@IkesT said:
Breaking Mint rules didn't necessarily mean breaking the law. Although the rule requiring old obverse dies to be destroyed had been in place since 1866 (under Director James Pollock), it wasn't written into law until it was included in the Coinage Act of 1873.
Yup. And restrikes were still regularly appearing in 1874 and on.
@tradedollarnut said:
40 years of medal press technology improvement?
When the mint fully switched to the new Thonnelier-type "steam" presses in 1839, records show the mint's two most powerful screw presses, the Howell and Rush-Muhlenberg presses, were moved to the medal dept. and the die room. These two presses had been used for decades to strike medals and proofs and hub dies. The continued to be used for those purposes into the 20th century when they were eventually replaced by hydraulic presses. In fact, the pic of the Die Room in the 1902 mint report shows one of the presses, probably the RM press given the design.
The new stem presses were not used to strike proofs and patterns since they could not make a single-strike. Thus, all of the proofs, patterns, and the restrikes were produced on the screw presses.
Yes, we have the S.K. Harzfeld statement which is actually a statement given him by A. Loudon Snowden.
There is only one "Class of Classes," as you put it. Die stating and the obv to rev die alignment shows that the known Class II and III pieces were all struck at the same time.
It is unlikely the Hill machine was used. The .obv is the orig 1804. The revs may have been sunk from existing punches at the time the pieces were made.
NO, I do not think the Paris Exposition had any relevance. The motive was solely profit.
Thank you. Forgive the stream of consciousness like flow of the following:
How are you able to rule out Hill's machine given its capabilities? That device was noted to be capable of turning specimen indistinguishable even to the original engraver. It was capable of making a perfect copy of the obv---and any reverse, Think a date antedating the machine's arrival at the Mint would be needed for striking of all the Class II & IIIs to definitely rule its use out. And some compelling direct evidence for that date and number struck. Whether it did, or did not, the machine gave the Mint the capability to continue to strike indistinguishable copies, even if prior year dies were destroyed. Of pretty much anything. At pretty much any date following the machine's arrival in 1867. Not sure how you can prove no (additional) re-strikes were made after its arrival, but you do sound confident you will, so will wait !
Random aside---seems a bit serendipitous a number of Class IIIs were noted in Europe, from which Hill's machine originated (and for which the Mint opted not to buy the patent for)....
Legend says Class IIs were first struck in 1858. If as you theorize, Class IIIs were as well, what explains the 20 year gap between striking, and their sudden appearance en mass around 1878? The examples confiscated in 1868, were they in the Mint Cabinet up until that time--or in other hands--or pockets? Exactly how many ClassII/IIIs were struck in the single run? Why include a Thaler--test strike of sorts, or last one for the heck of it....
Is the the outstanding strike of the newly surfaced example touched upon in your upcoming piece? Looks far superior to others to my unqualified grading eyes.
You stated you will be publishing some definitive information, the support for which is to be disclosed on publishing. Understandable, but that makes it a bit difficult for the community in the meanwhile to test/ evaluate the weight of the evidence upon which you will rely for so definitive a statement. I truly hope you solve this mystery, and look forward to reading your work.
BTW, respectfully disagree about the cutoff date for a bona fide Mint issue --which is probably controlled by the Circular(s), and other existing regulations/laws.. Low's scheduled 1887 estate sale of Lindderman's coin holdings was enjoined by a federal court And that his wife was only able to get his Class III freed up with a story that Linderman actually purchased his from "a dealer on time," rather than getting it from the Mint itself? (catalogue attached as a pdf). That is, um, certainly an unusual story ...
Deeper I look, more murkie the waters get.... Secret Service was involved---but its records are a slow go.... one agent was killed during an investigation of what turned out to be a fake 1804.....
Above are just some outstanding--very rambling questions-- I myself have about the Class IIIs. Please do not take them as some sort of list of questions your are in any way obliged to answer.
@JCH22 said:
How are you able to rule out Hill's machine given its capabilities?
Legend says Class IIs were first struck in 1858. If as you theorize, Class IIIs were as well, what explains the 20 year gap between striking, and their sudden appearance en mass around 1878? The examples confiscated in 1868, were they in the Mint Cabinet up until that time--or in other hands--or pockets? Exactly how many ClassII/IIIs were struck in the single run? Why include a Thaler--test strike of sorts, or last one for the heck of it....
BTW, respectfully disagree about the cutoff date for a bona fide Mint issue --which is probably controlled by the Circular(s), and other existing regulations/laws..
As far as excluding Hill's engraving Machine, Reverse Y was used for both the Class II and Class III dollars. The Class II dollars appeared circa 1859 to 1860 and were confiscated by the mint by 1861. The Class III dollars first appeared in `1864. Thus, both appeared prior to the arrival of the Hill machine.
Further, the Hill machine was not used to reproduce full dies. Rather, it was used to produce the central device with peripheral devices such as letters, numerals, stars, etc. being added by hand to the master dies. Further, none of the reducing machines, including the improved Janvier, produced a "read-to-use die." It still had to be hand-touched by the engraver where necessary and then lapped to remove metal pushed up by machining and set the final basin. Those are two of the key ways die specialists are able to identify new master dies and new working dies.
One should be careful reading period statements by mint officials which often tend to be quite hyperbolic. Politics was the same back then as now and officials routinely made utterly lofty statements about the great improvements they introduced.
In this vein, the 1867 circular you cited is by none other than Henry Linderman, the most prolific restriker the mint has ever seen. The number of "cabinet coins" he had struck and that he sold via various agents is legendary. For example, Judd-80 and 81 using an 1838 obv and a reverse that did not exist until the 1860s. The first one appeared at auction in 1875. Pattern and Seated researchers, including Andrew Pollack, attribute these strikes to dies made from pattern hubs discovered by A. Loudon Snowden and noted in his letter published in the January 1872 issue of Mason’s Monthly Coin Collectors Magazine.
Then we have pattern 1863 one-cent pieces, Judd-301 through 304, struck in bronze, copper-nickel, oroide, and aluminum using a reverse that did not exist until 1871. We also have have several 1864 pattern half dollars, Judd-396 (silver) and Judd-397 (copper) which use a “With Motto” reverse that was first used on 1871 proofs and patterns. Additionally, there is at least one 1864 “No Motto” pattern restrike, Judd-395, with the obverse fields bulging as on the latest 396 and 397 strikes, so that too was struck sometime circa 1871 or 1872.
Finally, we have the 1887 mint report by then Director James Kimball. Beginning on page 180, Kimball cites numerous examples of post-1867 and 1873 restrikes including an illegally produced encased set of 1868 of regular issue coins in aluminum had “passed into other hands.” Those “hands” obviously belonged to Henry Linderman since the set was listed in Lyman Lowe’s 1887 sale catalog of his collection. It was subsequently seized with other aluminum and off-metal pieces.
Kimball's report also specifically cited three lists, one compiled by the curator of the Mint Cabinet, another by Robert Coulton Davis, Curator of Numismatics for the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, with the third being an unnamed “printed list of another collection.” Kimball went onto state that the lists showed numerous examples of off-metal strikes from both pattern and regular issue dies, mules, and other “whim pieces” that did not exist in the Mint Cabinet. He specifically stated that one of the lists showed 57 different pieces dated 1873 through 1885 and that the third list contained 78 different off-metal strikes dated 1873 through 1885.
Simply put, criminals do not pay attention to laws or rules or regulations, even ones they write themselves as a smoke screen for their own illicit activates. That's why they are criminals. They break the law.
As an aside, Henry Linderman was under investigation for several improprieties while he was in office including a pump-and-dump stock swindle which included placing false statements in an official mint report, kickbacks, paying relatives to perform mint work that could have been done by employees, and manipulating and misreporting official accounts to cover up excess expenditures and excess bullion wastage at some mints. He died before formal charges could be brought.
His partner in crime, A. Loudon Snowden was also under investigation for misuse of funds, etc., but he left office and took off for Europe before he could be indicted.
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
VERY Interesting!
I get the gist of the letters. Would anyone care to attempt a complete transcription?
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.
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
VERY Interesting!
I get the gist of the letters. Would anyone care to attempt a complete transcription?
Absolutely not, but I’ll certainly let Grok give it a go 😅-
Transcription of "1858 Letters.pdf"
Based on the scanned pages provided in the document, this appears to be a collection of three short handwritten letters from 1858, likely related to a legal or numismatic matter involving the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, electrotyping processes for coins, and expert testimony. The handwriting is 19th-century cursive, which is challenging to read perfectly due to flourishes, smudges, and fading. I've transcribed them as faithfully as possible, using standard modern English spelling and punctuation for clarity while noting uncertain words in [brackets]. The document seems to have 3 pages (with some repetition in the scan, possibly due to duplex printing or scan artifacts).
Page 1: Letter dated July 19, 1858 (from Philadelphia, likely to a colleague or official regarding mint processes and witnesses)
Phila. July 19, 1858
Dear Sir,
Mr. Booth in behalf [of the matter? or of it]
one [man? or none?] in the mint capable
of explaining to full satisfaction
the electrotype process, and he
[is] himself [acquainted] with as [much]
of the [other? throat?] process
producing [his? him?] [most? with?] [taking?],
The [writer? appears?] Mr. [Elkfeldt? or Elkfeldt]
[after?] [James?] [or?] [Glunt?],
as [in?] [former?] [purpose? or ?],
Mr. Mickley, I have no doubt,
[will] with pleasure [answer] any [inquiry],
with [his?] [parts? cheerful?] [assistance?]. He
understands that he will be
well [paid? or compensated].
Yours [truly? etc.],
[ Jno. ? ]
[ ? ]
Col. [Vandegrift? or Vandyke?]
[ U.S. ? ]
[ Brit. ? or Dist. Atty.? ]
[ ? ]
(Note: The signature and closing lines are particularly illegible. "Jno." likely stands for "John." The reference to "Col. Vande[grift?]" may be a misreading or a name like "Vandyke," tying to the district attorney mentioned later. The content seems to recommend Mr. Booth as an expert on electrotyping at the mint and suggests Mr. Mickley as a reliable witness.)
Page 2: Short note dated September 7, 1858 (from J.B. McCleary, U.S. District Attorney, possibly a memo or endorsement)
J. B. McCleary Esq. U.S. Dist. Atty
Sir,
Mr. Mickley as
a [friend? or proper?] person
[for?] [testimony? or in]
[ ? ]
[ ? ]
Sept. 7, 1858.
(Note: This page is very brief and faded. It appears to be a quick endorsement or note recommending Mr. Mickley, possibly in the context of the same case. The lines after "person" are nearly illegible, possibly "for the purpose" or similar. The "+" may be a mark or flourish.)
Page 3: Letter dated September 17, 1858 (from the Navy Office, recommending Mr. Mickley as an expert witness to U.S. District Attorney James B. Vandyke)
For James B. Vandyke Esq., U.S. Dist. Atty.,
Dear Sir
Mr. Joseph J. Mickley,
Market St. below Tenth,
North side, is perfectly
familiar with the coating
of coins by electrotype
process, [and] would no doubt
take pleasure in giving
any testimony required.
Navy office,
Sept. 17, 1858
[ P. ? or Signature illegible ]
(Note: This is the clearest page. Joseph J. Mickley was a well-known Philadelphia numismatist and coin collector in the 19th century. James B. Vandyke was the U.S. District Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at the time. This letter explicitly offers Mickley as an expert on electrotyping coins, likely for a court case involving counterfeiting or mint processes. The signature may be from a Navy official, perhaps "P. F. Smith" or similar, but it's unclear.)
Additional Context
These letters appear to be part of correspondence related to a potential legal proceeding in 1858 Philadelphia, possibly a counterfeiting trial where electrotyping (an early electrochemical process for copying metal objects like coins) was at issue. The U.S. Mint in Philadelphia was central to such matters, and references to "Mr. Booth" (possibly a mint employee) and Mickley (a prominent coin expert) suggest they were being lined up as witnesses. No exact match for these specific letters was found in public archives, but they align with historical numismatic activities around electrotype copies of rare coins like the 1804 dollar, which were produced around this era.
If this transcription needs refinement or if you have higher-resolution scans/clarifications for illegible parts, let me know!
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
@JCH22 said:
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking" of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a
R.R.R. does not refer to the Class of 1804s. A review of the inventory should give you a clue.
@JCH22 said:
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
A better person would have been Franklin Peale, even tho' he was "retired" by 58. Peale created the first galvano (electrotype) in 1840, It survives to this day in a private collection..
A better person would have been Franklin Peale, even tho' he was "retired" by 58. Peale created the first galvano (electrotype) in 1840, It survives to this day in a private collection..
As to the technical details, no argument.
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley would be a shrewd move if the Mint did not want to expose itself to having an employee/official offer testimony that might bind it (and who knew the innermost details/workings). Never know what an inquisitive US attorney, or defense counsel, might start asking about....
Mickley could credibly " I don't know" his way through some questions about things a Mint employee/officer could not, stick to techinical issues only....
Might be a red herring, remarkable only to show how close MIckley became. Have found no reported legal decisions contemporaneous, Paper search would be a challenge, no case name for starters.....
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley...
That would certainly been a waste of time since the Peale galvano had been publicized many years before.
You've got the surface docs. Keep digging and you'll eventually come up with the real stories. Shouldn't be hard, I and others have published the docs for the last 30 years.
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley...
That would certainly been a waste of time since the Peale galvano had been publicized many years before.
You've got the surface docs. Keep digging and you'll eventually come up with the real stories. Shouldn't be hard, I and others have published the docs for the last 30 years.
It is a curious thing to presume to know what I have, and have not, looked at (or the scope of relevant data which may be available to me).
Primary reason I am looking into the entire 1804 saga is I like a good historical mystery. Nice side break from an in progress extended non numismatic work. Wherever the evidence leads......
I am looking at the issue de novo. I found much of the existing literature over relies upon improperly stacked inferences (upon inferences), arguments from silence without demonstrating the 3 prerequisite for same, and the like.... I do tend to follow Hitchen's razor when I read, and also am aware of it when I make an assertion.
Look forward to reading your article and the evidence which will be revealed to prove your "grand unified theory of Class II/IIIs." Have appreciated engaging in the "coming attractions" discussions!
What is the ball park estimated date for publication?
@JCH22 said:
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
Thank you so much for the better copies.
In the last one, I am curious about the word "coating." The second letter is definitely an "o" comparing it to other words with an "o." However, it seems to be an odd use of the word, as the "coating of coins" sounds to me like the "electroplating of existing coins" rather than the "making of electrotype copies of coins.".
I am wondering if perhaps this word might be a secretary's transcription error for the word "creating." That would seem to be more likely in context, but of course this is just a guess. As I (barely) understand the process, there is a step where the negative impression is coated with powdered copper (?) to provide a base that subsequent metal is electrically deposited onto. This might be a perfectly innocent explanation for the use of the word "coating."
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.
@Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
My pleasure. Noted that. Last attachment was from the Assay office to the U.S. Attorney, not from the Mint. Maybe a misunderstanding further down the line at the Assay Office?
Not sure what significance the docs themselves have other than to show Mickley was “in.”
Passed along because I thought it might be of some potential use to the teased theory that all re-striking was done in a single batch (which it seems was of no use to its proponent).
Given the rebuff of clarification of the meaning of the R.R.R designation of the single 1804 specimen noted in the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, appears the theory likely will be that all ClassII/IIIs were struck in a single run, at some date before that inventory. But that is just a guess of logic. Later inventories dropped that abbreviation.
Not much can be said about the single re-strike theory at this time. Not impossible, but then again, no evidence has been actually put forward yet.
What I have reviewed to date sure raises substantive questions about that, and other existing lore. Are means, motive and an opportunity for later re-strike(s). But I do not presently have sufficient evidence to definitely state an opinion. Was hoping to have a substantive discussion, but will defer further to examine the teased theory until some evidence for it is disclosed.
Strike of newly surfaced example sure stands out to me. Any thoughts you might have about the significance, if any, concerning that would certainly be appreciated-- and very much respected. First strike-- of a single striking ---of re-strikes?
@seatedlib3991 said: @Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and >actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
>
No, sorry, I haven't done any studies on the NO mint. You might try some of the folks in LSCC or perhaps Kevin Flynn has some info.
@Rittenhouse . Thank you for answering back. Don't feel too bad about not knowing. I am a member of the LSCC and have probably asked this question more than a dozen times. (Mr. Flynn might be one I don't remember).
The standard answers are, "I have no idea." and "Try the Newman Portal."
I wish I was more gifted at using that source but the only anaology that applies is:
"You say you need some tuna?" Well all you need is the correct bait & tackle. Pick a coast and head fore the high seas. Easy Peasy." Thank you again. James
@seatedlib3991 said: @Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
Rather than hijack this thread, how about starting another one we can discuss this in?
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 . No hijacking and I have brought this very question up at least 6 times in the last 3 years. Crickets. So would be very short discussion. James
Interesting to note that Stack apparently had a 1933 D.E. confiscated by the Secret Service in the 1940s. If in fact all 1804 III’s were struck during a “period of legality” (or at least a period where it would not be deemed unauthorized) would be a non-relevant fact to this precise discussion. Just an interesting factoid.
But if the re-strikes continued, or were done after the Circulars—potentially making some later re-strikes unauthorized/prohibited Mints issues--- would be a relevant fact to the question why the existence of this example was held close for so long. And depending on its pre-Stack provenience, could be a material fact.
Linderman’s widow did have to do some creative explaining to the Federal Court to get her husband’s example freed from the 1887 injunction which initially barred its sale.
Sure, it was not pleasant to have to deal with the Secret Service. One time, would be one time too many for a lifetime-- for me at least.
Comments
Yup. And restrikes were still regularly appearing in 1874 and on.
When the mint fully switched to the new Thonnelier-type "steam" presses in 1839, records show the mint's two most powerful screw presses, the Howell and Rush-Muhlenberg presses, were moved to the medal dept. and the die room. These two presses had been used for decades to strike medals and proofs and hub dies. The continued to be used for those purposes into the 20th century when they were eventually replaced by hydraulic presses. In fact, the pic of the Die Room in the 1902 mint report shows one of the presses, probably the RM press given the design.
The new stem presses were not used to strike proofs and patterns since they could not make a single-strike. Thus, all of the proofs, patterns, and the restrikes were produced on the screw presses.
Thank you. Forgive the stream of consciousness like flow of the following:
How are you able to rule out Hill's machine given its capabilities? That device was noted to be capable of turning specimen indistinguishable even to the original engraver. It was capable of making a perfect copy of the obv---and any reverse, Think a date antedating the machine's arrival at the Mint would be needed for striking of all the Class II & IIIs to definitely rule its use out. And some compelling direct evidence for that date and number struck. Whether it did, or did not, the machine gave the Mint the capability to continue to strike indistinguishable copies, even if prior year dies were destroyed. Of pretty much anything. At pretty much any date following the machine's arrival in 1867. Not sure how you can prove no (additional) re-strikes were made after its arrival, but you do sound confident you will, so will wait !
Random aside---seems a bit serendipitous a number of Class IIIs were noted in Europe, from which Hill's machine originated (and for which the Mint opted not to buy the patent for)....
Legend says Class IIs were first struck in 1858. If as you theorize, Class IIIs were as well, what explains the 20 year gap between striking, and their sudden appearance en mass around 1878? The examples confiscated in 1868, were they in the Mint Cabinet up until that time--or in other hands--or pockets? Exactly how many ClassII/IIIs were struck in the single run? Why include a Thaler--test strike of sorts, or last one for the heck of it....
Is the the outstanding strike of the newly surfaced example touched upon in your upcoming piece? Looks far superior to others to my unqualified grading eyes.
You stated you will be publishing some definitive information, the support for which is to be disclosed on publishing. Understandable, but that makes it a bit difficult for the community in the meanwhile to test/ evaluate the weight of the evidence upon which you will rely for so definitive a statement. I truly hope you solve this mystery, and look forward to reading your work.
BTW, respectfully disagree about the cutoff date for a bona fide Mint issue --which is probably controlled by the Circular(s), and other existing regulations/laws.. Low's scheduled 1887 estate sale of Lindderman's coin holdings was enjoined by a federal court And that his wife was only able to get his Class III freed up with a story that Linderman actually purchased his from "a dealer on time," rather than getting it from the Mint itself? (catalogue attached as a pdf). That is, um, certainly an unusual story ...
Deeper I look, more murkie the waters get.... Secret Service was involved---but its records are a slow go.... one agent was killed during an investigation of what turned out to be a fake 1804.....
Above are just some outstanding--very rambling questions-- I myself have about the Class IIIs. Please do not take them as some sort of list of questions your are in any way obliged to answer.
As far as excluding Hill's engraving Machine, Reverse Y was used for both the Class II and Class III dollars. The Class II dollars appeared circa 1859 to 1860 and were confiscated by the mint by 1861. The Class III dollars first appeared in `1864. Thus, both appeared prior to the arrival of the Hill machine.
Further, the Hill machine was not used to reproduce full dies. Rather, it was used to produce the central device with peripheral devices such as letters, numerals, stars, etc. being added by hand to the master dies. Further, none of the reducing machines, including the improved Janvier, produced a "read-to-use die." It still had to be hand-touched by the engraver where necessary and then lapped to remove metal pushed up by machining and set the final basin. Those are two of the key ways die specialists are able to identify new master dies and new working dies.
One should be careful reading period statements by mint officials which often tend to be quite hyperbolic. Politics was the same back then as now and officials routinely made utterly lofty statements about the great improvements they introduced.
In this vein, the 1867 circular you cited is by none other than Henry Linderman, the most prolific restriker the mint has ever seen. The number of "cabinet coins" he had struck and that he sold via various agents is legendary. For example, Judd-80 and 81 using an 1838 obv and a reverse that did not exist until the 1860s. The first one appeared at auction in 1875. Pattern and Seated researchers, including Andrew Pollack, attribute these strikes to dies made from pattern hubs discovered by A. Loudon Snowden and noted in his letter published in the January 1872 issue of Mason’s Monthly Coin Collectors Magazine.
Then we have pattern 1863 one-cent pieces, Judd-301 through 304, struck in bronze, copper-nickel, oroide, and aluminum using a reverse that did not exist until 1871. We also have have several 1864 pattern half dollars, Judd-396 (silver) and Judd-397 (copper) which use a “With Motto” reverse that was first used on 1871 proofs and patterns. Additionally, there is at least one 1864 “No Motto” pattern restrike, Judd-395, with the obverse fields bulging as on the latest 396 and 397 strikes, so that too was struck sometime circa 1871 or 1872.
Finally, we have the 1887 mint report by then Director James Kimball. Beginning on page 180, Kimball cites numerous examples of post-1867 and 1873 restrikes including an illegally produced encased set of 1868 of regular issue coins in aluminum had “passed into other hands.” Those “hands” obviously belonged to Henry Linderman since the set was listed in Lyman Lowe’s 1887 sale catalog of his collection. It was subsequently seized with other aluminum and off-metal pieces.
Kimball's report also specifically cited three lists, one compiled by the curator of the Mint Cabinet, another by Robert Coulton Davis, Curator of Numismatics for the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, with the third being an unnamed “printed list of another collection.” Kimball went onto state that the lists showed numerous examples of off-metal strikes from both pattern and regular issue dies, mules, and other “whim pieces” that did not exist in the Mint Cabinet. He specifically stated that one of the lists showed 57 different pieces dated 1873 through 1885 and that the third list contained 78 different off-metal strikes dated 1873 through 1885.
Simply put, criminals do not pay attention to laws or rules or regulations, even ones they write themselves as a smoke screen for their own illicit activates. That's why they are criminals. They break the law.
As an aside, Henry Linderman was under investigation for several improprieties while he was in office including a pump-and-dump stock swindle which included placing false statements in an official mint report, kickbacks, paying relatives to perform mint work that could have been done by employees, and manipulating and misreporting official accounts to cover up excess expenditures and excess bullion wastage at some mints. He died before formal charges could be brought.
His partner in crime, A. Loudon Snowden was also under investigation for misuse of funds, etc., but he left office and took off for Europe before he could be indicted.
Those guys were gems.
.....
Thanks much. My info on the capabilities of Hill's machine differs from what you wrote. Looking a little more into its use in London & Paris so I can more comprehensively respond.
A quick look at the Low catalogue is sure telling. Corruption during that period, gilded age, unregulated wall street... Creatures of their times.
In the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, one 1804 is noted--followed by the abrev. "R.R.R." Guessing maybe a reference to a Class I?
Came across some info (attached as a pdf), which I thought might possibly be of some use for your "grand unified theory of striking"
of Class IIs & IIIS.
Apparently Mickley was well into the inner circle by 1858..... That story of his obtaining his example ( deposited with a bank clerk who was his friend, and who Mickley had specifically asked to look out for an 1804 )... always seemed just a bit fantastical. Have no further context for the attached docs at the moment---what specifically the U.S. Attorney was then investigating /his original letter. May or may not be "1804" related. Just passing along......
VERY Interesting!
I get the gist of the letters. Would anyone care to attempt a complete transcription?
Absolutely not, but I’ll certainly let Grok give it a go 😅-
Transcription of "1858 Letters.pdf"
Based on the scanned pages provided in the document, this appears to be a collection of three short handwritten letters from 1858, likely related to a legal or numismatic matter involving the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, electrotyping processes for coins, and expert testimony. The handwriting is 19th-century cursive, which is challenging to read perfectly due to flourishes, smudges, and fading. I've transcribed them as faithfully as possible, using standard modern English spelling and punctuation for clarity while noting uncertain words in [brackets]. The document seems to have 3 pages (with some repetition in the scan, possibly due to duplex printing or scan artifacts).
Page 1: Letter dated July 19, 1858 (from Philadelphia, likely to a colleague or official regarding mint processes and witnesses)
Phila. July 19, 1858
Dear Sir,
Mr. Booth in behalf [of the matter? or of it]
one [man? or none?] in the mint capable
of explaining to full satisfaction
the electrotype process, and he
[is] himself [acquainted] with as [much]
of the [other? throat?] process
producing [his? him?] [most? with?] [taking?],
The [writer? appears?] Mr. [Elkfeldt? or Elkfeldt]
[after?] [James?] [or?] [Glunt?],
as [in?] [former?] [purpose? or ?],
Mr. Mickley, I have no doubt,
[will] with pleasure [answer] any [inquiry],
with [his?] [parts? cheerful?] [assistance?]. He
understands that he will be
well [paid? or compensated].
Yours [truly? etc.],
[ Jno. ? ]
[ ? ]
Col. [Vandegrift? or Vandyke?]
[ U.S. ? ]
[ Brit. ? or Dist. Atty.? ]
[ ? ]
(Note: The signature and closing lines are particularly illegible. "Jno." likely stands for "John." The reference to "Col. Vande[grift?]" may be a misreading or a name like "Vandyke," tying to the district attorney mentioned later. The content seems to recommend Mr. Booth as an expert on electrotyping at the mint and suggests Mr. Mickley as a reliable witness.)
Page 2: Short note dated September 7, 1858 (from J.B. McCleary, U.S. District Attorney, possibly a memo or endorsement)
J. B. McCleary Esq.
U.S. Dist. Atty
Sir,
Mr. Mickley as
a [friend? or proper?] person
[for?] [testimony? or in]
[ ? ]
[ ? ]
Sept. 7, 1858.
(Note: This page is very brief and faded. It appears to be a quick endorsement or note recommending Mr. Mickley, possibly in the context of the same case. The lines after "person" are nearly illegible, possibly "for the purpose" or similar. The "+" may be a mark or flourish.)
Page 3: Letter dated September 17, 1858 (from the Navy Office, recommending Mr. Mickley as an expert witness to U.S. District Attorney James B. Vandyke)
For James B. Vandyke Esq.,
U.S. Dist. Atty.,
Dear Sir
Mr. Joseph J. Mickley,
Market St. below Tenth,
North side, is perfectly
familiar with the coating
of coins by electrotype
process, [and] would no doubt
take pleasure in giving
any testimony required.
Navy office,
Sept. 17, 1858
[ P. ? or Signature illegible ]
(Note: This is the clearest page. Joseph J. Mickley was a well-known Philadelphia numismatist and coin collector in the 19th century. James B. Vandyke was the U.S. District Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at the time. This letter explicitly offers Mickley as an expert on electrotyping coins, likely for a court case involving counterfeiting or mint processes. The signature may be from a Navy official, perhaps "P. F. Smith" or similar, but it's unclear.)
Additional Context
These letters appear to be part of correspondence related to a potential legal proceeding in 1858 Philadelphia, possibly a counterfeiting trial where electrotyping (an early electrochemical process for copying metal objects like coins) was at issue. The U.S. Mint in Philadelphia was central to such matters, and references to "Mr. Booth" (possibly a mint employee) and Mickley (a prominent coin expert) suggest they were being lined up as witnesses. No exact match for these specific letters was found in public archives, but they align with historical numismatic activities around electrotype copies of rare coins like the 1804 dollar, which were produced around this era.
If this transcription needs refinement or if you have higher-resolution scans/clarifications for illegible parts, let me know!
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Hope the below JPEGS are easier on the eyes. Didn’t want to expand thread with attachments, so posted as a reduced pdf----which I failed to realize was of such poor quality!
R.R.R. does not refer to the Class of 1804s. A review of the inventory should give you a clue.
Mickley was "inner circle" long before 58.
A better person would have been Franklin Peale, even tho' he was "retired" by 58. Peale created the first galvano (electrotype) in 1840, It survives to this day in a private collection..
As to the technical details, no argument.
But---putting on a cynic's hat-- offering up Mickley would be a shrewd move if the Mint did not want to expose itself to having an employee/official offer testimony that might bind it (and who knew the innermost details/workings). Never know what an inquisitive US attorney, or defense counsel, might start asking about....
Mickley could credibly " I don't know" his way through some questions about things a Mint employee/officer could not, stick to techinical issues only....
Might be a red herring, remarkable only to show how close MIckley became. Have found no reported legal decisions contemporaneous, Paper search would be a challenge, no case name for starters.....
When did Mickley first become inner circle?
That would certainly been a waste of time since the Peale galvano had been publicized many years before.
You've got the surface docs. Keep digging and you'll eventually come up with the real stories. Shouldn't be hard, I and others have published the docs for the last 30 years.
It is a curious thing to presume to know what I have, and have not, looked at (or the scope of relevant data which may be available to me).
Primary reason I am looking into the entire 1804 saga is I like a good historical mystery. Nice side break from an in progress extended non numismatic work. Wherever the evidence leads......
I am looking at the issue de novo. I found much of the existing literature over relies upon improperly stacked inferences (upon inferences), arguments from silence without demonstrating the 3 prerequisite for same, and the like.... I do tend to follow Hitchen's razor when I read, and also am aware of it when I make an assertion.
Look forward to reading your article and the evidence which will be revealed to prove your "grand unified theory of Class II/IIIs." Have appreciated engaging in the "coming attractions" discussions!
What is the ball park estimated date for publication?
Thank you so much for the better copies.
In the last one, I am curious about the word "coating." The second letter is definitely an "o" comparing it to other words with an "o." However, it seems to be an odd use of the word, as the "coating of coins" sounds to me like the "electroplating of existing coins" rather than the "making of electrotype copies of coins.".
I am wondering if perhaps this word might be a secretary's transcription error for the word "creating." That would seem to be more likely in context, but of course this is just a guess. As I (barely) understand the process, there is a step where the negative impression is coated with powdered copper (?) to provide a base that subsequent metal is electrically deposited onto. This might be a perfectly innocent explanation for the use of the word "coating."
TD
@Rittenhouse . My question is off topic but considering the authority you speak with, do you know the reasons and actions that were taken to removed thousands of New Orleans mint dollars and then stash them for a Century? James
Cap:
My pleasure. Noted that. Last attachment was from the Assay office to the U.S. Attorney, not from the Mint. Maybe a misunderstanding further down the line at the Assay Office?
Not sure what significance the docs themselves have other than to show Mickley was “in.”
Passed along because I thought it might be of some potential use to the teased theory that all re-striking was done in a single batch (which it seems was of no use to its proponent).
Given the rebuff of clarification of the meaning of the R.R.R designation of the single 1804 specimen noted in the February, 1858 inventory of the Cabinet, appears the theory likely will be that all ClassII/IIIs were struck in a single run, at some date before that inventory. But that is just a guess of logic. Later inventories dropped that abbreviation.
Not much can be said about the single re-strike theory at this time. Not impossible, but then again, no evidence has been actually put forward yet.
What I have reviewed to date sure raises substantive questions about that, and other existing lore. Are means, motive and an opportunity for later re-strike(s). But I do not presently have sufficient evidence to definitely state an opinion. Was hoping to have a substantive discussion, but will defer further to examine the teased theory until some evidence for it is disclosed.
Strike of newly surfaced example sure stands out to me. Any thoughts you might have about the significance, if any, concerning that would certainly be appreciated-- and very much respected. First strike-- of a single striking ---of re-strikes?
>
No, sorry, I haven't done any studies on the NO mint. You might try some of the folks in LSCC or perhaps Kevin Flynn has some info.
@Rittenhouse . Thank you for answering back. Don't feel too bad about not knowing. I am a member of the LSCC and have probably asked this question more than a dozen times. (Mr. Flynn might be one I don't remember).
The standard answers are, "I have no idea." and "Try the Newman Portal."
I wish I was more gifted at using that source but the only anaology that applies is:
"You say you need some tuna?" Well all you need is the correct bait & tackle. Pick a coast and head fore the high seas. Easy Peasy." Thank you again. James
Rather than hijack this thread, how about starting another one we can discuss this in?
@CaptHenway . No hijacking and I have brought this very question up at least 6 times in the last 3 years. Crickets. So would be very short discussion. James
Interesting to note that Stack apparently had a 1933 D.E. confiscated by the Secret Service in the 1940s. If in fact all 1804 III’s were struck during a “period of legality” (or at least a period where it would not be deemed unauthorized) would be a non-relevant fact to this precise discussion. Just an interesting factoid.
But if the re-strikes continued, or were done after the Circulars—potentially making some later re-strikes unauthorized/prohibited Mints issues--- would be a relevant fact to the question why the existence of this example was held close for so long. And depending on its pre-Stack provenience, could be a material fact.
Linderman’s widow did have to do some creative explaining to the Federal Court to get her husband’s example freed from the 1887 injunction which initially barred its sale.
Sure, it was not pleasant to have to deal with the Secret Service. One time, would be one time too many for a lifetime-- for me at least.