Concerning the lack of provenance for this ‘surprise’ 1804 dollar:
First of all, it is a ‘backdoor’ Mint product, probably produced circa 1860 or so.
And Stack may have been bought it around 1930. That leaves a 70 (+ or -) year gap.
So It’s even possible that Stack bought it, directly or indirectly, from the estate of the collector who originally acquired it from some unknown Mint employee, or director.
Whether it happened that way or not, it must have traded only privately in the roughly 70 years before Stack acquired it.
So, it has a provenance, but incomplete. .
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
@CaptHenway said:
A hypothetical scenario: Stack had an heir that had asked him to leave the coin to him or her. The heir kept the coin quietly, grew old and either died or decided to liquidate. Since the (hypothetical) mystery heir was not a bankable pedigree, it is being offered under the very bankable, and very literally accurate, Stack Pedigree.
Even under your hypothetical scenario, wouldn’t you expect a bankable provenance history at or prior to the time the coin was obtained by Mr. Stack?
Who knows? Perhaps the provenance info went with the coin to the hypothetical heir, and the hypothetical heir, not being a collector, threw it away or lost it.
Remember the guy who bought an 1894-S Dime just because he wanted to own one rare coin? Hardly a collector.
Next questions…😉 Suppose the provenance information was thrown away, what do you think the chances are that the coin was previously in one or more public auctions but couldn’t be traced/matched? And what do you think the chances are that the coin never appeared in one or more public auctions?
Excuse me. The world has not always been as it is today. 1804 Dollars have not always been multi-million dollar coins. My first Redbook (probably a 1964) listed Original 1804 Dollars at $10,000 or so. Stack died in 1951. Grabbing a 13th Edition off of my bookcase I see that the Idler Restrike sold for $3,125 in 1947. If I were a dealer in that era and I bought a nice Restrike in over the counter I might simply offer it directly to a good customer, as Mr. Stack apparently was to the dealers of his time. The dealer gets a quick profit, with no auction house commissions and no waiting months for the sale.
I used to have a guy who collected gold bars of different types. Everything we bought in that looked interesting I offered to him first before it went in the showcase. Period. When he finally cashed out to fund some medical research for something that his daughter had, the collection was roughly 3,800 ounces.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
A hypothetical scenario: Stack had an heir that had asked him to leave the coin to him or her. The heir kept the coin quietly, grew old and either died or decided to liquidate. Since the (hypothetical) mystery heir was not a bankable pedigree, it is being offered under the very bankable, and very literally accurate, Stack Pedigree.
Even under your hypothetical scenario, wouldn’t you expect a bankable provenance history at or prior to the time the coin was obtained by Mr. Stack?
Who knows? Perhaps the provenance info went with the coin to the hypothetical heir, and the hypothetical heir, not being a collector, threw it away or lost it.
Remember the guy who bought an 1894-S Dime just because he wanted to own one rare coin? Hardly a collector.
Next questions…😉 Suppose the provenance information was thrown away, what do you think the chances are that the coin was previously in one or more public auctions but couldn’t be traced/matched? And what do you think the chances are that the coin never appeared in one or more public auctions?
Excuse me. The world has not always been as it is today. 1804 Dollars have not always been multi-million dollar coins. My first Redbook (probably a 1964) listed Original 1804 Dollars at $10,000 or so. Stack died in 1951. Grabbing a 13th Edition off of my bookcase I see that the Idler Restrike sold for $3,125 in 1947. If I were a dealer in that era and I bought a nice Restrike in over the counter I might simply offer it directly to a good customer, as Mr. Stack apparently was to the dealers of his time. The dealer gets a quick profit, with no auction house commissions and no waiting months for the sale.
I used to have a guy who collected gold bars of different types. Everything we bought in that looked interesting I offered to him first before it went in the showcase. Period. When he finally cashed out to fund some medical research for something that his daughter had, the collection was roughly 3,800 ounces.
Excuse me, too. Much of what you wrote would apply to the other 1804 dollars, as well. So why do all of them have provenances, but not this one?
Based on posts to this thread from other forum members, I’m not the only one who finds this situation unusual/puzzling.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
US Mint, Director James Ross Snowden, 1859, purchaser unknown.
(This space intentionally left blank)
James A Stack, Sr. purchased it sometime between “the late 1930s to 1951” according to Stack’s Bowers.
It took a trip to PCGS, another to CAC, 21st century.
Auction to be held December 2025.
You can’t always get
the complete impeccable provenance you want,
but if you try sometime, you get what you need.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
US Mint, Director James Ross Snowden, 1859, purchaser unknown.
(This space intentionally left blank)
James A Stack, Sr. purchased it sometime between “the late 1930s to 1951” according to Stack’s Bowers.
It took a trip to PCGS, another to CAC, 21st century.
Auction to be held December 2025.
You can’t always get
the complete impeccable provenance you want,
but if you try sometime, you get what you need.
Thanks, Mick.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@CaptHenway said:
A hypothetical scenario: Stack had an heir that had asked him to leave the coin to him or her. The heir kept the coin quietly, grew old and either died or decided to liquidate. Since the (hypothetical) mystery heir was not a bankable pedigree, it is being offered under the very bankable, and very literally accurate, Stack Pedigree.
Even under your hypothetical scenario, wouldn’t you expect a bankable provenance history at or prior to the time the coin was obtained by Mr. Stack?
The press release states "Research on the coin continues..." so time will tell what if anything they can determine. I think it is to soon to draw conclusions about the pedigree.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
any unaccounted Mickley examples that this could be one of? not that any of that has an impact on title of this coin - but just thinking out loud where a gem might have come from
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
I reject the silly concept that every possible rarity is already known to the world, and it bothers me when people bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it. Maybe THEY think that this somehow makes THEM look smaller.
Remember the fabulous discovery of the Saddle Ridge gold hoard? A number of people sniffed and said that because there was no record of the coins, they must have been stolen! This wrongly maligned a truly great discovery.
I have mentioned on here before going to look at a collection in upstate New York in the early 1980s that was eventually auctioned by Bowers and his then partner as the Emery-Nichols Collection. This was a three generation collection that began in the 1880s and ended when the third generation died suddenly about 1940 and his widow put everything in a steamer trunk, locked it, and asked her bank to keep it for her. She then lived for over 40 more years.
I got called in because her heirs, a niece and nephew, opened this time capsule and discovered paperwork which indicated that the late collector had been an ANA member, and oh by the way there was an 1804 dollar in the trunk. This was not long after I had recovered the Linderman 1804, so Rochette worked out a deal with them where I would fly to New York at their expense and examine the coin. Alas, it was a clever alteration, But the point is that this coin might have been sitting in this collection for up to 100 years, and it had by chance been a genuine 1804 it could well have been a new discovery.
Otherwise it was a great collection. Everything was in those brown Wayte Raymond pages. I remember picking up one page designed to hold a complete set of Twenty Cent Pieces. It was full. I looked at the obverse of the one in the 1876-CC hole and saw the doubled die obverse and just knew that the CC would be there when I turned it over.
Off the soapbox.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
any unaccounted Mickley examples that this could be one of? not that any of that has an impact on title of this coin - but just thinking out loud where a gem might have come from
Did Mickley have a Class III 1804? If I remember correctly, he sold or auctioned his collection around 1867 after having part of it stolen.
I know he had a Class I. Is there a list of what was in the auction and of what was stolen?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
More like 25, IMHO.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
More like 25, IMHO.
Maybe. I find it curious that the Class III coins all of a sudden started appearing mid 1870’s if they were struck 15 years earlier
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
I reject the silly concept that every possible rarity is already known to the world, and it bothers me when people bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it. Maybe THEY think that this somehow makes THEM look smaller.
Remember the fabulous discovery of the Saddle Ridge gold hoard? A number of people sniffed and said that because there was no record of the coins, they must have been stolen! This wrongly maligned a truly great discovery.
I have mentioned on here before going to look at a collection in upstate New York in the early 1980s that was eventually auctioned by Bowers and his then partner as the Emery-Nichols Collection. This was a three generation collection that began in the 1880s and ended when the third generation died suddenly about 1940 and his widow put everything in a steamer trunk, locked it, and asked her bank to keep it for her. She then lived for over 40 more years.
I got called in because her heirs, a niece and nephew, opened this time capsule and discovered paperwork which indicated that the late collector had been an ANA member, and oh by the way there was an 1804 dollar in the trunk. This was not long after I had recovered the Linderman 1804, so Rochette worked out a deal with them where I would fly to New York at their expense and examine the coin. Alas, it was a clever alteration, But the point is that this coin might have been sitting in this collection for up to 100 years, and it had by chance been a genuine 1804 it could well have been a new discovery.
Otherwise it was a great collection. Everything was in those brown Wayte Raymond pages. I remember picking up one page designed to hold a complete set of Twenty Cent Pieces. It was full. I looked at the obverse of the one in the 1876-CC hole and saw the doubled die obverse and just knew that the CC would be there when I turned it over.
Off the soapbox.
TD
I don’t see where much of what you wrote pertains to the current discussion.
Unless I missed it, no one put forth the “silly” concept that “every possible rarity is already known to the world”.
And I think you jumped to an incorrect conclusion in accusing posters of “bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it”.
Your appeared on your soapbox in the midst of the wrong thread.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A census of Class IIIs from 1887- earliest I found.
8- of which 2 were said to be in the Mint Cabinet --3 additional rumored to have been confiscated from J.B. Eckfedlt and destroyed.
Assume one of the examples in Mint Cabinet referenced --was the Class II?
J.B. Eckfeldt, retired in 1929 and passed in 1938.
Complete guess, but if 1) Eckfedlt was under a "confiscation order" and subject to a "claim" for the restrikes from the U.S. Government; 2) he held back about number he had (or did not destroy all three) ; and, 3) one or more were disposed of after his death in 1938-----might not be the kind of provenance to advertise.....
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
All of the Stack lots just posted to the website. Some really cool stuff including a 1794 and some beautiful 1795 dollars and Double Eagles. Looks like he bought a lot of stuff in HL Lee sale (Eliasberg 1947)
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Of course - but that doesn’t mean Linderman couldn’t have sold the coin in the U.S. and that it (much) later made its way to Mr. Stack.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Of course - but that doesn’t mean Linderman couldn’t have sold the coin in the U.S. and that it (much) later made its way to Mr. Stack.
Consider your previous suggestion withdrawn.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Now that I can see the lot (without full description) listed on the SB web site. Although there is no textual description, this and serveral other lots include pictures of the accompanying ephemera. It appears that the 1804 Dollar was kept (loose ?} in a white Marine Midland Bank envelope along with a Templeton Reid QE and an Oregon Gold Coin. The white envelope has a notation “HF Stack 39 y[o]” and at the bottom it says “(Col Greene specimen ?)”. In in addition to the possible Greene provenance of the coin, the first notation may mean that this coin and the rest of this portion of the collection was allocated to his son Howard Francis Stack 1914-2007 as indicated on the helpful family tree referenced above by Yosclimber. Howard Francis would have been about 39 two years after his father’s death.
Keep an eye out for Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September The Numismatist.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Just read Ken Bressett's new article on 1804 Dollars in the September issue of The Numismatist, online edition.
I was fascinated to see that he says, in effect, that the Mint-made electrotypes of the Plain Edge, Class Two overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler were made as part of deliberate deception by Mint officials, to hide the fact that the other Plain Edge, Class Two normal strikes made by the "Midnight Minter" (my words, not his) were NOT destroyed as the Mint officials apparently said they were.
Bottom line: The Mint recovered an unknown number of Class Two Plain Edge dollars made by the "Midnight Minter." It then used one of them, the overstrike, to make a quantity of Electrotypes. It then destroyed some of the Electrotypes, claiming that they were the pieces made by the "Midnight Minter." (Not all of the Electrotypes were destroyed; Ken is aware of four of them existing. I saw his decades ago when he still owned it.)
At a later date, the supposedly destroyed Plain Edge, Class Two coins were mechanically edge lettered. changing them into Class Three coins. These were then sold to collectors, though Linderman kept one for himself.
I understand that other people have other opinions on these matters. That said, as Ken began his research on 1804 Dollars by interviewing B. Mas Mehl on the subject in 1950, I do think that his opinion carries some weight in the hobby.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
Yes. We never debate anything around here.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@CaptHenway said:
Just read Ken Bressett's new article on 1804 Dollars in the September issue of The Numismatist, online edition....
I have not seen the article. From the synopsis, what of the confiscation order Eckfeldt was under regarding his Class IIIs?
Also, does he mention anything more regarding the theory about when Class I's were struck?
He and Newman seemed to stop their work in progress on the 1804 dollar when a box of coins appeared at the 1962 Detroit ANA convention, and was said to be the “King of Siam Set.” Box did have an empty hole filled by a Jackson Medal, and, curiously, duplicate quarter eagles. And thus was born the theory Class I's were struck in 1834 as presentation pieces.
From the below document---- alone------ they drew a certainly creative series of inferences that the Mint went rogue after Jackson, just months before, won the Second Bank Battle and secured passage of the Coinage Act—and stuck an illegal 1804 Eagle, and a backdated the dollar--because --they were "coins in use"? Don't think Old Hickory would have much appreciated underlings at the Mint handing his political opponents fodder like that....
Whole host of problems with that theory which I won’t go into comprehensively here at the moment….. But just a couple....
Do you know if he was aware that Eckfeldt contracted smallpox and was out of commission a good part of 1834 (as were others)? And that the Mint was running full speed at Jackson’s direct written order (which exists) to pump out gold? So despite smallpox, Jackson's push to pump out gold--they decided to take the time to (re)create dies to strike illegal one offs as diplomatic presents--a set of mismatched coins which did not bear the same dates? And did so sometime in the 6 weeks between the date of the letter posted above and the end of 1834?
Does he mention the Mint's correspondences to numismatic societies in 1867 soliciting their input on the proposed change of existing policy of re-striking patterns, and, specimens of coins of prior years, on order?
Think the whole theory about diplomatic strikings is incorrect, and that Class I’s were first struck in the early 1840s when the Mint Cabinet was begun by Dubois & Eckfeldt. Stickney likely the first to obtain one of the first runs in trade as he stated above. Is a good tale though…. just built on a thin reed, and a whole lot of inferences contrary to a myriad of facts for which there is actual written evidence....
Think other Classes were just part of the existing re-strike policy which came to an end in 1867.
So many questions! Perhaps you should read the article itself.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Has everybody had a chance to read Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September, "The Numismatist?"
I find it fascinating to read that after the Philadelphia Mint recalled several Class II (New Reverse Die, Plain Edge) 1804 Dollars, one an overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler (probably sold and recovered but not proven as such) and the rest struck on unused planchets of unknown origin, all of them (allegedly) struck by the so-called "Midnight Minter," it FAKED the destruction of the non-overstrike pieces by making multiple Electrotypes from the overstrike piece and destroying most of them in front of an unreliable witness. The remaining non-overstrike, Plain Edge Class II Dollars were ultimately lettered on their edges, making them Class III Dollars, and sold to collectors by Mint officials on, in the case of the Linderman Specimen, simply kept.
The article states that one of the Electrotypes made from the overstruck Class II coin was sold to a collector in 1860, which puts the production of the Class II coins between 1857 (the date on the understrike) and 1860 (the year it was sold to the collector.) The year when the Mint lettered the edges of the now-clandestine non-overstrike Class II dollars is unknown.
I would love to discuss the matter further.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Has everybody had a chance to read Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September, "The Numismatist?"
I find it fascinating to read that after the Philadelphia Mint recalled several Class II (New Reverse Die, Plain Edge) 1804 Dollars, one an overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler (probably sold and recovered but not proven as such) and the rest struck on unused planchets of unknown origin, all of them (allegedly) struck by the so-called "Midnight Minter," it FAKED the destruction of the non-overstrike pieces by making multiple Electrotypes from the overstrike piece and destroying most of them in front of an unreliable witness. The remaining non-overstrike, Plain Edge Class II Dollars were ultimately lettered on their edges, making them Class III Dollars, and sold to collectors by Mint officials on, in the case of the Linderman Specimen, simply kept.
The article states that one of the Electrotypes made from the overstruck Class II coin was sold to a collector in 1860, which puts the production of the Class II coins between 1857 (the date on the understrike) and 1860 (the year it was sold to the collector.) The year when the Mint lettered the edges of the now-clandestine non-overstrike Class II dollars is unknown.
I would love to discuss the matter further.
TD
The public backlash caused by the production and sale of the Class II 1804 dollars prompted Mint Director James Ross Snowden to not only recover the Class II dollars that had been sold, but to confiscate the dies, seal them in a box and lock them in his vault in order to prevent any further restrikes from being made on his watch. In 1859 and 1860, two such boxes full of dies (that had been in use at the time for making restrikes of various coins) were locked away by Director Snowden.
In 1867, after becoming Director, Henry Linderman took the boxes out of the vault and opened them to "inventory" the dies they contained. It is believed that, with Linderman's support, Chief Coiner A.L. Snowden (nephew of the former Director Snowden) used the dies to produce another round of restrikes between 1867 and 1869, when the dies were reportedly destroyed. Some also suspect that the dies were not really destroyed at that time, and that the restrikes continued even after 1869. Several of the Class III dollars are linked to John Haseltine, who was also the recipient of other restrikes made under Linderman's tenure. This topic is discussed in more detail in Kevin Flynn's ( @kevinj ) new book Restrikes, Storied Treasure of the U.S. Mint.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Bressett's theory is incorrect, but it is very likely that at least some of the Class III 1804 dollars were struck in the late 1860's (or thereabouts) during Linderman's tenure. An article on the uspatterns site ( https://uspatterns.store.turbify.net/18resdol.html ) notes that the Class III dollars were struck on planchets of two different weights, perhaps indicating two different origins.
When Linderman took over in 1867 , he was quick to move to bring "regularity" to Dubois & Eckfeldt's Mint Cabinet and its select friends. A public coin market was taking shape.
First pdf is Dubios letter to numismatic societies seeking input on changes. Note the term pattern is not used in exactly the same sense as today. Specimens of prior years are referenced.
Second pdf is the full text of the Mint circular. Note the reference to "Hill's 's reducing machine."
Was a real advancement. New toy in 1867...... Have one or 2 things to look at about that machine, but think it could/might play a roll,
When Linderman took over in 1867 , he was quick to move to bring "regularity" to Dubois & Eckfeldt's Mint Cabinet and its select friends. A public coin market was taking shape.
First pdf is Dubios letter to numismatic societies seeking input on changes. Note the term pattern is not used in exactly the same sense as today. Specimens of prior years are referenced.
Second pdf is the full text of the Mint circular. Note the reference to "Ball's reducing machine."
Ball's is really an advancement. New toy in 1867...... Have one or 2 things to look at about that machine, but think it might a real factor.
Most interesting documents; thank you!
As far as Linderman goes, those types of documents were just a cover. Linderman talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. He used his position to make money in any way that he could; this is apparent from reading Crime of 1873: The Comstock Connection. With access to the 1804 dollar dies, Linderman unquestionably would have used them for his own profit.
Unlike previous methods, C.J. Hill's reducing machine--- put into use by the Mint in 1867--had the ability to make an exact reproduction of an electrotype of the same size or smaller.
Think the entire history of 1804 dollars, all classes, is due a revisit.
Class 1’s— believe the story of 1834 diplomatic striking is open to very substantive questions. Have either the “Sultan of Muscat” or “King of Siam” cases ever been authenticated by a fine art/or appropriate discipline for authenticity? The former’s first appearance being at the ANA 1962 Detroit Convention.
Many other holes in that theory. From what I have seen Stickney, being part of a very small “circular of friends” of the Mint Cabinet, was the first to receive one in 1843. There is no direct evidence of a pre 1840s striking, but rather a lot of rather liberal inferences.
Class II’s---- have guesses, but they are just that—not worthy of sharing at this time.
Class III’s ---produced in 1867 and/or thereafter? Any documented appearance of a Class III before July 1, 1867? Would be theoretically lawful if struck before the Mint Circular. Looking like a new toy—“C.J. Hills reducing machine” could very well may have been put to use….
If struck after the Mint’s circular—Class IIIs would be patently unauthorized strikes. Putting aside the allure of the 1804 date, should Class IIIs even be considered a “U.S. Coin”—or rather unauthorized counterfeits (albeit made by Mint personnel) -- if struck after July 1, 1867?
Comments
Concerning the lack of provenance for this ‘surprise’ 1804 dollar:
First of all, it is a ‘backdoor’ Mint product, probably produced circa 1860 or so.
And Stack may have been bought it around 1930. That leaves a 70 (+ or -) year gap.
So It’s even possible that Stack bought it, directly or indirectly, from the estate of the collector who originally acquired it from some unknown Mint employee, or director.
Whether it happened that way or not, it must have traded only privately in the roughly 70 years before Stack acquired it.
So, it has a provenance, but incomplete. .
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Excuse me. The world has not always been as it is today. 1804 Dollars have not always been multi-million dollar coins. My first Redbook (probably a 1964) listed Original 1804 Dollars at $10,000 or so. Stack died in 1951. Grabbing a 13th Edition off of my bookcase I see that the Idler Restrike sold for $3,125 in 1947. If I were a dealer in that era and I bought a nice Restrike in over the counter I might simply offer it directly to a good customer, as Mr. Stack apparently was to the dealers of his time. The dealer gets a quick profit, with no auction house commissions and no waiting months for the sale.
I used to have a guy who collected gold bars of different types. Everything we bought in that looked interesting I offered to him first before it went in the showcase. Period. When he finally cashed out to fund some medical research for something that his daughter had, the collection was roughly 3,800 ounces.
Excuse me, too. Much of what you wrote would apply to the other 1804 dollars, as well. So why do all of them have provenances, but not this one?
Based on posts to this thread from other forum members, I’m not the only one who finds this situation unusual/puzzling.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Show me the law that says that all rare coins are required to have provenances.
OK, how about this:
US Mint, Director James Ross Snowden, 1859, purchaser unknown.
(This space intentionally left blank)
James A Stack, Sr. purchased it sometime between “the late 1930s to 1951” according to Stack’s Bowers.
It took a trip to PCGS, another to CAC, 21st century.
Auction to be held December 2025.
You can’t always get
the complete impeccable provenance you want,
but if you try sometime, you get what you need.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Thanks, Mick.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I never even implied that all rare coins are required to have provenances. All I’ve been saying is that this is an unusual situation for such a famous rarity, and that some of us find it puzzling. Equally puzzling is why you appear to want to debate that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The press release states "Research on the coin continues..." so time will tell what if anything they can determine. I think it is to soon to draw conclusions about the pedigree.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
any unaccounted Mickley examples that this could be one of? not that any of that has an impact on title of this coin - but just thinking out loud where a gem might have come from
I reject the silly concept that every possible rarity is already known to the world, and it bothers me when people bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it. Maybe THEY think that this somehow makes THEM look smaller.
Remember the fabulous discovery of the Saddle Ridge gold hoard? A number of people sniffed and said that because there was no record of the coins, they must have been stolen! This wrongly maligned a truly great discovery.
I have mentioned on here before going to look at a collection in upstate New York in the early 1980s that was eventually auctioned by Bowers and his then partner as the Emery-Nichols Collection. This was a three generation collection that began in the 1880s and ended when the third generation died suddenly about 1940 and his widow put everything in a steamer trunk, locked it, and asked her bank to keep it for her. She then lived for over 40 more years.
I got called in because her heirs, a niece and nephew, opened this time capsule and discovered paperwork which indicated that the late collector had been an ANA member, and oh by the way there was an 1804 dollar in the trunk. This was not long after I had recovered the Linderman 1804, so Rochette worked out a deal with them where I would fly to New York at their expense and examine the coin. Alas, it was a clever alteration, But the point is that this coin might have been sitting in this collection for up to 100 years, and it had by chance been a genuine 1804 it could well have been a new discovery.
Otherwise it was a great collection. Everything was in those brown Wayte Raymond pages. I remember picking up one page designed to hold a complete set of Twenty Cent Pieces. It was full. I looked at the obverse of the one in the 1876-CC hole and saw the doubled die obverse and just knew that the CC would be there when I turned it over.
Off the soapbox.
TD
Did Mickley have a Class III 1804? If I remember correctly, he sold or auctioned his collection around 1867 after having part of it stolen.
I know he had a Class I. Is there a list of what was in the auction and of what was stolen?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
So how did Linderman or some other mint employee after hours and decades later create a better struck Class III coin then the novodels that were created as 'presentation' pieces. Assuming the original Class I dies were not just lying around for usage. Did an engraver create a better die then the original one.
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
More like 25, IMHO.
Maybe. I find it curious that the Class III coins all of a sudden started appearing mid 1870’s if they were struck 15 years earlier
I don’t see where much of what you wrote pertains to the current discussion.
Unless I missed it, no one put forth the “silly” concept that “every possible rarity is already known to the world”.
And I think you jumped to an incorrect conclusion in accusing posters of “bad mouth somebody else's newly discovered coin just because THEY did not already know about it”.
Your appeared on your soapbox in the midst of the wrong thread.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A census of Class IIIs from 1887- earliest I found.
8- of which 2 were said to be in the Mint Cabinet --3 additional rumored to have been confiscated from J.B. Eckfedlt and destroyed.
Assume one of the examples in Mint Cabinet referenced --was the Class II?
J.B. Eckfeldt, retired in 1929 and passed in 1938.
Complete guess, but if 1) Eckfedlt was under a "confiscation order" and subject to a "claim" for the restrikes from the U.S. Government; 2) he held back about number he had (or did not destroy all three) ; and, 3) one or more were disposed of after his death in 1938-----might not be the kind of provenance to advertise.....
Just complete supposition!
That’s an apt supposition, coinciding with James Stack’s numismatic era.
My guess is that we’ll never know.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Interesting 3 of those restrikes found overseas homes. Googling Linderman, saw this fact.
In 1871, he was sent by the U.S. government to London, Paris, and Berlin to collect information concerning the mints in those places and in 1872 made an elaborate report on the condition of the market for silver. In order to find an outlet for the great amount of silver in the United States, Linderman proposed the trade dollar, which started in 1873.
Guessing this may also be related to when these 1804 coins found homes in these countries and maybe even when they were re-minted by Linderman.
All of the Stack lots just posted to the website. Some really cool stuff including a 1794 and some beautiful 1795 dollars and Double Eagles. Looks like he bought a lot of stuff in HL Lee sale (Eliasberg 1947)
Gee, if Linderman took a few of the Class III's overseas to sell and one of them got "Liberated" during WW2 and came back to New Yawk and got sold to a dealer who quietly offered it to Stack, there would be no "provenance" on the piece! I must sit down before I get the vapors!!!
Why complicate things? Why couldn’t Linderman sell the coin (to a dealer who quietly offered it to Mr. Stack) without first taking it overseas?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Isn't there a rather substantial time gap between Mr. Linderman's trip and Mr. Stack's collecting period?
Of course - but that doesn’t mean Linderman couldn’t have sold the coin in the U.S. and that it (much) later made its way to Mr. Stack.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
funk & wagnalls weren't alive
Consider your previous suggestion withdrawn.
Now that I can see the lot (without full description) listed on the SB web site. Although there is no textual description, this and serveral other lots include pictures of the accompanying ephemera. It appears that the 1804 Dollar was kept (loose ?} in a white Marine Midland Bank envelope along with a Templeton Reid QE and an Oregon Gold Coin. The white envelope has a notation “HF Stack 39 y[o]” and at the bottom it says “(Col Greene specimen ?)”. In in addition to the possible Greene provenance of the coin, the first notation may mean that this coin and the rest of this portion of the collection was allocated to his son Howard Francis Stack 1914-2007 as indicated on the helpful family tree referenced above by Yosclimber. Howard Francis would have been about 39 two years after his father’s death.
Keep an eye out for Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September The Numismatist.
.> @CaptHenway said:
Do hope he directly addresses some of the concerns I raised here ( and others) as to when Class I's were first struck:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13959324#Comment_13959324
Bit off topic, but thought you might find Stickney's account of how he obtained his example of some interest, (from 1867) :
Just read Ken Bressett's new article on 1804 Dollars in the September issue of The Numismatist, online edition.
I was fascinated to see that he says, in effect, that the Mint-made electrotypes of the Plain Edge, Class Two overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler were made as part of deliberate deception by Mint officials, to hide the fact that the other Plain Edge, Class Two normal strikes made by the "Midnight Minter" (my words, not his) were NOT destroyed as the Mint officials apparently said they were.
Bottom line: The Mint recovered an unknown number of Class Two Plain Edge dollars made by the "Midnight Minter." It then used one of them, the overstrike, to make a quantity of Electrotypes. It then destroyed some of the Electrotypes, claiming that they were the pieces made by the "Midnight Minter." (Not all of the Electrotypes were destroyed; Ken is aware of four of them existing. I saw his decades ago when he still owned it.)
At a later date, the supposedly destroyed Plain Edge, Class Two coins were mechanically edge lettered. changing them into Class Three coins. These were then sold to collectors, though Linderman kept one for himself.
I understand that other people have other opinions on these matters. That said, as Ken began his research on 1804 Dollars by interviewing B. Mas Mehl on the subject in 1950, I do think that his opinion carries some weight in the hobby.
TD
Yes. We never debate anything around here.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I have not seen the article. From the synopsis, what of the confiscation order Eckfeldt was under regarding his Class IIIs?
Also, does he mention anything more regarding the theory about when Class I's were struck?
He and Newman seemed to stop their work in progress on the 1804 dollar when a box of coins appeared at the 1962 Detroit ANA convention, and was said to be the “King of Siam Set.” Box did have an empty hole filled by a Jackson Medal, and, curiously, duplicate quarter eagles. And thus was born the theory Class I's were struck in 1834 as presentation pieces.
From the below document---- alone------ they drew a certainly creative series of inferences that the Mint went rogue after Jackson, just months before, won the Second Bank Battle and secured passage of the Coinage Act—and stuck an illegal 1804 Eagle, and a backdated the dollar--because --they were "coins in use"? Don't think Old Hickory would have much appreciated underlings at the Mint handing his political opponents fodder like that....
Whole host of problems with that theory which I won’t go into comprehensively here at the moment….. But just a couple....
Do you know if he was aware that Eckfeldt contracted smallpox and was out of commission a good part of 1834 (as were others)? And that the Mint was running full speed at Jackson’s direct written order (which exists) to pump out gold? So despite smallpox, Jackson's push to pump out gold--they decided to take the time to (re)create dies to strike illegal one offs as diplomatic presents--a set of mismatched coins which did not bear the same dates? And did so sometime in the 6 weeks between the date of the letter posted above and the end of 1834?
Does he mention the Mint's correspondences to numismatic societies in 1867 soliciting their input on the proposed change of existing policy of re-striking patterns, and, specimens of coins of prior years, on order?
Think the whole theory about diplomatic strikings is incorrect, and that Class I’s were first struck in the early 1840s when the Mint Cabinet was begun by Dubois & Eckfeldt. Stickney likely the first to obtain one of the first runs in trade as he stated above. Is a good tale though…. just built on a thin reed, and a whole lot of inferences contrary to a myriad of facts for which there is actual written evidence....
Think other Classes were just part of the existing re-strike policy which came to an end in 1867.
So many questions! Perhaps you should read the article itself.
How much provenance in the SP66 '94 before 1945?
Has everybody had a chance to read Ken Bressett's article on 1804 Dollars in the September, "The Numismatist?"
I find it fascinating to read that after the Philadelphia Mint recalled several Class II (New Reverse Die, Plain Edge) 1804 Dollars, one an overstrike on an 1857 Swiss Shooting Thaler (probably sold and recovered but not proven as such) and the rest struck on unused planchets of unknown origin, all of them (allegedly) struck by the so-called "Midnight Minter," it FAKED the destruction of the non-overstrike pieces by making multiple Electrotypes from the overstrike piece and destroying most of them in front of an unreliable witness. The remaining non-overstrike, Plain Edge Class II Dollars were ultimately lettered on their edges, making them Class III Dollars, and sold to collectors by Mint officials on, in the case of the Linderman Specimen, simply kept.
The article states that one of the Electrotypes made from the overstruck Class II coin was sold to a collector in 1860, which puts the production of the Class II coins between 1857 (the date on the understrike) and 1860 (the year it was sold to the collector.) The year when the Mint lettered the edges of the now-clandestine non-overstrike Class II dollars is unknown.
I would love to discuss the matter further.
TD
The public backlash caused by the production and sale of the Class II 1804 dollars prompted Mint Director James Ross Snowden to not only recover the Class II dollars that had been sold, but to confiscate the dies, seal them in a box and lock them in his vault in order to prevent any further restrikes from being made on his watch. In 1859 and 1860, two such boxes full of dies (that had been in use at the time for making restrikes of various coins) were locked away by Director Snowden.
In 1867, after becoming Director, Henry Linderman took the boxes out of the vault and opened them to "inventory" the dies they contained. It is believed that, with Linderman's support, Chief Coiner A.L. Snowden (nephew of the former Director Snowden) used the dies to produce another round of restrikes between 1867 and 1869, when the dies were reportedly destroyed. Some also suspect that the dies were not really destroyed at that time, and that the restrikes continued even after 1869. Several of the Class III dollars are linked to John Haseltine, who was also the recipient of other restrikes made under Linderman's tenure. This topic is discussed in more detail in Kevin Flynn's ( @kevinj ) new book Restrikes, Storied Treasure of the U.S. Mint.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Bressett's theory is incorrect, but it is very likely that at least some of the Class III 1804 dollars were struck in the late 1860's (or thereabouts) during Linderman's tenure. An article on the uspatterns site ( https://uspatterns.store.turbify.net/18resdol.html ) notes that the Class III dollars were struck on planchets of two different weights, perhaps indicating two different origins.
When Linderman took over in 1867 , he was quick to move to bring "regularity" to Dubois & Eckfeldt's Mint Cabinet and its select friends. A public coin market was taking shape.
First pdf is Dubios letter to numismatic societies seeking input on changes. Note the term pattern is not used in exactly the same sense as today. Specimens of prior years are referenced.
Second pdf is the full text of the Mint circular. Note the reference to "Hill's 's reducing machine."
Was a real advancement. New toy in 1867...... Have one or 2 things to look at about that machine, but think it could/might play a roll,
Most interesting documents; thank you!
As far as Linderman goes, those types of documents were just a cover. Linderman talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. He used his position to make money in any way that he could; this is apparent from reading Crime of 1873: The Comstock Connection. With access to the 1804 dollar dies, Linderman unquestionably would have used them for his own profit.
Unlike previous methods, C.J. Hill's reducing machine--- put into use by the Mint in 1867--had the ability to make an exact reproduction of an electrotype of the same size or smaller.
Think the entire history of 1804 dollars, all classes, is due a revisit.
Class 1’s— believe the story of 1834 diplomatic striking is open to very substantive questions. Have either the “Sultan of Muscat” or “King of Siam” cases ever been authenticated by a fine art/or appropriate discipline for authenticity? The former’s first appearance being at the ANA 1962 Detroit Convention.
Many other holes in that theory. From what I have seen Stickney, being part of a very small “circular of friends” of the Mint Cabinet, was the first to receive one in 1843. There is no direct evidence of a pre 1840s striking, but rather a lot of rather liberal inferences.
Class II’s---- have guesses, but they are just that—not worthy of sharing at this time.
Class III’s ---produced in 1867 and/or thereafter? Any documented appearance of a Class III before July 1, 1867? Would be theoretically lawful if struck before the Mint Circular. Looking like a new toy—“C.J. Hills reducing machine” could very well may have been put to use….
If struck after the Mint’s circular—Class IIIs would be patently unauthorized strikes. Putting aside the allure of the 1804 date, should Class IIIs even be considered a “U.S. Coin”—or rather unauthorized counterfeits (albeit made by Mint personnel) -- if struck after July 1, 1867?