U.S. Mi n t Re s t r i k e s 1804 Restrikes In the same breath as the 1811 Half Cent and 1823 Large Cent restrikes, we must include the 1804 Large Cent restrike. They have in common in that they are all of the working dies are believed to have been created by the , subsequently owned by Joseph Mickley, and struck either inside the Mint clandestinely during different periods after 1858 or struck outside the Mint privately. If they were struck inside the Mint after 1858, there might be some argument that they are legally struck at the Mint. If they were struck privately outside the Mint, then they must be classified as counterfeits.

In 1804, a single die pair (Sheldon-266) was used to strike 96,500 Large Cents (During this era, working from the previous year were sometimes used in the beginning of the following year. This mintage reflects the number of delivered in a year and could include 1803 Large Cents struck in 1804). In 1803, several dies were used to strike 3,131,691 Large Cents. One of these 1803 Large Cent obverses (Sheldon-261) had an 1804 date punched over the 1803 date and used create the 1804 Large Cent restrikes. This was combined with an 1820 Coronet Head reverse (Newcomb-12). Seen below are a mid-die stage on the left and a late die stage on the right of the 1803 Large Cent (Sheldon-261). Notice that no rust is seen on the obverse and that the late die stage has a semicircular die crack from 6 to 9 o'clock such as seen on the 1804 Large Cent restrike. Photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

Below is the 1804 Large Cent restrike. The level of rust on reverse appears less than the obverse. Photos courtesy of PCGS Coinfacts.

Copyright 2017 Kevin Flynn 22 Seen below is the 1803 Large Date used on the 1803 Large Cents (top left), 1804 date used on the 1804 Large Cents (bottom left), and the 1804 date used on the 1804 Large Cent restrikes (right). The 4 on the 1804 Large Cent restrikes is completely different than the 4 on the 1804 Large Cent. There is no base and no crosslet and the top is not pointed. The underlying 3 seen above the top, and below the left side of the cross-bar of the 4 on the 1804 Large Cent restrike. Photos courtesy of PCGS Coinfacts.

The 180 of the date appear very thin as compared to on the 1803 Large Cent. This implies that the face of the working die was ground down to remove those design elements highest to the face, such as the date. The Engraver could then re- engraver the 180, and punch a 4 over the remnants of the 3 into the softened working die.

The reverse of the 1811 Large Cent restrike is from an 1820 Coronet Head reverse (Newcomb-12). In the photo below on the left is a reverse used in 1804 (Sheldon-266) and on the right is a reverse used on 1820 Large Cents (Photos courtesy of PCGS Coinfacts). Notice the clear differences, on 1820 reverse, there is no bow or faction at the bottom, the wreath is one continuous rather than two branches disconnected at the top. There is a line under ONE CENT, the leaves and berries and different sizes, shapes, and locations. The letters in ONE CENT are smaller. In the center photo is of the 1804 Large Cent restrike, which matches the design of the 1820 reverse.

22 23 U.S. Mi n t Re s t r i k e s 1804 Large Cent Sheldon 266 die states

There are three die states known on the 1804 Large Cent (Sheldon-266) that were struck in 1804. These die states are easily distinguishable and important, especially when evaluating early auctions that contained no photographs. In several auction descriptions, 1804 Large Cents are called from "Perfect Die," while in others they are called from a "Broken Die." The question becomes whether they are describing the 1804 Sheldon 266 or 1804 Restrike. 1. 1804 Stage 1 - S-266a - No rim cuds on obverse or reverse. Photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

2. 1804 Stage 1a - S-266a - Small die crack through the top of ERTY of LIBERTY. Photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

Copyright 2017 Kevin Flynn 24 2. 1804 Stage 2 - S-266b - Rim cud above RTY of LIBERTY on obverse. No rim cud on reverse. Photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

3. 1804 Stage 3 - S-266c - Rim cud above RTY of LIBERTY on obverse. Rim cud above MERI of AMERICA on reverse. Photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

Important Auctions and Sales

In viewing the early coinauctions and considering the content in the descriptions and what they imply, it’s important to understand the level of knowledge during this period. Only a handful of auctions are known before 1858. Most of early auctions these contain foreign and ancient coins. With immigrants originating from Europe and other places from around the world, it's logical that they brought money and also some of their hobbies to America and perhaps continued their collecting interests. Up through 1850, a large portion of the coins in commerce in the U.S. was still foreign, especially Spanish coins. This may also have stimulated to a small degree the collecting of these coins. In these early auction catalogues there was normally more information in the descriptions of the coins that is provided with the foreign coins than their U.S. counterparts, which would be expected given the extended history of these coins.

24 25 U.S. Mi n t Re s t r i k e s

The first major coin auction was the Lewis Roper sale in February 1851. The next major coin sale was the Kline auction in June 1855; this contained a 1804 Cent, 1811 Half Cent, and 1823 Cent, all listed with no description besides the date and denomination. With coin collecting and coin auctions in its infancy during this period, as you move forward through time and auctions, there is clear progression in the level of knowledge and the descriptions of the coins.

Edward Cogan's first sale was in November 1858 and he had four auction sales before the Levick sale in December 1859. None of these first four sales had any special descriptions of the 1804 Cent, 1811 Half Cent, or 1823 Cent, except for calling the 1804 Cent very rare in the Cratz sale. No other sale before the Levick auction called the 1804 Cent, 1811 Half Cent, or 1823 Cent anything special except for the June 21-23, 1859 auction by Banks, Merwin & Co. where they described the 1804 Cent as "Never been in circulation", and the 1811 Half Cent as "Fine and Very Rare."

The N.T. Levick coin sale of December 1859 was held at the store of coin dealer Edward Cogan. The following Large Cents are listed: 408. 1804 Cent, perfect die, remarkably fine. – $8.00 409. 1804 Cent, broken die, fine. - $4.50

The question in the Levick sale is whether Cogan’s 1804 "perfect die" was an 1804 Sheldon-266a or just an 1804 Sheldon 266 in general and whether Cogan’s 1804 "broken die" was an 1804 Sheldon-266b or 266c with the rim cuds on the obverse or the 1804 restrike with severe rust and heavy die cracks on the obverse. The question is not what perfect or broken die meant during any time frame or any collector. It is what did Cogan believe these descriptions to mean when he described these coins in the Levick sale.

Cogan’s first four actions were between November 1858 and November 1859. In none of the descriptions of an 1804 Large Cents does Cogan use the expression "perfect die" or "broken die." These expressions are not used to describe any 1804 Large Cent in any auction before the Levick sale. Cogan was born in 1803, he emigrated from England to Camden, NJ in 1853 with his wife and five sons. Cogan first opened a curio store as a dealer in books and fine arts. He is believed to have become a coin dealer in 1855. In 1859, was Cogan himself able to identify the different die states of the 1804 Sheldon- 266; there were no definitive references, articles, or books on the series that covered die states. When you compare the 1804 Sheldon-266b and 266c, which have a rim cud above RTY of LIBERTY against the 1804 Restrike, which contains a massive die crack on the obverse from 6 to 9 o’clock through the design elements and severe rust, if the restrike did exist at this time, it might be more likely that Cogan was describing the 1804 restrike, which he assumed was a different die used for 1804 Large Cents. Of course, if it was an 1804 restrike, if Cogan or anyone else flipped the coin over, the different design used on the 1820 reverse would have jumped out like a sore thumb.

We know Levick later specialized in Large Cents, and more than likely helped Cogan with this sale. We also know through Mason's 1890 article that both Mason and Mickley were present at these auctions. The experience and knowledge of all of these gentlemen would have more than likely known if it was a true 1804 Large Cent, especially Mickley, who is believed to have had the dies, unless of course Mickley was attempting to keep this a secret so that he could sell these as normal 1804 Large Cents. Other obvious restrikes in the Levick sale, such as the 1851 Dollar Proof was not called a restrike nor was the term restrike used up through this time. In Cogan’s May 1860 Price Catalogue, Cogan describes an 1804 Large Cent as “1804 Unusually fine, but slightly rubbed.” Cogan does not describe whether these coins are from a ‘perfect’ or ‘broken’ die, which if Cogan knew of these die states, would be aware which it was.

When considered on its own in the time period, the 1804 Large Cent in the Levick sale seems to lean more toward being the restrike. But, luckily for us, there is much more evidence to consider. When the 1804 Restrikes first appear in auctions in 1869, thereafter, there is clear effort to distinguish "broken die" as those from the original striking and reflecting broken at the edges. This combined with fifty to seventy-five 1804 restrikes, with all having relatively the same die diagnostics (meaning they were struck at the same time), and none appearing until 1869 in any auction makes it extremely unlikely that the Levick 1804 Large Cent was a restrike.

In the William A. Lilliendahl sale of May 1862, the following Large Cents are listed. Notice again that there is an 1804 Large Cent perfect die and a broken die. As with the Levick sale, the Lilliendahl sale contained many known restrikes, including Mint created restrikes. 565. 1804 Broken die, obverse and reverse equally well preserved; a remarkably fine specimen, and very rare. - $12.00 566. 1804 Another fine specimen of this rare cent. - $6.00 567. 1804 Perfect die, very fine and equally rare. - $5.00

Copyright 2017 Kevin Flynn 26 In the W. Elliot Woodward price catalogue of May 1st, 1863, the following Large Cents are listed. 1060. 1804 Perfect die, unusually fine, and very rare. 1061. 1804 Broken die, seldom seen so fine.

In the W. Elliot Woodward price catalogue of October 20-24, 1863, the following Large Cents are listed. 1881. 1804 Perfect die, unusually good for this rare date. 1061. 1804 Broken die, finer than the last.

In the John McCoy sale of May 1864, the following Large Cents are listed 677. 1804 Broken die, remarkably fine, only slightly circulated, very rare. - $11.00 678. 1804 Perfect die, perfectly uncirculated, portions of the coin still remain untarnished. - $32.00

In the Edward Cogan sale of June 29, 1865, the following Large Cents are listed. 67. 1804 Broken die, poor but original.

Cogan’ use of ‘original’ was more likely because the coin was in poor condition and original was used in the context of genuine.

In the W. Elliot Woodward auction of December, 1865, the following Large Cents are listed 1019. 1804. Perfect die, remarkably fine, but very little circulation, extremely rare 1020. 1804 Broken die, fine for this variety, very rare.

In the Joseph Mickley sale of October 1867 by W. Elliot Woodward, the following Large Cents are listed. 1984. 1804 Perfect die; very fine indeed, having been, but little in circulation, very rare 1985. 1804 Another variety; almost as fine, and equally rare.

The first 1804 Large Cent is listed as a perfect“ die”, while the second is listed as “another variety.” The question again lies in the usage, is ‘another’ used to indicate that the coin is the same as the last or does it imply that it is a different variety? Could it simply mean that it is not the perfect die, such as being 1804 Sheldon 266b or 266c? Given that Woodward had several auctions that he listed 1804 Large Cents as "broken dies", he should have known the differences and been able to identify it correctly. Several factors to consider: After the theft of the majority of Mickley’s coins in April 1867, he chose the sell most of the remainder of his collection. Did Mickley choose to have 1804 Large Cents restruck in the summer of 1867 because he was giving up U.S. coins? Maybe Mickley wanted to get these coins struck before he went to Europe in 1869 for three years, otherwise there might not be another opportunity. There is no 1811 or 1823 restrikes in the Mickley 1867 sale, even though he lists the 1811 Half Cent and 1823 Large Cents as Originals. Obviously, Mickley knew there were 1811 and 1823 restrikes, which is why he specifically called these originals. It is possible that this 1804 Large Cent is a restrike, but it’s more probable that it simply an extension of the previous variety.

In the Edward Cogan sale of June 23-24, 1869, the following Large Cents are listed 643. 1804 Perfect die. I think the finest cent ever yet offered for public competition, although it is not quite uncirculated, it will be a very desirable acquisition in any collection. - Realized $80.00 644. 1804 Broken die, an unusually good impression of this variety; seldom found as good. – Realized $16.00

In the Edward Cogan sale of September 27-28, 1869, the following Large Cents are listed. 607. 1804 Broken die, a very impression and scarce; a slight damage just before the face of the Head of Liberty. 608. 1804 Another; re-struck impression from a rusty die.

This is the first auction sale listing an 1804 Large Cent specifically as a restrike. This is of course after the March 1869 article published by Mason stating that 1804 Restrikes started showing up around in 1868. Besides the rusty die, the 1820 reverse would have popped out to any collector with basic knowledge of Large Cents.

In the Edward Cogan sale of December 17, 1869, the following Large Cents are listed. Here, Cogan uses ‘original’ in the clear context to show that this coin is not a restrike. He also states that it is a broken die, which ties back previous auctions where an 1804 was listed as a broken die. 1804 Broken die, very poor impression, broken die, original.

26 27 U.S. Mi n t Re s t r i k e s

Note - Throughout the 1870s and 1880s, there are many auctions by John Haseltine that contain 1804 and 1823 Large Cent restrikes.

In W. Elliot Woodward 21st sale in 1879 lists an 1804 restrike as a guaranteed original. This brings in to question whether Woodward knew from Mickley it was from an original die or he compared and differences from the original coin, but this would have been a problem as the obverse was originally used to strike 1803 Large Cents. This is why it is more likely that he learned this from Mickley. 878. 1804 Restrike, perfectly uncirculated, guaranteed original.

In John Haseltine’s auction of Lyman Wilder in May, 1879 it lists the first 1810 Large Cent restrike struck in tin. 956. 1810; Cent; struck in white metal from original dies; fine; rare; said to be only 2 struck.

How did Haseltine know they were only two 1810 restrikes struck in a white metal? Haseltine also sold a 1923 restrike in in 1875. These off-metal restrikes are additional circumstantial evidence that Haseltine was responsible for distribution of the 1804 restrikes and also the second group of 1823 restrikes.

In W. Elliot Woodward Winslow Lewis sale, May 1883 shows several variations of 1804 Large Cents including counterfeits, a perfect die, a coin showing the later die state rim cud, electrotype, and a restrike. 79. 1804 Cent; fail alternation, liable to deceive. 305. 1804 Of dark color, but very fine, the obv. Scarcely blemished by circulation; the rev. even better than the obv. An early impression showing the break in the die much less than usual; very rare. 306. 1804 Perfect die; only fair, rare. 307. 1804 Re-struck from original die. 308. 1804 Electrotype from a very fine original.

In the Crosby sale of 1883, the following Large Cents are listed. 1533. 1804 The variety with the die broken on the edge. Sharp, bold impression. Slightest trace of circulation the hair only a trifle touch over the forehead. Light brown color. A very beautiful cent. Extremely rare and valuable in this condition. 1834. 1804 Perfect die. Well struck. Showing nearly all the lines of the hair. Very good. Lightly olive. Very rare. 1835. 1804 Restrike. Uncirculated. Bright.

In William Elliot Woodward 63rd sale on March 4-6, 1884, Woodward asserts that the 1804 restrikes dies are from Mickley. More than likely he learned this when he purchased Mickley's collection, but it also could be a conclusion after a number of working dies were sold as part of the Mickley estate. 709. 1804 From the original obverse die formerly owned by Mr. Mickley; tin, fine, and far rarer than original.

Auction of Peter Gschwend, Esq, June, 1908 553 1804, The Dickeson restrike. This interesting note in ink by Mr. Gschwend accompanies the piece: “One cent, 1804. Muled with 1809 reverse in Phila. mint. Bo’y from M. W. Dickeson. Sept. 12th, 1881, in Pittsburgh Exposition and State Fair” etc. Uncirculated, red.

Articles

In Mason’s Coin and Stamp Collector’s Magazine, March 1869, Vol. III. No. 3., first page, under Peculiarities of American Coins, No. 12, it talks about the 1804 Large Cent restrike, 1811 Half Cent restrike, and 1823 Large Cent restrike. It was the first time the 1804 Large cent was called restrike in print. It states regarding the 1804 Large Cent restrike: During the year 1868, a third hybrid appeared, also in Philadelphia, purporting to be a re-strike of the cent of 1804. It is said that the reverse belonged to the issue of the year 1820, and that the other is thought to have been a pattern die that had never been made use of. However this may be, it is certain that both had suffered severely by the corroding tooth of time and oxygen.

In the September 1890 Mason’s Coin Collectors’ Magazine, under the title Personal Reminiscences of Noted . By E. Locke Mason.No. 1.Jospeh Mickley., it starts in part: Thirty-two years ago the writer met Mr. Mickley at the store of the late Edward Cogan, No. 48 North Tenth Street, Philadelphia, about the time of Cogan’s “Sealed Envelope Sale” (1858), and subsequently (1859) at the Diligent

Copyright 2017 Kevin Flynn 28 Hose Co.’s house, Tenth and Filbert Streets, Philadelphia, where the first public coin sale of Cogan’s occurred. .... Mickley became a constant patron of ours ... purchase many coins at our little Second Street coin store, and he became a subscriber to Mason’s Coin Collectors’ Magazine, and from that date until the date of his sudden decease we numbered him among our closest numismatic friends and patrons. .... Mr. Mickley in 1867, after his house had been burglarized and many of his choicest numismatic .... completely smothered the numismatic fever which rage with such fervor in the bosom of our friend, and he immediately resolved (having had many tempting offers) to sell the remainder of his once splendid coin cabinet.

From an undated manuscript in American Numismatic Society library with the title Numismatic Miscellany. The manuscript came from the Thomas L. Elder sale of July 1913, where it was attributed to Montroville Wilson Dickeson. In dicing out the rubbish from the cellar of the Mint which was destroyed in 1815, a small vault was found under the pavement “” bricked up with the exception of a small hole, and in tearing away the wall a number of dies were found ... There were about one bushel, they were picked out by the workmen and finally sold as old steel to a worker in that metal. Sometime after their disposition, Mr. Joseph Mickley hearing of them endeavored to obtain them, but most of them had been worked over they being of the very best kind of steel. A number of them are now in his cabinet among which is that very scarce number, the half- of 1811.

There are a number discrepancies in this story, such as the fire was in January 1816, not in 1815. Of course, this story may have been written down years later, and some of the details confused or off slightly. The fire occurred on January 11, 1816, which caused considerable damage to the House, as well as other structures. The rolling machinery was damaged beyond use. Mint Director Patterson used the opportunity to update the damaged machinery and also build buildings that were more fireproof. The primary question is why a safe or old working dies were stored in a location other than the primary Mint building?

Is it possible that this story is fictitious, a rumor that became fact? The 1804, 1811, and 1823 restrikes are all heavily rusted. Die corrosion is the destruction of the die steel normally caused by a chemical reaction with other elements such as moisture and airborne contaminants that can cause corrosion. Die rust is the formation of iron oxides, and is a form of electrochemical corrosion. If used working dies were improperly stored and exposed to the environment over a period of time, this would cause these working dies to rust. Even though not normal, if the right conditions exist, rust can happen quickly to die steel, such as seen on the 1838 “Small Stars” . This shows that the rust on the restrikes could have occurred quickly, but the higher probability is that it happened over a period of time.

Is it possible that these and other working dies were stored in Mint vaults and discarded at a much later time? In the list of working dies stored in the Director’s vault that contained working dies of rare coins, the earliest is the 1827 quarter dollar. When these dies were used in the 1850s through 1870s, some contained no visible die rust, while others, such as the 1827 quarter die exhibits signs of rust. It is possible over time these working dies were stored in different locations. It is important to consider how working dies during this era were discarded. Up through the 1880s, working dies shipped to the branch mints were normally destroyed by the branch mint. During the 1840s, the New Orleans destroyed working dies after they were used. A pit was found behind the that contained used working dies from the 1870s. Working dies were sold for scrap through most of the 19th century, it is not uncommon or unrealistic that used working dies from the early years of the Mint were set aside in an old vault and later discovered and sold. It is also possible that the scrap dealer who purchased them came up with this story in order to generate greater interest and possibly more money.

Given the number of working dies Mickley had as part of his estate auction and that these working dies were all from this same early time period, it is more likely that Mickley was able to purchase these working dies during the 1820s and saved them until the right opportunity arose.

Pamphlets

In July 1858, Joseph Mickley wrote a pamphlet on the rarity of U.S. coins for each date and denomination. He classified each with a rarity. More than likely, with the exponential increase in coin collecting during the late 1850s, this pamphlet pushed Mickley into the center stage as an expert in the field, and someone collectors could write to seek coins they required.

Die States

1803 Large Cent (Sheldon-261)

28 29 U.S. Mi n t Re s t r i k e s

A. The latest die stage seen on the obverse of the 1803 Sheldon-261 contains the arcing die crack from the rim at 6 o’clock through the middle of 80, the neck, back of the head to the rim at 9 o’clock.

1804 Large Cent restrike (Sheldon-261 Obverse) Stage 1 - Obverse A. The arcing die crack from 6 to 9 o’clock on the obverse is seen on all 1804 restrikes. This die crack becomes thicker in later die states. B. Die crack from rim at 7 o’clock through the back of the hair to right before the arcing die crack listed in A. C. Die crack from the center of the arcing die crack to right below the nose. D. Die crack from hair right above 1 angled up to the left about 45 degrees, to the hair in the back of the head. Stage 2 - Obverse A. Same as seen in Stage 1, with some of the die cracks in Stage 1 appearing thicker. B. Die crack from rim at 3 o’clock through field half way to mouth

The die states if the rust and die diagnostics such as die cracks all appear similar enough to conclude that all 1804 Large Cent restrikes were struck at the same time.

An 1810 Large Cent restrike was struck in tin that used an 1810 Large Cent obverse with the same 1820 Large Cent reverse used for the 1804 Large Cent restrikes. Only two specimens are known.

1804 Cent - Normal

Mintage -96,500 (This mintage could include 1803 Large Cents struck in 1804) Die combinations – 1804 - Sheldon lists one variety, Sheldon 266 1803 – Sheldon 261 – Large Date, Small Fraction Diameter 28 millimeters Metal – 100% Weight – 168 grains (10.9 grams) Edge - Plain

1804 Large Cent restrike composition

1. 1804 Large Cent restrike - copper. Judd-28A, Pollock-6050. Rarity - Common.

2. 1804 Large Cent restrike "White Metal" - copper and tin. Judd-28, Pollock-6055. Rarity - 2 known. Average 157 grains.

3. 1810 Large cent restrike "White Metal - tin. Judd-41, Pollock-6180 Obverse 1810 Sheldon-285, Reverse same as used for 1804 cent (1920).

In Mark Borckardt and William Metropolis's 1996 article "Restriking the Issue The Large Cent Restrikes of 1804, 1810, and 1823", analysis of the 1804 and 1810 Large Cent restrike White Metal found: 1804 Large Cent restrikes Copper. Average 28.5 to 29 mm. Weight from 155 to 190 grains. 1804 Large Cent restrikes "White Metal" were found to average 93.6% tin, 1% copper, and .7% lead. Average 157 grains, 28.5 mm diameter. 1810 Large Cent restrike "White Metal" were found to average 93.7% tin, .4% copper, .1% arsenic, and .9% lead.

Facts: 1. In 1804, a single die pair (Sheldon-266) was used to strike 96,500 Large Cents (This mintage could include 1803 Large Cents struck in 1804). There are three distinct die states for the 1804 Sheldon-266, which 266b and 266c contain a rim cud above the RTY of LIBERTY on the obverse. 2. The 1804 Large Cent restrike used the 1803 Large Cent obverse listed as Sheldon 261 with a 4 punched over the ground down remnants of a 3. 3. The 1804 Large Cent restrike used the 1820 Coronet Head reverse (Newcomb-12), which has a different design that used on the 1804 Large Cent reverse. 4. The 1804 Large Cent restrike contains significant remnants of rust on both the obverse and reverse; with the level of rust on the reverse less than the obverse.

Copyright 2017 Kevin Flynn 30 5. All of the 1804 Large Cent restrikes are very similar in their diagnostics such as die cracks and die scratches. 6. None of the normal 1803 and 1804 Large Cents show signs of rusted working dies. 7. There was no 1804 obverse or 1820 reverse working dies for Large Cents that were part of the 1878 Joseph Mickley estate sale. 8. There were working dies in the Mickley estate sale in 1878 that were dated 1817 through 1820. 9. The 1804 Large Cent restrikes are struck in two metals. The first and more common alloy is copper. The second is primarily a tin alloy, of which only two are known. Woodward's 1884 sale listed an 1804 Large Cent struck in tin. 10. An 1810 Large Cent restrike used an 1