| Author |
 Replies: 37 / Views: 7,359 |
|
Valued Member
United States
460 Posts |
Sometime back in the 1800s some people decided that there needed to be more specimens of the rarest coins, including even the iconic 1804 dollar. I am sure money had nothing to do with it. So they made more of these coins so they could be less rare and more people could have them. Again, I am sure this was an important public undertaking.
These almost identical copies were struck at the mint in very limited numbers. They appear to have been made from genuine dies, although there are differences that allow these copies to be distinguished from the genuine originals. These copies have become very valuable and are known as "restrikes."
I don't know if these restrikes were authorized by anyone with true authority to make the decision. I would be surprised if they were approved by Congress, and if the mint director was involved, it would look corrupt and illegal. I have heard of mint employees of the period surreptitiously creating and selling "rarities."
Is there anything beyond a very long tradition that legitimizes these restrikes. Or they unauthorized and essentially counterfeit?
I have always been curious.
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Nothing can be counterfeit that was made by the actual mint, the only question is whether or not it's legal to own
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
460 Posts |
bb- maybe you have hit on the distinguishing point. I just wonder how something made without authorization, perhaps for corrupt profit can be deemed genuine. Maybe I should be more practical and less philosophical.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
I just wonder how something made without authorization, perhaps for corrupt profit can be deemed genuine. Despite what some researchers claim we simply do not know what was and was not authorized in every instance. Documents from the 1800s especially the early ones are by no means complete and comprehensive nor have they all even been checked. There's countless reasons why something could have been made that aren't necessarily for employee profit that we may never know, but if it was made at the mint it is by default genuine. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
Whether it is authorized or not, as far as I am concerned - if they are struck from the original dies - they are genuine. Russian novodels come straight to mind. They are essentially restrikes, sometimes struck with some kind of identification.
Counterfeits should be very clear cut - they are struck with non mint dies, clearly with the intention of fraud.
My partial coin collection http://www.omnicoin.com/collection/gxseriesMy numismatics articles and collection: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/numis_index.htmRegularly updated at least once a month. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2843 Posts |
Maybe the answer is that they are counterfeits. But collectable. Just like people collect CCC 8 reales and there are some very valuable ones, these are counterfeits that capture the interest of collectors and therefore are valuable.
I think the main ingredient in a desirable coin is the knowledge that the supply is finite and no more can be made.
The next ingredient is historical significance.
There are probably several other small ingredients, one of which is that it should be "official".
Any coin that has the main 2 ingredients will be collected even if it IS counterfeit.
Just a theory....
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
these are counterfeits that capture the interest of collectors and therefore are valuable. No. A mint literally cannot counterfeit itself. The 1804 dollars specifically are 6 and 7 figure coins, calling them counterfeits is not only reckless but more importantly inaccurate. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9792 Posts |
Basebal21 is correct. For many years the mint kept their dies in safes, it was much later that they were directed to finally destroy the old and non working dies. Hence the "Midnight Mint Mischief" of the 1830-60's and for even long after that. We know in my series ( Two Cent Pieces) that proofs in the first two years are incredibly small numbers for production, usually only thought of as to entire proof sets being made, maybe 100-200 in 1864/65. However it is also known that coin dealers from that era could get back dated proofs for the asking, and of any coins not just sets. Gold proofs were very low production numbers due to the fact most people didn't collect proofs, and gold was really expensive and most people just didn't encounter it on a daily basis. Kind of like collecting $100 and larger denominations today. Restrikes have been made for official reasons (1804 dollars going into presentation sets) and Gobrecht dollars for collectors, sold along with old patterns (which also weren't in demand by collectors, like proof and specimen stamps (they didn't hold up as well to time, like coins do). For the well healed collector I imagine it was quite easy to expand your collection by just inquiring to the mint or coin dealers in Philadelphia, getting them wasn't an issue. Here is some copy from an old Coin World Article on the 1827 Capped Bust quarter: Quote:
The 1827 quarter dollar is a legendary rarity with three great stories.
While Mint records show 4,000 quarter dollars were struck in late December 1827, most were likely struck with 1828-dated dies prepared for the next year's coinage. No business strike original 1827 quarters dollars are known. The nine original 1827 quarter dollars known are all Proof strikes.
Story I - Rory R. Rea, Dr. Glenn Peterson, Bradley S. Karoleff and John J. Kovach Jr. report in Early Quarter Dollars of the United States Mint that the coins "may have been given to mint staff as presents late in 1827. These officials maintaining their keepsakes could account for the presence of the 1827 quarter being unknown to collectors for decades." The coin became known to collectors in 1857 when a brief article appeared in a New York City newspaper.
Story II - At some point - when and how are open to speculation - an original 1827 obverse die was paired with an 1819 reverse die, identifiable by the square-base 2 in the denomination. The dies, at this point, were fairly new and left no rough patches on the struck coins - no signs of a rusted die. Two of the coins were struck over 1806 quarters. Rea, et al, report: "Karl Moulton believes that these two strikes were produced in 1827 as an experiment with use of a 'close collar.' " Close collars are used to form the edges of a coin. Open collars, used well into the 1820s, resulted in coins of varying diameter.
Story III - Rea, et al, report further: "Later, possibly in the 1850s these dies, now rusted, were resurrected and used to produce a dozen or so restrikes. Some of these restrikes were made from copper planchets and one of those copper planchets was silver plated."
Breen speculated, "In 1858-59 workmen in collusion with Theodore Eckfeldt (the Mint's night watchman and fence) retrieved the 1827 obv. from the Coiner's vault and surreptitiously made about a dozen silver restrikes and possibly five copper ones."
Breen noted Mint Director James Ross Snowden put a stop to the coinage shenanigans on July 30, 1860, by seizing all the Mint's dies and storing them in his own vault.
Heritage Auctions set the date of the rusted restrikes about 1876, when Henry R. Linderman was Mint Director. Linderman's estate (he died in 1879) included two restrikes, providing credence to the Heritage speculation.
Originals and restrikes are just about unavailable to collectors. In 2014, an original coin, graded Proof 64 by PCGS, sold for $411,250 at auction. Restrikes cost less, but still fetch high prices. A restrike from rusted dies graded Proof 63 by PCGS sold for $51,700 at auction in 2015. So it is through careful study of a coin series and die attributions that allow us to go back in time to uncover just how these restrikes were made, and possibly when, by whom? Not so much, as those selling out the back door of the mint surely knew it was wrong and would result in their dismissal, and possibly even imprisonment or death. Here is a short bit from a Heritage Auction Lot of the Brasher Doubloon that explains how easy for those that were "in the know" and had financial means could get about anything from the mint: Quote:Robert Gilmor, Jr. was the son of Robert and Louisa Gilmor, born at St. Mary's County, Maryland, on September 24, 1774. He died in Baltimore on November 30, 1848. His father was a principal partner of Bingham, Inglis, and Gilmor, coffee importers and retailers. The younger Gilmor was an active collector of many things for nearly 50 years. His collections included art, autographs, and coins, many acquired through his close relationship with Adam Eckfeldt. Gilmor, Jr. was educated in Amsterdam and Marseilles, and became a partner in his father's firm along with his younger brother, William, in 1799. The firm became known as Robert Gilmor and Sons. Soon after joining the firm, the younger Robert Gilmor embarked on an extensive trip to Europe, and on this trip began his numismatic interest. His influence in American business was such that he was able to convince Mint Director Robert Patterson to produce a personal medal to mark his parents 50th wedding anniversary. In an 1841 letter, Gilmor claimed to be the inspiration for the National Numismatic Collection, and he states in very clear terms that the Mint had already begun restrike activities, writing "The Mint has aided me considerably, and has ever provided my desiderata from the old dies, when I require it." The Robert Gilmor, Jr. coin collection, including the Brasher doubloon, was passed down to his nephew, also named Robert Gilmor, the son of his brother William. The mint mischief still happens today, though with less success, muled coins, intentionally defaced dies (Iowa State Quarter High and Low leafs), some maybe through inattentiveness like 1955, 1969 & 1972 Double Die cents (incorrectly setting up the hub machine, and the Buffalo 3 legged nickel (over polishing a die), Coin impressions on foreign objects like the "nail dime" still get out and are "discovered." But those being errors aren't restrikes. Restrikes today I think would be almost impossible with security at the mint now. Oh to have a time machine and go back to the mint and order what you wanted at will, then grab lunch and pick up your order at the back door that night. I believe U.S. Mint Restrikes to be a really interesting sub set of collecting and an area that needs a lot more research. "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440Edited by westcoin
05/16/2019 8:06 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12477 Posts |
Excellent information, westcoin!  Quote:(Iowa State Quarter High and Low leafs) I believe you mean Wisconsin. In Memory of Crazyb0 12-26-1951 to 7-27-2020
In Memory of Tootallious 3-31-1964 to 4-15-2020
In Memory of T-BOP 10-12-1949 to 1-19-2024
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
All interesting but as far as I care, if there is a place in an Album for those, then they are needed so I collect them.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2843 Posts |
Quote:
A mint literally cannot counterfeit itself. The 1804 dollars specifically are 6 and 7 figure coins, calling them counterfeits is not only reckless but more importantly inaccurate. I rarely allow myself to be drawn in to arguments with online posters, much more so with posters who posses the knowledge that you do and the blunt force with which you choose to share that knowledge with others. I make an exception in this case. #1 Why do you say that "a mint literally cannot counterfeit itself"? If, and I stress, if a coin is made by a mint employee, but said employee was not authorized to do so, who says that coin is not counterfeit. Does being made in the mint, using mint property and supplies automatically preclude an item from being deemed a counterfeit? #2 Please take the time to explain what is "reckless" about calling an 1804 dollar a counterfeit. I fully understand your claim that it is inaccurate, but what is reckless about it. #3 Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough, but my point was to question the OPs presumption that restrikes are not counterfeits. When OP asks why aren't restrikes just counterfeits, I ask who says that they aren't. I am not saying that they necessarily are, but the question assumes that it would break some logical rule for both to be true. That the 2 are mutually exclusive. I was merely offering up the option to resolve the question by negating the premise upon which the question is based. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
789 Posts |
Quote:
I rarely allow myself to be drawn in to arguments with online posters, much more so with posters who posses the knowledge that you do and the blunt force with which you choose to share that knowledge with others. I make an exception in this case. Your a brave man. I'll stick my nose in here. Counterfeits (as defined in the law) are illegal to own because they are counterfeits. (Circular reasoning, I know). Ergo, (or is that Eggo?) if it aint illegal it aint a counterfeit. In the eyes of the law. |
|
Valued Member
United States
460 Posts |
BigSilver and basabal I went back and read my OP and understand the confusion caused between the inartfully phrased semi-rhetorical questions in the title and the end of the OP. For the reasons stated in BigSilver's point 1, I have problems with the origins, and not the appearance, of the mint die restrikes, both authorized and illicit. I suggested they could be considered counterfeit That was because they were not what they facially purported to be: a lawfully authorized coin minted pursuant to the original authorization.. My question is really academic, and perhaps a little legalistic. These restrikes have a time honored place in numismatic history, and the market values reflect this. And I don't disrespect the 1804 Dollar. I'd love to hold a slabbed one of any origin in the sun for a few minutes. The question I was hoping would generate a scintillating and educational discussion (which is occurring) was simply are these restrikes legitimate or not. I hoped to learn something, and I expected opinions on both sides. As I see it, there are two kinds of restrikes: lawfully authorized and illicitly created. The legitimacy question could be different for each type. Lawfully authorized restrikes would include, if I remember correctly, the Half Cents of the 1840s and the Gobrecht dollar. My problem with these, aside from their facially misleading nature, which could defraud a subsequent purchaser, is that they watered down the rarity and potential value of those already legitimately in existence. The 1804 Dollar perfectly illustrates the illicit restrike. In 1835-36 some unknown small number of 1804 Dollars (the latest dies available) were authorized and issued for diplomatic and other official purposes. Eight of these are known to remain. I have no trouble viewing these as unquestionably legitimate. The other seven of the fifteen known 1804 Dollars are known as restrikes. They were all illegally made by mint employees and distributed presumably for profit. Four were recovered with three destroyed and one placed in the Smithsonian collection. I have a problem with the legitimacy of the products of probably criminal, and certainly improper conduct. It is hard for me to keep from viewing such coins as iligitimate.. So I guess I view some restrikes as reprehensible and others as ill-advised. From my present day viewpoint, none of the restrikes should exist. But times were different 150 or so years ago, and when the restrikes were made, they were treated as legitimate numismatic artifacts. And they have remained so since. Perhaps they have shed all legitimacy questions with the passage of time. I still don't know for sure what to think (although I'd love to own any recognized restrike). I'd love to continue reading everyone's thoughts. Edited by Sharkman
05/17/2019 3:48 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
#1 Why do you say that "a mint literally cannot counterfeit itself"? If, and I stress, if a coin is made by a mint employee, but said employee was not authorized to do so, who says that coin is not counterfeit. Does being made in the mint, using mint property and supplies automatically preclude an item from being deemed a counterfeit? The simple act of it being minted by the mint makes it a genuine mint product. Error coins have never been authorized but they are still genuine US coins. The 1974 D aluminum cent that was confiscated is still a genuine 74 D aluminum cent even though the mint claims it was never authorized so was therefore illegal to own. The mint even displays it at some coin shows. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9792 Posts |
Quote:basebal21: The simple act of it being minted by the mint makes it a genuine mint product. Error coins have never been authorized but they are still genuine US coins. Quote:
Spruett001: I believe you mean Wisconsin. Yes! on both accounts, Spruett001 I was thinking about the corn, not dairy cow, got my states mixed up, and I don't collect them beyond putting a set of state .25's together as they came out from circulation.  Mint makes a coin current or restrike and uses the original dies, it's real, genuine, maybe not legal to own, nor possess outside of the mint, it's still their product. As to Sharkman's question "Are they authorized?" In some cases under Mint Director Patterson I believe yes, as he was instructed to create a US Coin Cabinet, keeping examples of coins the US Mint had struck, since he still had access to the dies that made filling in some holes easy, others, like colonial coins, spanish, french, etc and early US coins he often traded patterns or other favors (maybe in a real grey area here) to fill those missing holes in the collection. I don't know the direct line of authorization, was it okay at a Congressional level? I'm not sure. PCGS has some definitions I think work: Quote:WHY A COIN WAS MADE Regular Issue: A coin officially struck at the United States Mint and delivered for commercial purposes (regular strikes and the 1836 and 1839 proof Gobrecht dollars) or special strikings (proofs, specimen strikes, experimental strikes, and special mint set strikes) of those commercial issues made for sale or presentation to collectors or dignitaries. Included in this category are the proofs made in a continuing series even though business strikes of the particular year were not made. Examples are proof only issues such as 1895 silver dollar and 1841 $2 1/2. Commemorative Issue: Special coin issues minted to commemorate a specific historical event or person and sold at a premium over face value. United States commemorative coins are legal tender and have sometimes been seen in circulation. Branch Mint Proof Strike: Prior to 1968, proofs were usually only struck at the Philadelphia Mint. Beginning in 1968, proofs were struck at the San Francisco Mint instead of at Philadelphia. Pre-1968 proofs struck at Branch Mints are called "Branch Mint Proofs". Branch Mint Proofs were generally struck to commemorate the openings (or re-opening) of a Mint, or special events, or as presentation pieces. Examples of Branch Mint Proofs include the 1879-O, 1883-O, and 1893-CC Morgan dollars and the 1838-O half dollar. Pattern: A test striking of a proposed coin design (whether adopted or not). Patterns often come in other than the proposed metals. Examples are the aluminum and copper strikings of Trade dollar patterns. Die Trial: Test pieces for regular issue, commemorative, early American, and U.S. Territorial coins struck in a different metal than the intended coin. Most of these are simply off-metal strikings made for collectors. Some true die trials, like the copper 1795 $5 do exist. Examples of die trials include the 1864 through 1876 gold coin issues struck in copper and/or aluminum. Restrike: An officially minted coin struck at a date significantly later than indicated on the coin. Examples are 1873 $3 gold pieces and 1804 $10. Clandestine Strike: A coin struck at the Mint but without authorization. Clandestine strikes were the work of Mint employees who conspired to "create" numismatic rarities that could be sold to coin collectors. Examples: 1913 Liberty nickel and 1885 Trade dollars. Patterns can also be clandestine strikes. Examples include the 1859 and 1860 so-called "transitional" Half Dimes. Private Issue: A coin struck, either outside the Mint or before the U.S. Mint began striking coins in 1792, to satisfy local coinage demand or attempt to gain coinage contracts. Territorial gold issues are private issues. Early American coins are also private issues. Private "Restrike": An unofficially minted coin struck outside the Mint to satisfy collector demand for certain regular issue dates. These are literally counterfeit coins. Example: 1804 so-called "restrike" Large Cent. I was mentioning earlier the Midnight Mischief Mint products, they would correctly be "Clandestine Strikes" and questionable to own, certainly today. Back in the 1800's and into the new century there wasn't a lot of value placed on these coins, and the mint had no intention of going after them at auctions or show. Do they now become legal items due to a statue of limitations being passed perhaps? All good questions, like I said it's an area of US numismatics that would certainly benefit from more research. P.S. Great topic too! "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
789 Posts |
Quote:The simple act of it being minted by the mint makes it a genuine mint product. Error coins have never been authorized but they are still genuine US coins. Certainly a matter of semantics. Yes, such a coin would be a genuinely minted in the USA coin. No, it would not be a genuine USA government mint product. Yes, it would be struck in the genuine USA mint. No, it was not authorized to be struck, which means it is spurious and not genuine. |
| |
Replies: 37 / Views: 7,359 |
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.56 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
Posted 05/16/2019 5:35 pm
