More On The Restrike 1804 Dollars
Rittenhouse
Posts: 618 ✭✭✭✭
John Dannreuther and I recently completed a study of the Class II and III Restrike 1804 dollars. Briefly, characteristics common to all of the restrikes show that they were all struck at the same time and historical documents support the striking as being sometime between late 1859 and early summer of 1860.
The characteristics allowed us to create the first emission sequence for Restrike 1804 dollars and that sequence shows that not only was the James A. Stack, Sr. Class III piece he first struck, but also that most of the Class III pieces were struck PRIOR to the lone surviving Class II coin. In fact, only the Linderman Class III piece is in a later die state than the lone Class II. This is, of course, completely the opposite of what many have previously proposed.
For those interested in our findings, Stacks Bowers will be printing our monograph in the auction catalog. For those who do not get a copy of the catalog, we will be re-publishing the article later next year in the numismatic press.
[edited for typo, thanks Mark)
Comments
Interesting.
Tom, You'll like the article. It debunks a lot of ancient myth - like the Class IIIs not appearing until the 1870s. Historical docs show they first appeared in late1863 or very early 1864.
Are you completely discounting the possibility that they first appeared in the back rooms of Philadelphia coin shops in late 1859 or early 1860 before being clawed back? I like to think that it could have happened. As Captain Renault said to Richard Blaine in “Casablanca,” “It’s the Romantic in me!”
Second time you stated a dispositive opinion without providing any facts. If you are going to go with "sometime" 1859-60 as first and only re re striking, then what I intend to publish in a few months may call that conclusion into serious question. Mention as a courtesy only.
Perhaps there are facts regarding that particular detail included in the article. Regardless, it sounds like you might have come to a different conclusion about the timing of the re-striking, but you haven’t yet presented any facts, either. In each case, I can appreciate that each of you would want to save such information until your articles are made available to the public.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
All for sharing, and did try, but was dismissed by OP (" 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"). So that was that ... Will wait for the twice teased reveal. Think my willingness to share is evident in the other extended thread. That was enjoyable, but I am aware I tested the Board's patience, so stopped.
Did mention some facts already in the very extended thread, just one most basic one being the Mint Cabinet inventories--which antedated "summer 1859-60." But you are correct, that one fact alone is not enough for any conclusion.
Is news though this work is a piece which will be used in the sale of what will now apparently be claimed to be a "first strike" of a single batch of re-re strikes (was it commissioned/ paid for by Stacks?).
I am specifically holding off so as to not affect the sale (also, and candidly-- other projects are also in need of completion). Buyer at that level should be sophisticated enough to perform his/her own due diligence, and scrutinize any claims in an auction listing. My write up will not be compensated, likely just posted here, and no credit will be sought.
Do hope this auction write up includes Secret Service Records, citations to 19th and 20th century litigation filings, and diaries and papers both domestic and foreign. Perhaps it might mention Stack's time as a Bankruptcy Trustee, and his connections, or not. Much, much more, to the story than die states of such a small sample size, and records contained only in NARA Record Group 104.
Bingo! Why would I "claim jump" our own article? If you want to see the evidence get a copy of the catalog or wait until we publish in another venue later next year.
What do Secret Service records, etc. have to do with die states, emission sequences, when these pieces were struck, who struck them, and when they first appeared ?
Oh yes, to answer JCH22's question as to whether the article was commissioned or paid for by StacksBowers, no it was not. We sent the article to them gratis because we thought it would be nice to have it in the catalog. Sometimes it ain't all about the Benjamins.
By asking that question, it is apparent your research was limited.
@Rittenhouse said:
Then I can see no reason why you are unable/unwilling to post it here.
Actually, your reply shows a poor understanding of die states and emission sequences. Further, your suggestion of Secret Service records and 19th and 20th century litigation is quite silly as the objective evidence shows there is nothing of interest to find there.
The SS was not founded until well after the striking of these pieces and since these pieces regularly sold at auction from the 1870s on, there is obviously no litigation of any importance.
Two period records provide some amusing anecdotes illustrating the foregoing. First, Linderman was under Congressional investigation for wrong-doing. Interestingly, while the charges include a stock scam, kickbacks, and illegally employing relatives, there was no mention of illegal striking. Henry died before the charges could be officially brought. Nonetheless, there were enough people pissed at him that the committee's report got read into the Congressional record.
Then, in 1887, Mint Director James P. Kimball, who was seriously pissed-off at all of the illegal striking done by Lindeman and A. Loudon Snowden, had the Treasury Dept. seize Henry's collection which had been put up for auction. Several "patterns" were taken by the gov't, but, amusingly, the 1804 restrike dollar was not because his wife claimed he bought it from a coin dealer!
Lastly, none of the records you suggested have significant relevance to the subjects at-hand, that being die states, emission sequence, who struck them, and when they were struck. The records we found were more than sufficient to establish the facts. Having said that, if you wish to investigate other records, feel free to do so.
Like I said, why would I claim jump our own article? I want interested parties to read the article. That is why I made the announcement that we had completed our study and that it would be published in the catalog. You seem to not grasp the purpose of an announcement.
Where and when will this article be published?
Like I said in my original post at top, it will be published in the StacksBowers catalog. Since the auction is in Dec., the printed catalog should be ready shortly. I do know that it went to layout a couple days ago.
SB publishes their catalogs in downloadable PDF format available at: https://stacksbowers.com/auctions/catalog-library/. If you want hardcopy and are not on their mailing list, I suggest you call the NY location and ask how to purchase.
The Secret Service has traditionally limited its interest in counterfeit detection to paper money. From their point of view, a counterfeit $20 bill was 20 times more important that a counterfeit dollar, or 2,000 times more important than a counterfeit 1909-SVDB cent.
In the early 1980's when I was teaching an ANA Summer Seminar class on Counterfeit Detection I had a Secret Service Agent take the class. We chatted a bit and he said that at that time the S.S. had to rely entirely upon the Mint for expertise when the S.S. was involved in any case involving counterfeit coins, and it wanted to have one person on staff that knew something about counterfeit coins.
Of course this does not mean that things were not different in the late 19th Century.
Don’t engage ad hominin. But you can be assured my reading comprehension level is sufficient to process all you have written.
If you did not sell the article to Stacks, (or others, or enter into some agreement concerning publication rights/distribution) what “claim” could there possibly be to jump? Its your own article, unencumbered by any limitations. Found it off putting - “I know the answer.” I will tell you later why it is the answer. But that is just my own personal view point as I find it cuts off any meaningful exchange of ideas. Others might like the trailers….. Appears premier is not long in the offing so will just wait and what it says. No need for further back and forth about that.
Secret Service. which by the way was founded July 5, 1865, was certainly active during very relevant periods, including,-- but not limited to---- when it recovered Mr Stack’s ’33 double eagle.
What you reference otherwise is a surface view of-- some-- previous well known facts from the 1870s and 80s. Some correctly stated, others not ( just one additional small example-- Linderman's 1804 was in fact seized, but released only after his Wife's letter to the probate court).
Article is certainly well timed. Perhaps it will be so compelling Stacks will be resubmitting for some special designation (First Re Re strike). Not a question directed at you to answer. What holder it hammers in, original/relabeled will be sufficient to answer that.
In the meanwhile- will just wait and see, as I do not think anything of substance can be discussed until then.
However, none of the points you raise have the slightest implications on die states, the emission sequence, who struck the pieces, and when they were struck. 0 for 3.
When will your article be published and where will it appear?
Here, as a a pdf, after the sale as noted above.
Likely mid to late January given other projects (Melactonin Smith) Will be open source, non copyrighted ( no compelling interest in accruing any kind of additional publishing credits). Intend to cover all classes. Thought that a better approach then continuing the below thread:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1116002/stacks-bowers-to-offer-newly-discovered-1804-dollar-wow/p1
Focus will not be the order in which each recognized Class III was specifically struck. Think that is more an ancillary/market issue, to much more global questions.
Rittenhouse's twice promoted article:
https://stacksbowers.com/wp-content/themes/stacksbowers/uploads/catalogs/SBG_Dec2025_JAStack_WebCat2.pdf
(pp.33-40 pdf page numbering--- pp. 21-28 per catalogue numbering).
Very much over promised---and materially incorrect--- in my view. Will be more fully apparent why as indicated in a separate piece to follow shortly. No intention of debating finer points, point by point, here.
That noted, do think it important to now make any potential readers aware there is an apparent problem with at least one major source the write up tries to build it arguments upon:
“While some may feel this is a bit speculative, it is based on historical documentation….
And the prime “historical documentation"? ...
"That evidence strongly supports the contention that 11 (or 12) plain-edge 1804 dollar restrikes were struck in the late spring or early summer of 1860 with four Class II pieces being offered and sold to prominent collectors in the New York and Boston areas.
William Dubois, Curator of the Mint Cabinet Collection, stated that five pieces were struck with four being recovered. He further stated that three were destroyed in his presence and one, later shown to have been over-struck on an 1857 Swiss “Shooting Thaler,” was placed in the mint collection.10 While Dubois says that five Class II pieces were sold with four being recovered and one allegedly remaining “at large,” this fifth Class II dollar has not been seen in the nearly 150 years since Dubois made his statement. It is thus likely that only four Class II pieces were sold and Dubois simply misspoke or was merely repeating an old tale that there were five New York and Boston areas. The four Class II pieces were recovered by Mint Director James Ross Snowden in the late summer to winter of 1860 after he learned of their existence. William Dubois, Curator of the Mint Cabinet Collection, stated that five pieces were struck with four being recovered. He further stated that three were destroyed in his presence and one, later shown to have been over-struck on an 1857 Swiss “Shooting Thaler,” was placed in the mint collection.10
While Dubois says that five Class II pieces were sold with four being recovered and one allegedly remaining “at large,” this fifth Class II dollar has not been seen in the nearly 150 years since Dubois made his statement. It is thus likely that only four Class II pieces were sold and Dubois simply misspoke or was merely repeating an old tale that there were five.”””
(Citing American Journal of Numismatics, April 1878, pp. 102 –103).
The actual pages from the Journal alleged to be the statements of Dubious were, in fact, the statements of the Philadelphia Society's Curator:
Dubois was a Honorary Member of the Boston, and corresponding member of the NY, Societies. I found no relationship with the Philly Society. It it is certainly unclear why these statements were attributed to him.
Curator of Philly seems to have been Robert Coulton Davis ( also curator of a separate cabinet) . A little info regarding him:
and.....
So, the statements attributed to Du Bois seem to be those of Coulton---a then owner of a Class III 1804 at the time he made his statement..... Also, his statement references strikings in 1868----not 1860.
Also write up fails to even mention `Hazfeld’s response:
Dubois did publish a letter in the April, 1878 National issue, a tribute to Mickley on his passing. No mention of the 1804 was made by Dubois in same.