So how was the 1870-s half dime really discovered?

Ed62 · November 1, 2008 3:32AM

And where had it really been for the previous 100+ years?

Sunnywood · November 1, 2008 3:55AM

The usual stories for coins like this are "in a shoe box," or "in the junk box at a coin shop," or "from an unclaimed safe deposit box." The purpose, of course, is to obfuscate any legitimate chain of legal ownership and/or to hide any past misappropriation of the property !!

Julian · November 1, 2008 5:37AM

Ed Milas of Rarcoa told me that it had indeed showed up in an accumulation of coins and was purchased by a Chicago area dealer as a type coin, I believe.

Ed purchased it after having it examined and compared to other S mint half dimes.

The coin screams authenticity, as it appears the same as 69-s and 71-s half dimes. It is weakly struck at the upper left reverse, just as many half dimes are.

The appearance of that coin in 1977 is the foundation of my belief that an 1870-s quarter exists and has not been discovered yet.

CaptHenway · November 1, 2008 9:39AM

<< Ed Milas of Rarcoa told me that it had indeed showed up in an accumulation of coins and was purchased by a Chicago area dealer as a type coin, I believe.

Ed purchased it after having it examined and compared to other S mint half dimes.

The coin screams authenticity, as it appears the same as 69-s and 71-s half dimes. It is weakly struck at the upper left reverse, just as many half dimes are.

The appearance of that coin in 1977 is the foundation of my belief that an 1870-s quarter exists and has not been discovered yet. >>

That is the story I heard at the time, when it was sent to us out at ANACS after its discovery.
TD

Sunnywood · November 1, 2008 10:03AM

The following text is copied from coinfacts.com:

PCGS MS-63. Unique! Discovered in early 1978 - Rarcoa - purchased by John Abbott in 1978 for $425,000 - Auctions by Bowers & Merena, Inc.'s "Four Memorable Collections" sale, September 1985, Lot 174, $176,000 - "two prominent East Coast dealers" - Martin Paul - Superior's session of Auction '86, Lot 1053, $253,000, "Brilliant Uncirculated with full prooflike surfaces" - offered beginning in 1991 for $1,500,000.00 - to be offered in Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins and Collectibles' Auction, October 1-4, 2000, Lot 1629.

Now here is the text from the Goldbergs' catalog (October 2000):

Lot 1629

1870-S. PCGS graded MS-63- UNIQUE!. A lovely coin for the grade, the fields are slightly prooflike, while the devices glow with satiny luster. All is toned an antique gold color which is very original in appearance. There are some minor surface marks, accounting for the grade, which were acquired while the coin remained numismatically undiscovered for over a century. Currently in PCGS holder #2575130. Color photo.
The San Francisco Mint had outgrown its quarters and a new building was begun in 1870. When the cornerstone was laid, coiner J. B. Harmstead struck a few pieces for inclusion there. One of these is reported to be an 1870-S $3 gold piece, and possibly other coins from 1870. Apparently, Harmstead struck an additional $3 piece for himself and mounted it on his watch fob or the like. Later, when Thomas L. Elder auctioned the collection of William H. Woodin in March 1911, an 1870-S $3 piece was offered along with a piece of paper reading "This is a duplicate of the coin struck for the cornerstone of the San Francisco Mint and the only one in existence. J. B. Harmstead." The coin had been repaired to remove a loop from the top, but still managed to bring an astounding $687,500 when it sold in the Eliasberg gold sale in 1982.
It is very likely that this 1870-S half dime has a similar story. It may have been struck by J. B. Harmstead, kept in his personal collection as a coin whose mate resides in the cornerstone of the new Mint. Somehow, its value was unrecognized and it passed into normal numismatic channels. Eventually, it found its way into the limelight, being plucked from a box of coins in 1978 and made its way to RARCOA, in time for display at the 1978 ANA show in Houston.
How to value such a coin? After a thorough and exhaustive authentication process, the coin was declared genuine in every respect, and was so far as known, unique. No 1870-S half dimes were reported struck at San Francisco in 1870, but for that matter, neither were any 1870-S $3 pieces (also unique) or even the 1870-S silver dollars, of which there are approximately 15 known. The owners of Rarcoa, Ed Milas and Dennis Forgue decided that the value of this 1870-S half dime would be determined by the sale of the Garrett 1804 silver dollar in March of 1980. Milas and Forgue determined that they would add $25,000 to the selling price of the Garrett 1804 dollar, whatever that would be, and offer the 1870-S half dime for that price. The Garrett 1804 dollar broke all previous auction records, selling for a stunning $400,000. Thus the 1870-S half dime was offered for $425,000, and promptly sold to John Abbott, a well known Michigan numismatist.
After intense publicity of the sale price of the 1870-S half dime, no others have turned up, and the coin remains unique a full 22 years after its initial discovery.
Obviously, someone was striking just a few coins of the various denominations of 1870-S. It was most likely J. B. Harmstead, as the 1870-S $3 coin was traced to him as noted above. Perhaps he made a few other samples that year, just to "test" the dies or some similar excuse was employed. Whatever the case, we have today a major rarity, comparable to the 1870-S $3 piece or the 1873-CC dime without arrows, or the 1849 double eagle, each of which is thought to be unique. Other comparable rarities are the 1822 half eagle, with 3 known, 2 of which are in the Smithsonian, or the 1913 Liberty Nickel, with 5 known.
No collection of United States coins can be complete without this piece. Therefore, if you are absolutely serious about undertaking the ultimate Guide Book collection, then this coin must be acquired. Discovered in 1978, Louis Eliasberg never obtained it, as he passed away in 1976. While other rarities proclaim their value, this unique 1870-S half dime lay hidden to the numismatic world for over 100 years, only to be discovered and appreciated long after the 1913 nickels and 1804 dollars had already made a big name for themselves. As Dave Bowers said in 1985 when this coin was auctioned "Whatever this coin sells for--$275,000, $500,000, $687,500--or whatever happens once it crosses the auction block, the new owner will have the satisfaction that so far as is known, $1,000,000, $10,000,000 or no amount can secure a duplicate!"
This landmark coin is a numismatic classic, a coin for the ages, and one whose fame will continue to grow and grow.
Estimated Value $500,000-UP.
Discovered in a "junk" box of coins in 1978, sold by Rarcoa in 1980 for $425,000 to John Abbott; it appeared in Bowers and Merena Galleries Four Memorable Collections Sale, September 1985, lot 174.

So, we see the interesting history of values:

1978 RARCOA sells to J. Abbott for $425,000
1985 Bowers & Merena $176,000
1986 Superior, Auction '86 $253,000
2000 Goldberg auction, 10/2000: Lot 1629 $575,000 (if I remember correctly)
2004 Bowers & Merena, 07/2004:Lot 2065 $661,250 (purchased by Legend for the Law Collection, where it now resides)

In 1991, the coin was offered for sale at $1.5 million, which was obviously out of line at the time. There were no takers.

More pics:

tradedollarnut · November 1, 2008 10:14AM

It's now a PCGS MS64.

BTW - the last time it sold was a few years ago for around $750k, which was a bargain. I was going to be a bidder on the coin to add to my 1870-S dollar, but Legend's client Mr Law expressed interest so I backed off.

Sunnywood · November 1, 2008 10:18AM

<< It's now a PCGS MS64.

>>

Wow, that just about sums up a lot of things LOL. Where would I even begin to offer satirical commentary about that upgrade?

Incidentally, more info can be found in "The 100 Greatest U.S. Coins," which lists this coin as number 21. An amusing factoid: the sale price of $425,000 was calculated in accordance with a formula, agreed to in advance by all parties: the coin would change hands at the hammer price of the Garrett 1804 dollar (which was to be auctioned at the 1978 ANA), plus $25,000. The 1804 hammered at $400K, and so John Abbott had to pay up $425,000 !!

CaptHenway · November 1, 2008 1:24PM

<< 

<< It's now a PCGS MS64.

>>

Wow, that just about sums up a lot of things LOL. Where would I even begin to offer satirical commentary about that upgrade?

>>

FWIW, we graded it at ANACS as an AU-58 due to slight mishandling.
TD

nicetoning42107 · November 1, 2008 1:40PM

The junk box theory doesn't make sense to me. Just think about the idea of an AU/BU Half Dime being in a junk box. It's an oxymoron since even common date Half Dimes in such a grade aren't junk (even back in the 70's), considering the scads of lower grade problem coins that exist in this series - those are the ones you find in dealer junk boxes then and now.

COALPORTER · November 1, 2008 1:55PM

Have the coins ever been removed from the cornerstone of the San Francisco mint ? - Wouldn't that reveal another coin, along with maybe other unknowns?

Coinosaurus · November 1, 2008 2:16PM

This was in the Numismatist awhile back - I believe Bill Burd wrote it up. It came in as part of a junk lot to a south suburban Chicago coin shop (Orland Park, if memory serves - I think the coin store was in a mall which has since been razed). It does seem like a story that there should be more to. Many years ago I talked to the person who handled it, as well as an employee of a neighboring coin shop (who might well have handled it if his store had been opened earlier that morning), & as far as I can tell it is a legit story.

Remember, there are no unc 1870-S dollars, of nine or ten known. This means that the 1870-S coinage wasn't necessarily prized as soon as it came off the dies. Even the 1870-S $3 (which was saved) has grafitti that some doofus scratched into the coin. So from that point of view the story is consistent with the known facts.

MrEureka · November 1, 2008 2:21PM

Even the 1870-S $3 (which was saved) has grafitti that some doofus scratched into the coin.

The grafitti was the number "894". Because the coin was possibly an assay specimen, and because 894 could be the fineness of the coin, it's possible that the responsible party was not a "doofus".

Which brings us to a related question: When an assay specimen was tested, what exactly was done to it?

Coinosaurus · November 1, 2008 2:27PM

Eureka-

Interesting theory. The assay report for 1870 should report the fineness. I looked at the 1873 assay report a couple years back in the Nat. Archives and offhand recall that most of the gold was 0.899 or 0.900. Even if your theory is correct, I still maintain that anyone putting graffitti on an 1870-S $3 is a "doofus"

PerryHall · November 1, 2008 8:47PM

<< The grafitti was the number "894". Because the coin was possibly an assay specimen, and because 894 could be the fineness of the coin >>

How would they able to determine that the fineness was 894 without melting the coin to do an assay?

Dennis88 · November 1, 2008 9:23PM

<< So, we see the interesting history of values:

1978 RARCOA sells to J. Abbott for $425,000
1985 Bowers & Merena $176,000
1986 Superior, Auction '86 $253,000
1991 Offered (but not sold) for $1,500,000
2000 Goldberg auction, 10/2000: Lot 1629 $575,000 (if I remember correctly) >>

You have to add the last time it was sold publicly and bought by the owner of the Law collection as mentioned by him/her in this thread.

2004 Bowers And Merena Auction, 07/2004: Lot 2065 $ 661,250 (Includes 15% buyers fee).

Auction description and other pictures of the coin can be viewed on the Bowers and Merena website, here.

<< << The grafitti was the number "894". Because the coin was possibly an assay specimen, and because 894 could be the fineness of the coin >>

How would they able to determine that the fineness was 894 without melting the coin to do an assay? >>

We all know that a case containing at least several 1870-S denomination was placed in one of the cornerstones of the 2nd San Francisco Mint. The story goes that in this box are examples of each denomination made for remembrance of the opening of the new Mint in San Francisco. Examples were made of the Half Dime, Dime, Quarter, Half Dollar, Dollar and all the gold denominations. The Half Dime, Quarter and $3 gold piece were not made for general circulation at San Francisco that year, nor was probably the Silver Dollar.

So as for this $3 gold piece, in 1870 it was almost 10 years after the last regular $3 gold piece was minted at the San Francisco Mint. After 1870 not a single piece of this denomination was minted in San Francisco, and considering the mintages at Philadelphia there was not much use to this denomination. So what was the goal of sending a piece to Philadelphia for assaying when there was no need for regular production of $3 gold pieces at the San Francisco Mint?

But then a case has to be made for the Gold Dollar, which shares the exact same story except for the fact that 3,000 Gold Dollars were produced for circulation that year in San Francisco. Why would this be done? Was there any need for Gold Dollars on the west coast during 1870?

I certainly believe some strange things happened that year at the San Francisco Mint. What exactly, I have no idea and unfortunately we will probably never be able to find this out. As far as I know, no newspaper articles are known commenting on souvenir coins (gold dollars?). Were they made for the general public? Or for some other use not mentioned anywhere? Why are there unique examples known for the half dime and $3 gold, but non for the quarter?

Lots of questions regarding this coinage and honestly, I have no real answer to any of these questions. Maybe some experts who have done more research on this can shed a light on this fascinating subject?

Dennis

Sunnywood · November 1, 2008 10:36PM

We all know that a case containing at least several 1870-S denomination was placed in one of the cornerstones of the 2nd San Francisco Mint.

So we have all been led to believe ... but efforts to find the cornerstone and reveal its contents have always failed. What if the half dime and $3 gold that are already known to us are the ones intended for the cornerstone? Could there have been a switcheroo, or some other shenanigans? Or perhaps the cornerstone was raided a long time ago?

Modern imaging equipment should be able to see into the granite blocks with ease ... a determined and well-funded effort to find the mythical cornerstone hoard should succeed with ease. So why hasn't it happened?

P.S. Thanks Dennis, I edited my earlier post to add the B&M auction. I knew there was one more, but couldn't remember which company or when.

coinlieutenant · November 1, 2008 11:55PM

The full story of this little half dime is quite amazing. The gentleman who carried the coin from Chicago on an airplane out east for authentication (in his pocket btw) told me of its journey, his/RARCOA's involvement, and where it went from there a while ago.

He is a good friend and as honest as they come. I wanted to tell the story to the boards I enjoyed it so much, but he asked that I not. He is a very modest and quiet man. I will ask him again if he would be willing for me to transcribe the story. Coin stories and the details have always excited me as the details are what really bring it to life.

John

Unknown · November 2, 2008 12:48AM

This content has been removed.

Sunnywood · November 2, 2008 12:58AM

Joe, that may all be true, but it doesn't answer the obvious question of how a choice uncirculated unique 100+ year old coin could possibly end up in a junk lot. I'm sure we will never know the truths that preceded the events you describe.

Oh, and did the daughter knowingly price the coin at 70 cents, or she did not know enough about coins to realize that an 1870-S half dime either couldn't be real, or could be worth a fortune?

Unknown · November 2, 2008 1:13AM

This content has been removed.

coinlieutenant · November 2, 2008 1:56AM

The story of how it was found is legit. I am talking about the details of authenitcation, discussions at RARCOA and the details of transport. They are pretty cool and I will try to post later.

John

RWB · November 2, 2008 2:00AM

Didn’t Nancy Oliver discover additional information on the 1870-S coins about a year ago? I recall seeing something in Coin World, but do not have the text handy. (Note to Amos Press: please publish an annotated index of Coin World. Much good material goes begging because researchers can’t find it in your archives.)

firstmint · November 2, 2008 3:40AM

Just for clarification, the numeral scratched on the 1870-S $3 is 893, not 894. This may well be an assay number for the fineness.

The foundation for the second San Francisco Branch Mint was awarded to G. Griffith, which if anyone can find those records, may divulge the location of the cornerstone block.

Nancy Oliver and Richard Kelly presented some additional background on the 1870 San Francisco coinage, including a quarter dollar, nearly two years ago in a Coin World article.

Dennis88 · November 2, 2008 4:01AM

<< Nancy Oliver and Richard Kelly presented some additional background on the 1870 San Francisco coinage, including a quarter dollar, nearly two years ago in a Coin World article >>

Could anyone who still has this article scan it and post it here? It's very much appreciated.

Dennis

Sunnywood · November 2, 2008 4:36AM

Joe, thanks for the reply. It is so amazing, when you think of it ... the daughter just saying, "seventy cents for this one" or something like that. Wow. There is always this nagging question as to whether a dealer has a moral obligation to disclose whether something has value ... in this case, the seller of the junk box was arguably harmed, if you believe a dealer has an obligation to price things fairly. Of course, most dealers don't believe there is any such obligation, and they dream of a score like this.

Unknown · November 2, 2008 4:44AM

This content has been removed.

So how was the 1870-s half dime really discovered?

Comments

Leave a Comment