceived that I had overrated the power of the coinage press used for striking in making the relief of the head too high to come up full under the pressure that was employed.
To accommodate the relief to the power of the press, I found it necessary to work over the face again. This was not the most certain or agreeable course to me, but I adopted it to save time. On the 12th of January last I was ready for another trial, but I found no material in readiness, and no gold prepared in the Coining Department, where the trial had to be made. This was a delay over which I had no control, and it was not until the 26th of the same month, that I could obtain the second trial. The impressions taken were objected to by the Chief Coiner, as still not coming up sufficiently under the pressure applied. I wished to make the dies perfectly adapted to the power of the press used in coining (I saw no other defect than a slight want of fullness in the centre of the pieces) and only regretted the additional delay that must ensure. I asked this officer for one of the gold pieces then struck, to guide me intelligently in the very delicate operations yet required; he declined on the ground of difficulty in his accounts. I offered to deposit the value from my own pocket, with no other view than to facilitate the public issue of the coin. He still declined absolutely and on any terms to allow me the temporary use of one of these pieces for my purpose. I asked him what he expected me to do under such circumstances. With some hesitation he observed that I might have an impression taken in silver; this alternative, though not satisfactory, not even safe to me, I was constrained to accept. The piece I had the opportunity of showing you on the 13th inst., was that one then obtained, by which you may form a tolerable judgement of the state of the dies from which it was taken.
The facts just stated were communicated to the Director, but I am not advised of any interposition more favourable [sic] to my views by him.
In the operations of the Royal Mint of great Britain, and I believe in most others, the right to decide upon the fitness of the dies for coining rests with the engraver, whose reputation is chiefly concerned; but a different order seems to be established here.
The impressions taken from my dies at the trial last mentioned appeared to me equal to those of most of the coins in previous use. I regret that the unpleasant circumstance, to which I have adverted, deprived me of the satisfaction of submitting one to your inspection.
Under a fair trial I have no fears for the fitness of the dies I have now on hand and nearly ready, being the third piece furnished for the same coin.
Until very recently I have proved myself equal to all the work of the Mint put upon me, unaided. I asked for no help until I thought myself overtasked. I have never hesitated to undertake nor intentionally delayed any labor pertaining to my office.
The law providing to the office of “Engraver of the Mint” make no allusion to that primitive branch of the art called die-sinking, and the omission appears to me judicious. For these reasons: the mere die-sinker in this country at least is rarely an educated artist, and the work to be done intaglio, which is what is understood by die-sinking, forms but a minor par of the duties of the office. The work required in Cameo, being equally artistic and more laborious, and in fact the Engraver of the Mint, to discharge his duties intelligently, should be a designer and modeler, and possess a general knowledge of numismatics and heraldry. On my first introduction to the office, I was official informed that the most important qualification was modelling, and I believe I have not much cause to fear competition in this branch of the art.
If excellence in one branch of artistic skill, necessarily implied as disqualification for every other, there would be force in the objection raised against the early training of my hand, but experience contradicts such a supposition. The history of art from the times of DaVinci, Angelo and Cellini to the present, is full of samples of eminent success on the part of men who have passed at will form the pencil to the graver, or the chisel and vice versa. Seviar [sic – Robert William Sievier], still living I believe, whose statues of “Christ on the Cross” and “Musidora” are among the finest specimens in his own “Sculpture Illustrations” was like myself a portrait engraver; and his truly magnificent portrait of “Lord Ellenborough in Industrial Costume, after Sir T. Lawrence” [sic - Lord Ellingborough after a picture by Sir Thomas Lawrence] will I hope, sufficiently remind you of his excellence in that line. In this country it is worthy of remark that the men who have had the most superior skill as medallists [sic], have been brought to different pursuits. Gobrecht was a watchmaker, and wright of New York a silversmith.
There is a peculiar difficulty to be met in engraving for the coinage of the Mint, unknown to mere medallists [sic] or die sinkers consisting in the very limited power of the press used in striking coin, the extent of which can only be ascertained by very careful and repeated trials of the work, on every change in the diameter of the piece to be struck. The utmost elevation of the relief of which it seems capable in the present instance on either die is less than the one h8ndredth part of an inch. Consequently it is within this limit the whole power and skill of the artist must be employed.
A more detailed and technical account of the various obstacles I have encountered, would present my position more strongly were I writing to a professional artist. But I must spare you the recital, lest I weary you.
I have restrained heretofore by a sense of official stringency from communicating with the proper executive authority on a want of facilities (that under other circumstances would be considered indispensable), for the labours [sic] required of me under existing arrangement. If the representation I have made suggest any inquiries that I have not fully met, I am willing to answer them at the first intimation from you, in such a manner as may appear most desirable.
Allow me to close with a more agreeable reminiscence that has been called up by the circumstances in which I so unexpectedly find myself. One of the most agreeable of my early works was the portrait of Governeur [sic - Gouverneur] Morris at which time I was honored with the friendship of your father. This incident has caused me to feel a particular interest in your public career. And as the patriotic devotion of the Decii was hereditary, and as I remember, the daughter of Scipis [sic – Scipio] Africanus was the mother of the Gracchi, my belief in the genealogy of public virtue persuades me, I should not be made the victim of misrepresentations while my fate is in the hand of the Officers I have now the honor to serve.
With estimation and respect,
The most sincere
James B. Longacre
Engraver of the Mint
Hon. W. M. Meredith,
Secretary of the Treasury
[Ed - Cornelia Africana Minor, younger daughter of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, married Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus.]
@northcoin said:
Focusing on a possible connection between the 1850 $20 Double Eagle in the"Set of Gold Master Coins" as provided to the Committee on the Library - as subject of Roger's initial post, and the subsequently referenced set of "Gold Proofs" (also including an 1850 $20 Double Eagle) in the Paris Museum, there certainly seems to be the potential of adding factual information from the Mint and museums as sources that could eventually establish if these are one and the same set of coins.
As noted above, given the dates referenced in the Wikipedia reporting as to Vattemare's presence in the United States one has to ask if he returned again after 1847 or if the collection containing the 1850 $20 "proof" was brought to Paris by some other means including the possibility of its being part of "an exchange." If so, perhaps there still exist records confirming such a transaction or exchange.
It will be interesting to learn if the intent all along was to provide the "Set of Gold Master Coins" to Vattemare under his newly established "exchange program" and it was just less problematic to have the official records chronicle the coins going initially to our own "Committee on the Library." If anyone discovers if there actually is a subsequent "paper trail" so establishing, either on this side of the Atlantic or "Over There," Roger's efforts in initiating this thread may well prove to have been the catalyst.
Just an update to report on some initial success in trying to learn more about the source and timing of the acquisition of the other 1850 $20 Double Eagle "Proof"/specimen which is located in a Paris museum. On my behalf a family member, who just returned from Europe, met in person with the individual connected to the museum with whom I had previously been in contact. Hopefully I will be able to provide more details in the not too distant future.
In the meantime here are photos of the Bibliotheque National museum in Paris which he took when he first went there to make initial inquiry before being referred to another location where the coin is now secured.
And here is the location to which he was directed where he had the opportunity to meet with the individual connected with the museum with whom I had previously been in contact regarding my interest in comparing my 1850 $20 Double Eagle that was once in the personal collection of its designer James Longacre and apparently the only other even closely similar coin known to exist. This structure is closed to the public until 2020 due to present on going renovation.
@RogerB said:
Does mean that the coin and related records/photos are inaccessible until sometime in 2020?
Hopefully not, While the collections are presently closed to the public, at least the museum official mentioned above can in a special circumstance arrange at least limited access to a specified item. Such was offered by the official at the above described meeting with him.
@northcoin said:
Focusing on a possible connection between the 1850 $20 Double Eagle in the"Set of Gold Master Coins" as provided to the Committee on the Library - as subject of Roger's initial post, and the subsequently referenced set of "Gold Proofs" (also including an 1850 $20 Double Eagle) in the Paris Museum, there certainly seems to be the potential of adding factual information from the Mint and museums as sources that could eventually establish if these are one and the same set of coins.
As noted above, given the dates referenced in the Wikipedia reporting as to Vattemare's presence in the United States one has to ask if he returned again after 1847 or if the collection containing the 1850 $20 "proof" was brought to Paris by some other means including the possibility of its being part of "an exchange." If so, perhaps there still exist records confirming such a transaction or exchange.
It will be interesting to learn if the intent all along was to provide the "Set of Gold Master Coins" to Vattemare under his newly established "exchange program" and it was just less problematic to have the official records chronicle the coins going initially to our own "Committee on the Library." If anyone discovers if there actually is a subsequent "paper trail" so establishing, either on this side of the Atlantic or "Over There," Roger's efforts in initiating this thread may well prove to have been the catalyst.
Just an update to report on some initial success in trying to learn more about the source and timing of the acquisition of the other 1850 $20 Double Eagle "Proof"/specimen which is located in a Paris museum. On my behalf a family member, who just returned from Europe, met in person with the individual connected to the museum with whom I had previously been in contact. Hopefully I will be able to provide more details in the not too distant future.
In the meantime here are photos of the Bibliotheque National museum in Paris which he took when he first went there to make initial inquiry before being referred to another location where the coin is now secured.
And here is the location to which he was directed where he had the opportunity to meet with the individual connected with the museum with whom I had previously been in contact regarding my interest in comparing my 1850 $20 Double Eagle that was once in the personal collection of its designer James Longacre and apparently the only other even closely similar coin known to exist. This structure is closed to the public until 2020 due to present on going renovation.
To put it into perspective, the Bibliotheque National museum in Paris, as depicted in the first two photos, is huge. Think - our Library of Congress. People (most appeared to be students) were lined up for blocks just to get entrance.
@RogerB said:
Bibliotheque National is more like our NARA....Immense, deep, and very protective.
European archives reach back two millennia, compared to our paltry 400 years.
Prompted by Roger's comment I checked to see just how expansive the Library of Congress is. Apart from being the largest library in the world, it has over 500 miles of bookshelves. Imagine, it would take close to a year and a half just to walk the stacks covering one mile a day.
Much of LoC's extent is from its role as register of copyright. Until the law was changes some years ago, all application for copyright had to be accompanied by 2 copies of the publication. LoC was obligated to keep these physical copies. While physical registration is no longer necessary, deposition of 2 copies remains necessary if you want the official certificate.
Smudge: Coins were melted from 1935 to about 1938. Almost all of these were already in Mint and treasury vaults. Coins turned in by the public amounted to just a few million dollars, and the Mint Bureau made and effort to preserve rare and unusual items. (See my Numismatist article on the subject from 2017.)
@northcoin said:
Focusing on a possible connection between the 1850 $20 Double Eagle in the"Set of Gold Master Coins" as provided to the Committee on the Library - as subject of Roger's initial post, and the subsequently referenced set of "Gold Proofs" (also including an 1850 $20 Double Eagle) in the Paris Museum, there certainly seems to be the potential of adding factual information from the Mint and museums as sources that could eventually establish if these are one and the same set of coins.
As noted above, given the dates referenced in the Wikipedia reporting as to Vattemare's presence in the United States one has to ask if he returned again after 1847 or if the collection containing the 1850 $20 "proof" was brought to Paris by some other means including the possibility of its being part of "an exchange." If so, perhaps there still exist records confirming such a transaction or exchange.
It will be interesting to learn if the intent all along was to provide the "Set of Gold Master Coins" to Vattemare under his newly established "exchange program" and it was just less problematic to have the official records chronicle the coins going initially to our own "Committee on the Library." If anyone discovers if there actually is a subsequent "paper trail" so establishing, either on this side of the Atlantic or "Over There," Roger's efforts in initiating this thread may well prove to have been the catalyst.
Just an update to report on some initial success in trying to learn more about the source and timing of the acquisition of the other 1850 $20 Double Eagle "Proof"/specimen which is located in a Paris museum. On my behalf a family member, who just returned from Europe, met in person with the individual connected to the museum with whom I had previously been in contact. Hopefully I will be able to provide more details in the not too distant future.
In the meantime here are photos of the Bibliotheque National museum in Paris which he took when he first went there to make initial inquiry before being referred to another location where the coin is now secured.
And here is the location to which he was directed where he had the opportunity to meet with the individual connected with the museum with whom I had previously been in contact regarding my interest in comparing my 1850 $20 Double Eagle that was once in the personal collection of its designer James Longacre and apparently the only other even closely similar coin known to exist. This structure is closed to the public until 2020 due to present on going renovation.
Just came back from "Mission Impossible - Fallout." It seems like half of Paris was featured in the motorcycle/car/speed boat chase scenes. Could have sworn the sights included the above pictured Bibliotheque National museum. Anyone who has seen the movie agree?
As to the film, my take:
Glad to see yet another film where CGI has taken a secondary position to real live action. Note the concluding paragraph in the above playbill quote from Marc Wolff:
"Everything is real. Some of it is slightly enhanced with visual effects, but it's not created by visual effects. It's real things. Real aircraft. Real people jumping out of aircraft and real people flying."
By way of example, the early in the movie HALO (high altitude low opening) drop was only enhanced by adding CGI lightning and the lights of Paris below. Just to confirm to the audience that it was Tom himself jumping from the plane special oxygen helmets were fabricated with a face covering that was clear and in which interior lighting within the helmet was included.
56 years old and Tom Cruise still insists on doing his own stunts. Spent two years learning to fly a helicopter, performed over a hundred HALO jumps requiring oxygen from high altitude, motorcycled and drove at ridiculous speeds through Paris, and even broke his ankle jumping between buildings,
Reportedly the stunts were designed first and the script narrative was added as an after thought.
"As we know, several extremely rare United States coins are worth millions of dollars apiece and can ever only be owned by a tiny handful of collectors. Even the iconic 1933 Saint Gaudens $20 Double Eagle, which is generally illegal to own, yields one specimen that was legally monetized by the United States government and presently resides in a private collection.
Yet, there is a small number of unique coins that are stowed away in public collections and museums, leaving them unavailable for private ownership. "
While the 1849 Double Eagle certainly qualifies despite being termed a pattern, there is another Double Eagle which is not a pattern that also is not available for private purchase and is also locked away in a museum. It is from the first year of production of the Double Eagle, 1850 and the Museum located in France contends it is a proof, a contention agreed with by David Hall and several others who have seen it.
A photograph of the coin (Courtesy Bibliotheque nationale de France) can be seen in John W. Dannreuther's recently published book, "United States Proof Coins, Volume IV, Part Two" at page 864.
@northcoin said:
Thanks again for your efforts in locating these mint records. To my knowledge, until your posted findings here there had been nothing publicly known sourced from the mint itself confirming that the mint had created even one "proof" or Presentation Piece of the 1850 Double Eagle, the first Double Eagles to enter circulation.
It is interesting that Breen had suggested there might be as many as five Presentation Pieces or "proofs" of the 1850 Double Eagle, but he had only heard of the one that had been owned by Green as previously posted on the relinked below thread in reference to the below pictured 1850 Double Eagle now in my possession:
"This is the coin identified as possibly unique on the Coinfacts site as the first $20 proof/presentation piece, excepting the 1849 specimen in the Smithsonian. ....."
Here is an additional excerpt from the below linked thread:
"The following may also be if interest to anyone who has read this far with regard to my 1850 Double Eagle:
As noted on the holder, it once belonged to C.W. Green. Interestingly in reading Breen's book cataloging gold proofs I came across a reference by Breen to the very coin. He noted that there were possibly several Presentation Pieces a/k/a proofs made of the first $20 gold piece available for circulation in 1850. He went on to note that Green was reported to have one, but that he had never seen it himself. In addition, the coin is featured on CoinFacts.com as its first described "Significant example" of the 1850 Double Eagle, and CoinFacts further notes under Mintage, "Proofs: Unique?"
(An added personal footnote to the story. When David Bowers was compiling his book on Double Eagles I afforded him an opportunity to view the coin and to my surprise he kindly added my name to the credits for sharing the coin. )
At the time David Bowers was compiling his book on Double Eagles the coin's earlier auction history and connection to Longacre's personal collection ... had not yet been learned.
In addition, here is the above referenced "Coin Facts" description of the coin and its more recent auction history:
Significant examples:
SEGS Proof-62, "Presentation/PL, enhanced surfaces". Ex - Superior Galleries' "Pre-Long Beach Sale" May 27-29, 2001, Lot 4170A, where it was described as follows: "1850 SEGS graded Proof 62 marked "Presentation/PL" and " Enhanced Surfaces". The coin is also pedigreed to Dr. C. W. Green and so noted on the holder. This is the first collectible issue of the United States Double Eagle series. This coin has a beautiful bold strike with full stars and all other details sharp and clear. The fields are Prooflike and you can see clearly with magnification that the dies and planchet were enhanced prior to striking...""
Below is a more recently taken photo of my coin. As noted above, a photo of the 1850 Proof Double Eagle located in the Paris museum can be seen and compared as pictured in John W. Dannreuther's recently published book, "United States Proof Coins" Volume IV Gold Part Two at page 864. He agrees that it was sourced from Vattemare as described in above postings although he adds it is uncertain when and how he obtained the proof set in which it was included.
Comments
Makes sense to me! That's why I've posted a question. I wish to COMPARE something in my notes with an 1850 Proof $20 that @northcoin has graciously shared with us. That may add to our incomplete knowledge. Perhaps the coin I examined long ago was just a DMPL. Then again, they may match.
Maybe a PM will get your answer?
@RogerB Thanks for the post.
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
I Agree! That's why I posted my question. Some time ago, I recorded some diagnostics of a Proof 1850 $20 Liberty. I wished to COMPARE what I wrote with the "markers" on the Proof that @northcoin has graciously posted. It may add something to the "incomplete state of our knowledge." At the least, it may indicate that the coin I examined was just a DMPL.
I will only agree with you for the first forty years of the 20th Century. For the next thirty years, the research was much more reliable (that may not be saying a lot).
IMO, during the last thirty years of the last Century there were extraordinary things accomplished in the way we examine coins and record what we see. For example, a Large cent collector from the turn of the Century would be bowled over at all the images on the internet of his S-63!
OK but I think that is something we all should know? Besides, he may be on vacation or the coin is in the bank.
I agree with you on the advances in forensic numismatics, but the Fords, Newmans, and Breens of the world were far too comfortable making stories up in the absence of fact.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
When the early pioneers examined a coin they rarely looked beyond the "macro" level. Examples:
"leaf slightly right of.."
"date dips down at the end"
"large final 8"
I believe Newcomb was the first to mention large and obvious die polish on a few specific dies.
Incidentally, that possibly inspired the "rookie" authenticator to develop the "Die Scratch Method" of counterfeit detection that I learned was used at the Certification Service. Later when he discovered that a state-of-the-art counterfeit had "picked-up" and transferred major die polish on a $20, it changed the way diagnostics were kept from then on!
https://archive.org/stream/drcharleswgreenc1949mehl#page/42/mode/1up
OK, finally was able to see a hard copy of Breen's first edition of his Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proofs and as suspected it did include a separate table. The table stated 2+ for 1850 $20 Double Eagle Proofs. Now I need to locate the later edition in print format to confirm if that was in fact where a reference was made to as many as possibly 5 in its table.
(For completeness, click the above links which include the above referenced 1949 "auction description" provided by Max Mehl for my above pictured coin.)
@northcoin said:
I have been in communication with the Bibliotheque Nationale museum in Paris and they maintain that their 1850 $20 is in fact a "proof." At some point I hope to be able to place side-by-side my 1850 $20 (graded a PR-62 by Larry Briggs) and theirs (graded a "cleaned" PR-61, based upon a viewing at the museum, by David Hall).
A Bibliotheque Nationale Museum sourced photo of the Paris specimen will be included in a soon to be published book on gold proofs authored by John W. Dannreuther.
As to accession information it appears that the coin was identified as being in a Paris museum collection as early as 1861 as part of The Alexandre Vattemare Collection. It will be of interest to learn from further research exactly when and how Vattemare obtained the 1850 $20 "Proof" in the United States and if there was a date before 1861 when he provided it to the Paris museum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Vattemare
Given the dates referenced in the Wikipedia reporting as to Vattemare's presence in the United States one has to ask if he returned again after 1847 or if the collection containing the 1850 $20 "proof" was brought to Paris by some other means including the possibility of its being part of "an exchange." If so, perhaps there still exist records confirming such a transaction or exchange.
The possibility cannot be discounted that the "Set of Gold Master Coins" of 1850 date referenced in the OP's initial post as provided to the Committee on the Library ended up in The Library of Congress and was "exchanged" thereafter prior to the Library of Congress December 24, 1851 fire chronicled by the OP in a subsequent post. It would be ironic if this specimen now in Paris was preserved for posterity by becoming a numismatic expatriate.
OK, how about this twist - maybe the intent all along was to provide the "Set of Gold Master Coins" to Vattemare under his newly established "exchange program" as payback for the materials he had already provided to the U.S. on his 1847 visit and it was just less problematic to have the official records chronicle the coins going initially to our own "Committee on the Library." After all the way the "exchange" was set up it was impliedly between libraries/museums, not directly between the governments.
@ Insider 2
It is hard for me to imagine that Mint employees took time to strike only one proof $20 and gave it to our special foreign visitor.
Agreed, or for that matter took time to strike only one "proof" $20 to provide to the Committee on the Library. As noted above, I remain committed to at some point being able to place side-by-side my 1850 $20 (graded a PR-62 by Larry Briggs) and the Paris specimen (graded a "cleaned" PR-61, based upon a viewing at the museum by David Hall).
I'm curious how NGC and PCGS would see the extant coins; since PCGS would crack it out conditionally on a grade, and NGC would require it be raw for certification it would probably be better to send it to PCGS.
Making only one proof set (or even one proof coin) was not unusual. These were made with the large medal press and that was in regular use striking just one or two copies of medals as they were ordered. Making a master coin ("proof") was much easier than a medal - the coin took just one blow and it was done.
Note that the Engraver had no role in making master coins.
@northcoin Can you please comment on the provenance of the 1850 $20 proof coin that you own?
OINK
This is actually abbreviated, at least in part, from an earlier posting on this thread so apologies to those who have followed this thread from the beginning. Hopefully this is at least partially responsive to your request for my comment on the provenance of the 1850 $20 that I own:
"This is the coin identified as possibly unique on the [original] Coinfacts site as the first $20 proof/presentation piece, excepting the 1849 specimen in the Smithsonian. ....."
As noted on the holder, it once belonged to C.W. Green. Interestingly in reading Breen's book cataloging gold proofs I came across a reference by Breen to the very coin. He noted that there were possibly several Presentation Pieces a/k/a proofs made of the first $20 gold piece available for circulation in 1850. He went on to note that Green was reported to have one, but that he had never seen it himself. In addition, the coin is featured on CoinFacts.com as its first described "Significant example" of the 1850 Double Eagle, and CoinFacts further notes under Mintage, "Proofs: Unique?"
Here is the above referenced "Coin Facts" description of the coin and its more recent auction history:
Significant examples:
SEGS Proof-62, "Presentation/PL, enhanced surfaces". Ex - Superior Galleries' "Pre-Long Beach Sale" May 27-29, 2001, Lot 4170A, where it was described as follows: "1850 SEGS graded Proof 62 marked "Presentation/PL" and " Enhanced Surfaces". The coin is also pedigreed to Dr. C. W. Green and so noted on the holder. This is the first collectible issue of the United States Double Eagle series. This coin has a beautiful bold strike with full stars and all other details sharp and clear. The fields are Prooflike and you can see clearly with magnification that the dies and planchet were enhanced prior to striking...""
Adding to the above:
Through the efforts of poster yosclimber on this thread, an auction description written by Max Mehl for the coin was located from a 1949 auction. If one scrolls back to the first page of this thread one can read Max Mehl's description of the coin as found and posted by yosclimber. It was lot 719 in the 1949 auction.
Numismatic author and researcher Karl Moulton has further determined that this coin with the Green provenance was one and the same as that sold in an even earlier auction in 1870 as one of the coins from Longacre's Estate where it was sold as Lot 178. Of added significance another poster on this board, Rick Snow, chanced to have an original of that 1870 auction catalogue with the added information from penned in notes that the purchaser of the coin was Edward Cogan.
Each of the above described auction descriptions from 1870, 1949, and 2001 are consistent with the subject coin's unique appearance.
The existence of the located in Paris 1850 Double Eagle "Proof" specimen, which was apparently unknown to Breen, first came to my attention after coming across a reference to it in the 2016 book "1849 - The Philadelphia Mint's Gold" by Michael Moran and Jeff Garrett.
Here is a reverse view of the coin to complement my obverse photo posted previously on this thread.
It has taken some time and effort, but finally located a print copy of the most recent print edition of "Breen's Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Proof Coins." The table contained therein maintains the same 2+ reference as in the pictured below narrative from the book.
I know nothing about any of this but found this thread and all of the posted links and history a fun read and kudos to all of you involved in doing the detective work to pull it all together.
A suggestion is for everyone to take a "clean slate" approach. Collect all the factual information from Mint, museum and similar sources. Analyze this and draw preliminary conclusions as well as identify gaps. ONLY after all this is complete, should any attention be paid to what Breen or any auction lot description has to say. Frankly, Breen is not a trusted source, and auction catalogs are sales vehicles, not research ones.
Focusing on a possible connection between the 1850 $20 Double Eagle in the"Set of Gold Master Coins" as provided to the Committee on the Library - as subject of Roger's initial post, and the subsequently referenced set of "Gold Proofs" (also including an 1850 $20 Double Eagle) in the Paris Museum, there certainly seems to be the potential of adding factual information from the Mint and museums as sources that could eventually establish if these are one and the same set of coins.
As noted above, given the dates referenced in the Wikipedia reporting as to Vattemare's presence in the United States one has to ask if he returned again after 1847 or if the collection containing the 1850 $20 "proof" was brought to Paris by some other means including the possibility of its being part of "an exchange." If so, perhaps there still exist records confirming such a transaction or exchange.
It will be interesting to learn if the intent all along was to provide the "Set of Gold Master Coins" to Vattemare under his newly established "exchange program" and it was just less problematic to have the official records chronicle the coins going initially to our own "Committee on the Library." If anyone discovers if there actually is a subsequent "paper trail" so establishing, either on this side of the Atlantic or "Over There," Roger's efforts in initiating this thread may well prove to have been the catalyst.
This letter might be of background interest. I also have the initial request from the acting secretary.
[Transcription by a volunteer.]
Thanks for providing the October 4, 1848 letter from the U.S. Mint. While the 1848 date of the above letter remains two years short of the 1850 date of the U.S. $20 Double Eagle in the Paris collection, it does appear to have been written one year after the above reported 1847 departure of Vattemare from the United States.
Unless I am reading too much into it, that suggests an ongoing relationship keeping open the possibility of an additional subsequent exchange that if verified by the other documents alluded to in my immediately prior posting could establish that the "Set of Gold Master Coins" already documented to have been provided to the U.S. Committee on the Library were one and the same as the set of "Gold Proofs" (including the U.S. $20 Double Eagle) that have now been established to still be existent in the Paris Museum.
The authorization letter of Sept 23, 1848 does not specify if Mr. Vattemare is in the U.S. or in Paris and expecting something from the US government.
The authorization letter of Sept 23, 1848 was close to exactly two years prior to the September 1850 application letter authorizing the set of "Gold Master Coins" to be delivered to the U.S. Committee on the Library as identified in Roger's initial post on this thread. This tells us that at least the $20 Double Eagle in that set was not made from the initial dies for the 1850 $20 Double Eagle.
As chronicled on Roger's separate thread titled, "First Double Eagles struck March 12, 1850" there were evidently more than two coins struck on that date. ("The first coinage of double-eagles has been executed this day, and I send two of them, for the President and yourself.")
Q. David Bower's book on Double Eagles includes a reference to the $20 Double Eagles being in circulation by April of 1850. This is consistent with the monthly list of coins reserved for the Annual Assay Commission provided by Roger in the same thread and which by extrapolation suggests over 100,000 of the 1850 $20 coins had been minted by the end of April and by the end of September, 1850 that number would have exceeded 640,000.
Regarding the coining of the first circulating 1850 $20 Double Eagles, this from "The Official RED BOOK - A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins" at page 56, written by Q. David Bowers:
"It seems that in February 1850 Longacre's dies for regular coinage were completed. The head of Miss Liberty has signed J.B.L. on the neck truncation. Coinage in quantity was ready to begin.
"The Daily Alta California, San Francisco, May 24, 1850, included this exchange item from an eastern paper:
'The Twenty Dollar Gold Piece - we have seen a few specimens of this new coin. New York Journal of Commerce.'
James B. Longacre served with distinction at the Mint for many years, until his death on January 1, 1869. Longacre's Liberty Head design, with modifications, endured until 1907, until it was replaced by the Saint Gaudens motif."
As noted above, this is consistent with the above posts indicating that the $20 Double Eagle that was included in the set of "Gold Master Coins" made for the U.S. Committee on the Library - and which may well be one and the same as the $20 Double Eagle "Proof" in the current Paris museum collection - was not made from the original dies.
Interesting to read from Bernard Edison's November 1, 1995 correspondence directed to the Paris museum the following in which he references the museum's specimen as one of "only three known" "proofs" of the 1850 Double Eagle and in which he suggests that the set provided to the U.S. Committee on the Library is the set then [and now] in the possession of the Paris museum:
I’m wondering if that’s the same Bernard Edison that was Eric Newman’s brother- in- law.
m
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......
Yes, a relative, although Edison refers to Newman as his cousin. I guess he could also be his brother-in-law. This is from the correspondence included in the R. Tettenhorst Files: Bibliotheque Nationale Collection, including the above pictured letter.
Credit to Coinosaurus for initially providing the link to the R. Tettenhorst Files as further linked below.
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/540906
Speaking of the R. Tettenhorst Files, this description contained therein of the subject 1850 Double Eagle "Proof" based upon a recorded personal viewing is of added interest:
"From the Z 2128 collection, there is ..... The 1850 $20 gold piece is clearly a proof, with an extremely strong strike; a small amount of wire rim on the reverse, but a few minor spots of rub."
Great to see so many participating in empirical examination & research!
Could be cousin. That makes sense. Just knew they were related if this was the same Bernard Edison. I recognized the handwriting. Bernard used to sign my checks up until 1995. That’s how I got to meet Eric.
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......
Contrasted to the specimen in the Paris museum, which as chronicled above was evidently not made from the original dies, the coin from the Longacre Estate was so identified as having been from the first dies:
As discussed and pictured in posts above, the coin from the Longacre Estate and subsequent Dr. C.W. Green auctions, is one of, if not the first, $20 Double Eagle which was minted at the Philadelphia mint in 1850, the first year of circulation. (The 1870 Longacre Estate auction description for the coin read "1850 Double Eagle Proof. This piece was from the first dies used for the double eagle, and might be termed a trial piece.")
Also see:
The Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine - Volume 17 - Page 297
Link available?
Sorry, no link. The copyright is owned by Amos Press and I don't think it is publicly available.
Bernard Edison was a cousin to Eric Newman's wife, Eveyln. Eric and Bernard were both executives at the family business, Edison Brothers Stores.
Thanks for solving the "mystery."
This is long, but might help a little. It outlines the various trials made of the Double Eagle in 1849-50.
Mint of the United States
Philadelphia
February 18, 1850
Dear Sir:
You could have conferred no privilege I value more at this moment, than the authority I received from you, to make a frank and full statement to you personally of the matters I conceive affecting my official place under your department.
I intend to be as brief as perspicuity and justice to myself will permit; but should I possibly exceed the limits you may have anticipated, I must only entreat your patience.
Since I saw you it has occurred to me, that I may have so expressed myself as to lead to a thought that I desired to shrink from the responsibility of my own statement, otherwise than in a confidential form; I assure you that I have no such purpose: while I wish to obtrude myself no farther on your attention, than is strictly necessary for my own vindication. The facts I may furnish are at your service for any object required by the public welfare.
About a year ago when the Act of Congress adding two new denominations to the gold coinage, was the subject of discussion; I was informed by a gentleman in the Mint that he feared measures would be taken thereto, prejudicial to my position; intimating that a purpose existed on the part of another officer to have the dies executed elsewhere and by some other hand than mine. Knowing the law designating my duties, I immediately waited on the Director, and apprized him that I was ready to commence the work. He assented to my suggestion, and requested me to commence making a model in wax for the head; which I accordingly executed, and subsequently engraved the dies for the Gold Dollar. The engraving was unusually minute, and required very close and incessant labor for several weeks. I made the original dies and the hubs for making the working dies twice over, to secure their perfect adaptation to the coining machinery. I had a wish to execute this work single handed; that I might thus silently reply to those who had questioned my ability for the work. The result I believe was satisfactory – but I then found I had tasked myself too severely for my health; and knowing that my labour would necessarily be increased with that which was to follow, I took occasion to say to the Director, in the month of May last, that my department was not strong enough for such an emergency, as it rested with him legally and properly to order such assistance as I might require. I was surprised to find that he objected to making any addition to the force of my department, by the employment of any person to assist me: saying, that for that matter he saw no objection to having the engraving done out of the mint. That it might be done by contract as it was in France. That if it could not be done in this City, it might be done in any other part of the country, or even in Europe. This remark closed my lips against any further application for aid. The law required that I, as the proper officer, should “Engrave all the dies” for the Mint; and left out to the discretion of the Director, as to what assistance should be given me. I could not direct or contract any work done out of the Mint, or by contract, I was not so empowered. In consequence, I proceeded as well as I was able with the work necessary to produce the dies for the Double Eagle.
I made a design and model for the reverse. The plan of operation selected for me, was to have an electrotype mould made from my model in copper, to serve as a pattern for a cast in iron. The operations of the galvanic battery for this purpose were conducted in the apartments of the Chief Coiner. The galvanic process failed; my model was destroyed, in the operation. I had however taken the precaution to make a cast in plaster from my model previous to subjecting it to the action of the galvanic battery. From this cast, as the only alternative, I procured a metallic one which however was not perfect, but I thought I should be able to correct the imperfections in the engraving of the die with more economy of time, than in making a new model. This was a laborious task but was reasonably completed entirely by my own hand – the die had then to be hardened in the coining department, it unluckily split in the process. I had then to go to work with depressed spirits to overcome this unexpected misfortune to my work. When I had got through this, the original die was still to be finished for the head, and all the hubs to be made – for all this, no assistance was yet provided for me, nor was it until late in October that I received authority to procure it. I had then to look for some one qualitied for the work and at liberty to undertake it. Through the good offices of my friend Mr. Wright of New York, I was, in November last, enabled to obtained [sic] the services of a young man whom he had instructed, and who has rendered me valuable aid. But the days had now become short and dark, and the light of my only room in the Mint rendered more obscure very frequently by the smoke of the steam engines and of the Melting and refining furnaces. The dies were finished and struck in December, but I then perceived that I had overrated the power of the coinage press used for striking in making the relief of the head too high to come up full under the pressure that was employed.
To accommodate the relief to the power of the press, I found it necessary to work over the face again. This was not the most certain or agreeable course to me, but I adopted it to save time. On the 12th of January last I was ready for another trial, but I found no material in readiness, and no gold prepared in the Coining Department, where the trial had to be made. This was a delay over which I had no control, and it was not until the 26th of the same month, that I could obtain the second trial. The impressions taken were objected to by the Chief Coiner, as still not coming up sufficiently under the pressure applied. I wished to make the dies perfectly adapted to the power of the press used in coining (I saw no other defect than a slight want of fullness in the centre of the pieces) and only regretted the additional delay that must ensure. I asked this officer for one of the gold pieces then struck, to guide me intelligently in the very delicate operations yet required; he declined on the ground of difficulty in his accounts. I offered to deposit the value from my own pocket, with no other view than to facilitate the public issue of the coin. He still declined absolutely and on any terms to allow me the temporary use of one of these pieces for my purpose. I asked him what he expected me to do under such circumstances. With some hesitation he observed that I might have an impression taken in silver; this alternative, though not satisfactory, not even safe to me, I was constrained to accept. The piece I had the opportunity of showing you on the 13th inst., was that one then obtained, by which you may form a tolerable judgement of the state of the dies from which it was taken.
The facts just stated were communicated to the Director, but I am not advised of any interposition more favourable [sic] to my views by him.
In the operations of the Royal Mint of great Britain, and I believe in most others, the right to decide upon the fitness of the dies for coining rests with the engraver, whose reputation is chiefly concerned; but a different order seems to be established here.
The impressions taken from my dies at the trial last mentioned appeared to me equal to those of most of the coins in previous use. I regret that the unpleasant circumstance, to which I have adverted, deprived me of the satisfaction of submitting one to your inspection.
Under a fair trial I have no fears for the fitness of the dies I have now on hand and nearly ready, being the third piece furnished for the same coin.
Until very recently I have proved myself equal to all the work of the Mint put upon me, unaided. I asked for no help until I thought myself overtasked. I have never hesitated to undertake nor intentionally delayed any labor pertaining to my office.
The law providing to the office of “Engraver of the Mint” make no allusion to that primitive branch of the art called die-sinking, and the omission appears to me judicious. For these reasons: the mere die-sinker in this country at least is rarely an educated artist, and the work to be done intaglio, which is what is understood by die-sinking, forms but a minor par of the duties of the office. The work required in Cameo, being equally artistic and more laborious, and in fact the Engraver of the Mint, to discharge his duties intelligently, should be a designer and modeler, and possess a general knowledge of numismatics and heraldry. On my first introduction to the office, I was official informed that the most important qualification was modelling, and I believe I have not much cause to fear competition in this branch of the art.
If excellence in one branch of artistic skill, necessarily implied as disqualification for every other, there would be force in the objection raised against the early training of my hand, but experience contradicts such a supposition. The history of art from the times of DaVinci, Angelo and Cellini to the present, is full of samples of eminent success on the part of men who have passed at will form the pencil to the graver, or the chisel and vice versa. Seviar [sic – Robert William Sievier], still living I believe, whose statues of “Christ on the Cross” and “Musidora” are among the finest specimens in his own “Sculpture Illustrations” was like myself a portrait engraver; and his truly magnificent portrait of “Lord Ellenborough in Industrial Costume, after Sir T. Lawrence” [sic - Lord Ellingborough after a picture by Sir Thomas Lawrence] will I hope, sufficiently remind you of his excellence in that line. In this country it is worthy of remark that the men who have had the most superior skill as medallists [sic], have been brought to different pursuits. Gobrecht was a watchmaker, and wright of New York a silversmith.
There is a peculiar difficulty to be met in engraving for the coinage of the Mint, unknown to mere medallists [sic] or die sinkers consisting in the very limited power of the press used in striking coin, the extent of which can only be ascertained by very careful and repeated trials of the work, on every change in the diameter of the piece to be struck. The utmost elevation of the relief of which it seems capable in the present instance on either die is less than the one h8ndredth part of an inch. Consequently it is within this limit the whole power and skill of the artist must be employed.
A more detailed and technical account of the various obstacles I have encountered, would present my position more strongly were I writing to a professional artist. But I must spare you the recital, lest I weary you.
I have restrained heretofore by a sense of official stringency from communicating with the proper executive authority on a want of facilities (that under other circumstances would be considered indispensable), for the labours [sic] required of me under existing arrangement. If the representation I have made suggest any inquiries that I have not fully met, I am willing to answer them at the first intimation from you, in such a manner as may appear most desirable.
Allow me to close with a more agreeable reminiscence that has been called up by the circumstances in which I so unexpectedly find myself. One of the most agreeable of my early works was the portrait of Governeur [sic - Gouverneur] Morris at which time I was honored with the friendship of your father. This incident has caused me to feel a particular interest in your public career. And as the patriotic devotion of the Decii was hereditary, and as I remember, the daughter of Scipis [sic – Scipio] Africanus was the mother of the Gracchi, my belief in the genealogy of public virtue persuades me, I should not be made the victim of misrepresentations while my fate is in the hand of the Officers I have now the honor to serve.
With estimation and respect,
The most sincere
James B. Longacre
Engraver of the Mint
Hon. W. M. Meredith,
Secretary of the Treasury
[Ed - Cornelia Africana Minor, younger daughter of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, married Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus.]
Just an update to report on some initial success in trying to learn more about the source and timing of the acquisition of the other 1850 $20 Double Eagle "Proof"/specimen which is located in a Paris museum. On my behalf a family member, who just returned from Europe, met in person with the individual connected to the museum with whom I had previously been in contact. Hopefully I will be able to provide more details in the not too distant future.
In the meantime here are photos of the Bibliotheque National museum in Paris which he took when he first went there to make initial inquiry before being referred to another location where the coin is now secured.
And here is the location to which he was directed where he had the opportunity to meet with the individual connected with the museum with whom I had previously been in contact regarding my interest in comparing my 1850 $20 Double Eagle that was once in the personal collection of its designer James Longacre and apparently the only other even closely similar coin known to exist. This structure is closed to the public until 2020 due to present on going renovation.
Does mean that the coin and related records/photos are inaccessible until sometime in 2020?
Hopefully not, While the collections are presently closed to the public, at least the museum official mentioned above can in a special circumstance arrange at least limited access to a specified item. Such was offered by the official at the above described meeting with him.
To put it into perspective, the Bibliotheque National museum in Paris, as depicted in the first two photos, is huge. Think - our Library of Congress. People (most appeared to be students) were lined up for blocks just to get entrance.
Bibliotheque National is more like our NARA....Immense, deep, and very protective.
European archives reach back two millennia, compared to our paltry 400 years.
Prompted by Roger's comment I checked to see just how expansive the Library of Congress is. Apart from being the largest library in the world, it has over 500 miles of bookshelves. Imagine, it would take close to a year and a half just to walk the stacks covering one mile a day.
Hopefully none were melted in 1933. Bad year to be a gold coin. As proofs they were probably safe, but who really knows?
Much of LoC's extent is from its role as register of copyright. Until the law was changes some years ago, all application for copyright had to be accompanied by 2 copies of the publication. LoC was obligated to keep these physical copies. While physical registration is no longer necessary, deposition of 2 copies remains necessary if you want the official certificate.
Smudge: Coins were melted from 1935 to about 1938. Almost all of these were already in Mint and treasury vaults. Coins turned in by the public amounted to just a few million dollars, and the Mint Bureau made and effort to preserve rare and unusual items. (See my Numismatist article on the subject from 2017.)
Just came back from "Mission Impossible - Fallout." It seems like half of Paris was featured in the motorcycle/car/speed boat chase scenes. Could have sworn the sights included the above pictured Bibliotheque National museum. Anyone who has seen the movie agree?
As to the film, my take:
Glad to see yet another film where CGI has taken a secondary position to real live action. Note the concluding paragraph in the above playbill quote from Marc Wolff:
"Everything is real. Some of it is slightly enhanced with visual effects, but it's not created by visual effects. It's real things. Real aircraft. Real people jumping out of aircraft and real people flying."
By way of example, the early in the movie HALO (high altitude low opening) drop was only enhanced by adding CGI lightning and the lights of Paris below. Just to confirm to the audience that it was Tom himself jumping from the plane special oxygen helmets were fabricated with a face covering that was clear and in which interior lighting within the helmet was included.
56 years old and Tom Cruise still insists on doing his own stunts. Spent two years learning to fly a helicopter, performed over a hundred HALO jumps requiring oxygen from high altitude, motorcycled and drove at ridiculous speeds through Paris, and even broke his ankle jumping between buildings,
Reportedly the stunts were designed first and the script narrative was added as an after thought.
Excerpted from the "5 United States Coins You Can't Own" Thread:
@PCGS_SocialMedia said:
"As we know, several extremely rare United States coins are worth millions of dollars apiece and can ever only be owned by a tiny handful of collectors. Even the iconic 1933 Saint Gaudens $20 Double Eagle, which is generally illegal to own, yields one specimen that was legally monetized by the United States government and presently resides in a private collection.
Yet, there is a small number of unique coins that are stowed away in public collections and museums, leaving them unavailable for private ownership. "
While the 1849 Double Eagle certainly qualifies despite being termed a pattern, there is another Double Eagle which is not a pattern that also is not available for private purchase and is also locked away in a museum. It is from the first year of production of the Double Eagle, 1850 and the Museum located in France contends it is a proof, a contention agreed with by David Hall and several others who have seen it.
A photograph of the coin (Courtesy Bibliotheque nationale de France) can be seen in John W. Dannreuther's recently published book, "United States Proof Coins, Volume IV, Part Two" at page 864.
Below is a more recently taken photo of my coin. As noted above, a photo of the 1850 Proof Double Eagle located in the Paris museum can be seen and compared as pictured in John W. Dannreuther's recently published book, "United States Proof Coins" Volume IV Gold Part Two at page 864. He agrees that it was sourced from Vattemare as described in above postings although he adds it is uncertain when and how he obtained the proof set in which it was included.