U.S. MINT RE S T R IKE S 1804 Large Cent 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 Mint, 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 coins 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. MINT RE S T R IKE 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 coin 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. MINT RE S T R IKE 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.