A challenge for the hotshot numismatists: What is this thing?
MrEureka
Posts: 24,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
There's some info on Mike Byers' site, but I don't think he has it quite right.
There's more at USPatterns.com.
Let's see if we can poke some holes in the current thinking on this piece, and figure out how it was made, and when.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Based solely on those photos, I can't be sure it is a product of the mint at all. I wonder if it was some artifact of a button making operation in the mid 19th century. I'm not condemning the piece -- it is just a stray thought at this point...
Coin Rarities Online
-Paul
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Looks like a splasher. >>
splasher noun, pl. splashers: any of several silver dollars used by George Washington as practice before he was successful in throwing one across the Potomac River.
<< <i>I was going to say splasher.... whats the prize to the winner? >>
"I am sorry you are unhappy with the care you recieved, is their anything I can do for you right now, how about some high speed lead therapy?" - A qoute from my wife's nursing forum
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." – Thomas Jefferson
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
San Diego, CA
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
But now I see you are already aware of that...
Ed. S.
(EJS)
I described it here.
My write-up and Mike's description look oddly similar.
Andy -- the provenance of this piece, while not published, adds credence to a Mickley connection.
Mike's assertion that it was struck at the US Mint is in opposition to what my cataloguing said, to wit, "This piece was produced as an after product of a central reverse punch that was disposed of by the U.S. Mint."
It's an interesting item and I had a lot of fun trying to puzzle it all out once upon a time.
In the November, 1878 Ebenezer Mason catalogue of that collection, lot 916 was described as "1 Hub; rev., United States Twenty-five Cent Piece, about 1820."
As I understand it, dies were frequently called "hubs" at the time; so, what happened to the die that was used to make this OP piece (which debuted at the 1887 Lyman Low auction sale of Linderman's collection as Lot 119)?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>The known facts: 27mm dia.,187.8grains,2mm thick. Lead. Combines a 1823/2 with a full shield that was from scrap die. Assumed facts: Probably struck by Dickeson from scrap dies outside the mint. Struck sometime later. Dr. Linderman could possibly have been involved and was known for his "midnight minter" habits for himself/his acquaintances/officials,etc. The unknown facts: Described as a planchet. May have been from an 1828 reverse hub die. Described as a die trial piece. Eliminate: Die trial piece, because if it was, it would have been struck at the time, i.e., 1823/1828. Eliminate description as a planchet in the strict sense of the word, when describing a numismatic planchet. Eliminate die trial because it would not have combined 2 different designs. The questions: Fantasy piece ? Contrived piece to deceive for monetary gain? Simply scrap, from scrap dies that a plausible story has been presented to make this piece a historic and numismatic value added presentation? Just some thoughts, Respectfully, John Curlis. PS-I have taken into account the shape of the "planchet". >>
Hoard the keys.
no way....
Ebay L@@K Estate Sale Antique Coin SILVER GOLD nice original surface BU UNC PCGS NGC ANACS PCI
In reading through what is left of the Linderman correspondence and the various affidavits related to the attempted seizure of his collection (post mortem), I have to question whether much of this was really surreptitious. There are quite a few references between Linderman and Pollock (Philadelphia Mint Superintendent - A. Loudoun Snowden later enters the picture) about striking additional examples of pattern designs in off-metals, as well as references to various lead, copper and other experimental and trial pieces being sent to the director and others. Linderman also maintained an extensive display of mint products (coins and medals) in his Washington office and used it to impress members of Congress, political visitors and international guests.
My hypothesis is: much of what we call surreptitious was actually requested in writing and that the documents simply no longer exist. Linderman collected many of the items that would have normally been discarded as well as openly requesting specimens in correct metal and base metal. (Compare Linderman’s collection to that of R. Coulton Davis.)
Item #1: The Philadelphia Mint commonly made pattern, experimental and trial pieces of work in progress as well as almost complete designs. We have few of the in-progress pieces because they were just working materials and, except for the ones Linderman and a few others collected, were thrown away. We do have many examples of patterns that are actually incomplete designs – the original documents say they were incomplete – but we’ve lost some of that by over-zealous editing and assumptions in various publications.
Item #2: According to documents from the 1870-1880s, examples of pattern and experimental designs struck in copper (and possibly other base metals) were not done to create some “delicacy or rarity.” Such items had little numismatic value at the time, rather, as in the examples of copper silver dollars struck for Thomas Acton of the NY Assay Office, base metal was used because the recipient didn’t have to pay for the silver or gold content – i.e.: they were “almost free.” [Examples of the proposed Barber and Morgan standard silver dollar were available in Dec. 1877 in silver (if you wanted to pay for them) or copper (if you wanted a free sample). The same apparently applied to the later Goloid and metric patterns including Stellas.]
OK – I realize the above is heretical and contrary to “received wisdom,” but it is what the remaining documentation seems to be saying.
In that era, there was no way to be sure a design worked, except to try it -- note the multiple changes of detail on Morgan dollars. Jefferson nickels went through a dozen minute changes before final approval, etc.
When Pistareen (JK) showed me this lead piece, of the reverse "unfinished working die" that was seen begininng on the 1823/2 Bust Quarters, at the John Ford sale in June of 2004, I didn't think it was a US Mint product because the lead was to dark and because of the unfinished "texture". This was struck from an unfinished reverse working die.
It is not from a master hub puncheon (even though this was the condition of the hub in 1823) as this reverse die was used throughout the remainder of the Capped Bust quarter production until 1828. Steve Tompkins, who is just now finishing an early US Quarters book (some 450+ pages worth) has determined that this reverse die was re-engraved to add the middle claw and lower arrowhead on the four different new dies which were created after 1823.
This was Robert Scot at his ultimate - (totally messed up) - but given to cheif coiner Adam Eckfeldt to be used anyway. Scot died in 1823, within a year after this die was used on the 1823/2 quarters which were delivered in February 1823.
This was a "scrap die" that was sold by the Mint, apparently going to Montroville W Dickeson. He ended up with numerous dies which he made low grade trial piecs from in the 1860's. At the time, he was the leading "authority" on US Coinage based on his Encyclopedia's that were printed in 1859, 1860, and 1865.
Interestingly, there exists a copper piece similar to this lead piece, except that the central portion of the motto is missing.
More on the research about the working dies and one main hub used for the 1815-1828 quarters will be found in Tompkins' book, which is scheduled to be released at the ANA show in Baltimore this August.
lol
greg
www.brunkauctions.com
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
<< <i>I see lead people!
So that would date it to Bev Doolittle's productive years.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>mozeppa, you are not right!! but i see them too
lol
greg >>
there's many others in there too.
cow and a gorilla!
okay....................i'm bored!
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Although it can't be completely confirmed, I believe there were no hubs or matrixes ever released by the U S Mint. They were most likely melted when no longer needed or usable. This is most likely what happened to this damaged hub.
We know there was a die made using the hub in 1823 for the 1823/2 quarters. That's how we see the reverse damage to the hub at this point in time. The condition of the hub rendered it unuasable after this time.
When Kneass got the job as engraver in January 1824, he used this damaged die (made in 1823) and hand punched the missing portions that you outlined. This was standard practice for most working dies at the time.
Becasue of the re-construction work needed to make the design proper, there was little use for this die (only 4 new ones from 1823 to 1828). That's why the Capped Bust Quarters saw every possible working die from the past being used to finish the production of the large diameter quarters. It also helps to explain the three year gap in production between 1828-1831.
There simply wasn't a usable large sized quarter hub anymore.
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
Also, a hardened hub would not have broken apart in small portions (as seen in part of the motto) whereas an old working die might have ended up with damage after being stamped once again after 40 years.
edited to add - Steve Tompkins told me today that the missing portion of the motto was not caused from later striking damage; it was from the lack of metal flow, as the raised globe on the other side "took away" that missing center section. It was not due to post striking damage.
He also related that he will be giving a talk about open collar hubs and dies, used for the silver coinage, at the EAC/JRCS gathering in Dallas on May 9th.
There is one further validation point that this later "fantasy piece" was struck using an incomplete working reverse die, but you will have to wait until Steve's talk, or get his early quarter book when it comes out this fall.
As to whatever happened to this reverse die after the 1860's, is anyones guess. It has not been seen, written about, or heard of since then.