Randall Hoard Suspected As Being Restrikes In The Early 1880's.

There are several major flaws in the theory. One if they were made by the Union, make restrikes with old dies for military spending when they already had the mint and had been making small size cents for several years. Two if forty year old dies had been used they most likely would have been rusted and the coins would show the resultant pitting. Three if a group of random old dies had been used it is almost certain that there would be die pairings that ONLY come in the high grade Randall hoard coins and there would most likely be dies in the group that were mis-matched (Obv from one year, rev from another. Only one Randall variety fits this, 1816 N-2 which shares a reverse with 17 N-2 which was not a Randall hoard coin. In fact that is the only case of a reverse die being used in more than one year in the 1816 to 20 range.) All of the Randall hoard varieties are common with low grade examples. And finally for either side it wouldn't make much sense to make restrikes to use for making purchases and make one cent pieces that contained 1.2 cents worth of copper in them, plus the expense of manufacture. The copper nickel cents cost half that and later when the CWT's and later bronze cents came about they were about a third of that cost. Restrikes of large cents to spend makes no sense, make a large cent and lose money or three small cents and make money.

I don't believe 1825 is a Randall hoard date.

There are certainly enough TPG "hoard" label slabs out there. Has anyone ever seen a Randall Hoard slab?

Come to think of it, you're right!

The story of the Randall Hoard goes like this...

Someone found a barrel full of high grade Large Cents dating from 1816 to 1820, and a few dated 1825. The coins were mostly uncirculated red at the time. Almost all of the Large Cents from this hoard have major die breaks forming rings. This indicates the dies were cracked. Polished dies that had been rusted could possibly be cracked. The dates that show the most cracking are 1818 and 1820, but all other dates from the hoard also have examples of the extreme cracking. In 1879, a business owner in Georgia settled a dept to a business owner in New York using the Large Cents as full payment for a much greater dept. The New York guy then immediately sold the Large Cents to a big time Coin Dealer. You will have to research this yourself for all the names involved in the history of the Randall Hoard and more details.

After hearing your thoughts, I have to agree that probably the Randall Hoard Large Cents are not restrikes. There is one die paring that would indicate someone did make restrikes, but since the other die pairings are the same as existing die pairing this is not likely. So, you convinced me they are not restrikes. I am now 98% convinced they are not. ;)

However, they most likely were being used as payment for soldiers. I am big into metal detecting, and I know for a fact that the vast majority of the one cent coins recovered from Civil War campsites have been Large Cents. Many have holes, and were stringed together for safe keeping. This indicates the soldiers were being paid in Large Cents. Metal detector enthusiast find most of their Flying Eagle cents up in the Northeast corner of the USA, not in the Civil War zones. Based on this fact, it is possible that the Union Side, or even maybe the Confederate side, pulled out some old pennies that were shoved into some bank or U.S. Mint vault to use for military payment. Maybe since the pennies were cracked, someone thought they should be destroyed instead of distributed, so they were set aside. However, it is very interesting to me that they were almost all made from cracked dies and different dates, which is why I was thinking they were restrikes. But, the die pairing point is important because it means if they were restrikes the person who minted them knew the correct die pairing to use to make them appear authentic. I am not sure if Large Cent collecting was that advanced in 1879. Coin collecting was very popular at the time among the wealthy, but probably not to that degree. However, Newcomb wrote his book because that was how they were collecting Large Cents, so collecting Large Cents by die pairing had to be popular before 1940. So, maybe it was already a thing to do even back in 1879. If it was, then it is possible the coin dealer or the guy in New York found a way to make the coins and they are restrikes. Polished rusted dies could be cracked, but you are right by saying they should also be pitted. Being a coin dealer, he would have known the pitting was bad and picked the very best die combinations for minting, so maybe he avoided the pitting. Dies that were stored away from moisture could have been lightly rusted, and still in great shape. But, it is very unlikely he made them because he also needed access to a minting machine. It is just at the time he was selling them, the other coin dealers wrote that they possibly were restrikes because of the quality of the Large Cents, the fact they were almost all cracked, and the number of high grade Large Cents found in the hoard. Nobody had ever seen so many high grade Large Cents from the late 1816 to the 1820's all together. No hoard of that caliber has ever been found since either.

There is more that is unknown about the so-called Randall Hoard than is known. Lots of speculation, conjecture, and theory. Not much actual evidence. They were widely suspected to be restrikes, but Cogan swore up and down that they were not. I'd love to know if a bright red uncirculated large cent can stay bright red after 50 years in a wooden barrel in a humid and dark environment; perhaps someone can test the theory. (Whether or not the barrels were buried or simply under the floor boards but above the ground is also disputed.)