The 1827 Quarter Reveals Its Secrets

THE 1827/3/2 CAPPED BUST QUARTER

As many of you may have heard by now, the 1827 triple digit overdate quarter was created by using the earlier overdated 1823/2 obverse die. This created several unique aspects. First, it is the only coin to be released as an overdate on two separate occasions from the United States Mint; second, it is the only American coin to be overstamped on all four digits. This fascinating information escaped the attention of everyone involved in numismatics for at least 150 years. 

The discovery of the triple digit overdate 1827/3/2 Capped Bust Quarter is not all that amazing if you stop and think about it. The issue had been known as an 1827/3 overdate long before the publication of Ard Browning's work on early U.S. quarters, which appeared in 1925. Since there were no regular dated 1823 quarters (all were 1823/2's), I wondered if the same obverse die could have been re-used in 1827. By comparing star points relative to the denticles, date and star placement on the obverse, the total number of denticles (126), and other criteria, it quickly became apparent that this indeed was the case. Even the compass point centering dot was visible below the earlobe.

The next thing checked was the other digits in the date; all were found to be overstamped. This confirmed, to me at least, the re-use of the 1823/2 obverse die, even though at first glance they appeared to be completely different. This discovery took place in 1998; I related this finding at a Numismatic Theatre presentation at the 1999 ANA convention in Chicago. 

Having done exhaustive research on 1827/3/2 quarters for the past decade, which happens to include compiling a database of nearly all public auction appearances, I wondered who could have done all that work at the Mint in the 1820s and for what reason? All of this was quite intriguing since there are fewer than 10 so-called 1827/3/2 Originals in existence as of this writing.

This is where knowledge of the people and operations of the first U.S. Mint came in very handy. If you only study the coins and not the people who created them, sold them, or those who collect them, you're missing much of the research picture.

With this in mind, many other questions popped up regarding the whys and wherefores of the 1827 overdate quarters. Basically, it's like doing a crossword or jigsaw puzzle; putting the known pieces in place to complete the overall picture. Here is some key background information that helped: In the summer of 1824 there were major changes inside the United States Mint. Two critical personnel positions, the director and engraver, had changed in less than six months. 

Robert Scot, the official Mint engraver since 1793, died in November of 1823 at the age of 79. Since he was the person responsible for a majority of the American overdated coinage (primarily due to his lack of ability in engraving new dies), it's my guess that the 1823/2 Capped Bust Quarter was one of his last creations. Besides being boldly overdated on the obverse, the reverse die was not even completed when it was delivered to coiner Adam Eckfeldt for coining the 1,800 1823/2 quarters (warrant #907 dated 2-3-1823). Apparently all of these, except for one prooflike Uncirculated example, were immediately released into circulation. This 1,800 figure is believed to be the accurate total for this issue -- not the 17,800 figure listed in the Guide Book, or the 117,800 listed in Browning's work, which was rather casually revised by Walter Breen (et al. in 1992). The other 16,000 quarters listed in the 1823 Mint Director Report represent the total number of 1824/2's. These were delivered on 12-31-1823 (warrant #935). From all indications, a new dated die, when available, was put into production after Christmas and not the first of the calendar year, as has been reported by others.

Since the blunderer and overdater Robert Scot was no longer around and new engraver William Kneass was much too busy creating other working dies, it was left to another engraver, Christian Gobrecht, who was commissioned by Mint Director Dr. Samuel Moore, to work on other esoteric engravings.

While in the National Archives doing research, I came across a very interesting four-page letter written by Mint Director Dr. Samuel Moore in 1825 to President John Q. Adams. One passage included the hiring of Christian Gobrecht as an Engraver. Moore reveals that Gobrecht had been hired immediately after Scot's death, by former director Dr. Robert L. Patterson from December 1823 through January 1824 to finish (overdating?) regular production dies. Based on this letter, this is the earliest inside-the-Mint connection we have for Mr. Gobrecht. On January 29, 1824, William Kneass was officially appointed as the U.S. Mint engraver based upon Adam Eckfeldt's strong recommendation. Interestingly, Gobrecht continued to do commission work for the U.S. Mint throughout the 1820's.

When he became Director in July 1824, Moore utilized Scot's many overdates to his advantage. Rather than stopping the practice, he continued it unabated to make himself look good to his superiors at the Treasury Department in Washington. Apparently, he figured that production totals would look impressive and follow format if he overdated the coinage created during his predecessor's term. It also strengthened his position of wanting to hire a second engraver for the Mint.

Thus, we have quite a few rare and valuable combinations of error and overdated dies, both obverse and reverse, used on many denominations from mid-1796 when all the other engravers had left the Mint, until 1829, at which time the close collar technology came into large-scale production. This helps to explain certain die re-marriages that were many years apart, such as the 1827/3/2 obverse and the 1822/1828 error reverse quarters, just to mention a few.

CHRISTIAN GOBRECHT'S CREATION

In the course of sharing accurate details regarding these 1827/3/2 quarters, I'd like to announce another previously unpublished characteristic. There are two distinct muratic acid-etched "splotches" on the neck and bust of Miss Liberty. Gobrecht caused these while "erasing" the digits on the 1823/2 obverse die when it was upside down on his workbench. One of the best full-page plates to examine these recessed areas can be found in Bowers & Merena's November 1983 Marcus J. Brown sale, lot #2981. (Note: the pedigree for this example is not correct; neither are the others provided by Breen.) Also, all of the obverse denticles found on all of the 1827/3/2 quarters were effectively "flattened" by the re-lapping or polishing process; not a single one is rounded anymore. 

As we can see, the 1827/3/2 obverse die was extensively re-worked by Mr. Gobrecht. At the same time, in the summer of 1827, experiments were going on with perfecting the close collar dies. Although unconfirmed by Mint documentation, I believe the two known 1827/3/2 quarters, which are overstruck over earlier issued Heraldic Eagle quarters, represent the first experimental test pieces created with the new close collar die technology. The quarter dollar denomination was considered first primarily due to the intermediate size diameter, between the halves and the dimes.

Here's where it gets rather complicated, so try to follow along with my reasoning. The 1823/2 obverse die had been used very little and was still in excellent condition; it was the best one available without creating a new die. Apparently, the same was true for the 1819 B-2 quarter reverse die, which was the final die used that year. Dr. Moore directed Gobrecht to overdate the 1823/2 die with a 7; then, if everything went well with testing, production could begin with the new close collar 1827 quarters. Gobrecht also over stamped the other three digits with new style figures, which had been delivered earlier that year by long time supplier Henry Starr. While he was doing this, Adam Eckfeldt cut down two well worn, previously issued, Heraldic Eagle quarters (1804-7) to eliminate the original reeding, thus simulating new planchets to be used as test planchets. When Christian Gobrecht had finished the overdating, and Adam Eckfeldt had repolished both dies, they were mounted into a screw press. The new close collar die was secured, and the first of the two cut-down planchets was made ready. When Eckfeldt had aligned and tightened everything properly, the screw was brought down, creating the first test piece.

However, everything did not go smoothly. The biggest problem was that it didn't eject properly. The collar was too tight and the coin had to be forcibly ejected, leaving some marks in between the vertical edge reeding. (See Bowers & Merena's April 1, 1997, Eliasberg catalogue p.74-5 for description.) 

The other cut-down Heraldic Eagle planchet was then tested and the same thing happened; thus proving to Mint officials that adjustments to the collar die, or planchets, would be required. Since the collar was made for a 26.5mm diameter planchet, it would appear that at this point the Mint did not have access to the correct diameter punch for the cutting machine in order to create new, properly sized planchets for the proposed close collar quarters.

CLOSE COLLAR EXPERIMENTS IN 1827

It should be pointed out that these two 1827/3/2 test pieces display the best strike of any quarters bearing this date, regardless of described condition or variety. These two overstruck and overdated quarters have been improperly labeled as "Unrusted Restrikes" because of the die marriage with the 1819 B-2 reverse die, which had an old style square base 2 in the denomination. Each of these two test pieces, which I believe were actually made in 1827, should be properly labeled as an "Essay" or "a coin trying out some new idea, device, or mechanism" (Counterfeit, Mis-Struck and Unofficial U.S. Coins, 1963, Don Taxay, p. 12). Test production on the close collar quarters stopped at this point. 

Since the dimes were smaller in diameter, they were tried after the quarters in late 1827. This time, the coins ejected properly. Mike Sherrill's article in the July 2001 issue of John Reich Journal focuses on the 1827 JR-10 dime as possibly being the first die marriage used in striking close collar pieces for that denomination. He also speculates these "were struck coincident with the 1827 Original Proof quarters for some unknown purpose, event, or dignitaries". This seems to me to be improper analysis and attribution based upon currently accepted thinking, mostly perpetrated by Walter Breen. All of the stories about open collar coinage being struck for dignitaries and special presentations have absolutely no basis in fact and need to be discontinued. At this time there is no distinct connection between the 1827 dated dimes and    quarters. The dimes were issued as regular circulation strikes while the quarters were never officially issued. 

The close collar production of quarter dollars finally happened in 1831, after the smaller diameter half dimes and dimes, along with the quarter eagles and half eagles had reached production in the late 1820's. This was made possible by the December 1827 purchase of a brand new screw press from the firm of Rush & Muhlenburg, which was later outfitted to hold various smaller sized close collar dies. As most of you know, it wasn't until 1836 that the larger diameter half dollars and dollars were struck on a new steam-powered press using the close collar. Friend and fellow researcher, Saul Teichman, speculates these two overstruck, reeded edge, 1827/3/2 Essay quarters may have been made in the 1835-6 era based on the similarity to the crushed lettered edge halves, which also display a similarly flattened edge. These two interesting issues came about from the use of a smaller diameter collar die. 

Remarkably, both of these 1827/3/2 Essay quarters appeared at auction in the 1990's (April 1992 Somerset, #1173 and May 1997 Eliasberg, #1392, both by Bowers & Merena). One of these, easily identified by the fully struck stars, first appeared in John Haseltine's February 1873 Chubbuck sale, Lot #457; and was purchased by Richard Winsor using the pseudonym "Richardson". This happens to be the very first plated example of any overdated 1827 quarter in American numismatics.

It should be noted that the other piece first appeared in Haseltine's January 1874 sale, Lot #132 with the notation "in some places a little rough in the field", which likely refers to the visible underlying design elements of the host coin. For whatever reason, this same coin re-appeared the following year in another Haseltine sale and was purchased by James V. Dexter. This means these two pieces came on the market before the severely rusted Restrikes. Haseltine properly graded both of these as "uncirculated with proof surfaces". It is my opinion that since these two pieces were historically significant, Adam Eckfeldt had saved both of them and passed them on to his son, Jacob, who was the Mint Assayer until he died in August of 1872. There is written evidence of Adam Eckfeldt doing this with a 1791 Washington Cent in the 1919 ANA sale, Lot #250, conducted by Henry Chapman.

THE SO-CALLED ORIGINALS

Since test production on the close collar quarters had stopped earlier in the year, and based on the probable (in the last week of the year) start of new dated dies, I believe that late in the afternoon of Christmas eve, just before the workers were leaving, Director Moore "authorized" a few special 1827 open collar "Christmas presents" to be clandestinely made for the Officers of the Mint; including one for Mr. Gobrecht and the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington D.C. This list numbers eight people, which just happens to be the current number of these  so-called Original pieces traced by the author, excluding the example in the Mint collection,.

1. Samuel Moore - Director 
2. James Rush - Treasurer 
3. Joseph Richardson - Assayer 
4. Adam Eckfeldt - Coiner
5. Joseph Cloud - Melter & Refiner 
6. William Kneass - Engraver 
7. Christian Gobrecht - Creator of 1827/3/2 die 
8. Richard Rush - Secretary of the Treasury 

An additional one was retained and eventually placed in the Mint Cabinet when it was officially begun in 1838.

The few planchets used could have been easily accounted for in the Sundry Accounts or the Wastage ledger. Visual evidence suggests that some planchets used to strike these pieces may have been "soiled" planchets. One example displays a rather large "stain" on the planchet (Zanoni/Cleneay); while another (R.C. Davis/Granberg) was struck with a raised piece of extra metal on the edge at 5:00, causing a weak strike area in the leaves and claws directly opposite on the reverse. A recent appearance was in the May 1998 J.J. Pittman Sale, Part II by David Akers, Lot #1283. 

The 1827/3/2 freshly polished die that had been set aside was readily available, as was the newly created 1828 B-1 reverse die, which was also freshly polished. Both were then installed in the new screw press, which had been purchased earlier that month without any close collars attached, to strike these "special" pieces. This scenario can be validated by the fact that both the 1827/3/2 Originals and 1828 B-1 share the same reverse die, which developed a lengthy crack from ED in UNITED, across the motto, exiting above UNUM, and going through AME in AMERICA when it was made.

In over a decade of examining hundreds of 1828 B-1's in all grades, I have found each one exhibits this distinctive die crack. Since there are no 1828 B-1's known without this tell-tale clue, this would indicate the 1827/3/2's were struck while the 1828 B-1 reverse die was still new and freshly polished. Further evidence and similarities can be seen by examination of the prooflike Gem 1828 B-1 found in the 1997 Eliasberg sale, Lot #1393. Others would include the 1975 James A. Stack coin #31, Herb Melnick's 1983 Grand Central sale #2640, and Lot #611 in Stack's March 1999 sale.

Immediately afterwards, the new 1828 B-1 obverse die was installed in the press so regular production was ready to resume after everyone returned on December 26th. All of this would have taken less than an hour to accomplish. Interestingly, the 1827/3/2 obverse die ended up being locked away with other "experimental dies" in the Mint Director's vault after this event occurred.

The 4,000 quarters listed in the 1827 Mint Director's report represent the first batch of 1828 B-1 quarters which were delivered to the Mint Treasurer on December 29, 1827 (warrant #1133, ref. earlier 1824/2 delivery date). This figure has absolutely nothing to do with any 1827 overdated quarters, even though it appears in the 1827 Mint Director's annual report. These so-called "Original" 1827/3/2 Capped Bust Quarters were never intended to be released into the channels of commerce. That's why there is no written record of their existence until September 1857. From every available numismatic source examined, there were fewer than 10 of these pieces struck.

THE ONLY WORN EXAMPLE

In conducting pedigree research on this particular coin, a very strange background was exposed. This piece belonged to New York collector Lewis White, who was the buyer of the 1827 quarter offered in the October 1865 F.S. Edwards sale conducted by Edward Cogan, Lot #1202. A priced and named copy of this sale resides in the author's library. White's ownership can also be confirmed by Edward Cogan's 1867 written list of owners. Further research revealed that the earliest pedigree for this prooflike piece went all the way back to the Finotti collection, prior to 1862. Since this coin ended up with a significant amount of wear, the only logical conclusion would suggest that it had been carried around as a pocket piece by Mr. White for approximately 10 years from 1865-1876. This particular coin wasn't worn from being in normal circulation (as evidenced by the digs in the fields and edges); it simply ended up in that condition from one auction appearance to the next. Maybe Mr. White was born in 1827 and wanted a scarce coin from his birth year, just as Joseph Mickley had done with an 1799 Large Cent. Who knows? One minor correction is that the listed pedigree found in the Eliasberg catalogue is not entirely accurate or complete, as this particular coin was never in the Clapp holdings. The traceable pedigree for this single, worn example is:

Lewis White (1865 to 1876) - Ed Cogan sale, 4/17/1876, lot #177, "Very Fine"

Nicholas Petry (1876 - 1893) - S.H. & H. Chapman sale, 5/10/1893, lot #484, "Very Good" 

Virgil Brand/Armin Brand (1893 - 1937) - J.C. Morgenthau sale, 12/21/1937, lot #175, "Fine" 

Louis Eliasberg/Eliasberg estate (1937 - 1997) - Bowers and Merena sale, 4/6/1997, lot #1391, "Very Fine" 

Present - unrecorded owner 

THE 1876 SILVER RESTRIKES OF 1827/3/2 BUST QUARTERS AND THE 1804 CLASS III BUST DOLLARS

The fact is, the later first released 1876 Rusted 1827/3/2 quarter open collar Restrikes share the same die combination as the two Essay pieces actually made in 1827, but now show heavily rusted "islands" on both sides of the coin; the reverse more than the obverse. There were nearly 50 years between the original use of the dies and this re-marriage, making it the longest re-strike span in U.S. coinage. Since these Restrikes were clandestinely produced, there was no accurate designation in any auction catalogues as to when they first appeared. Only by checking other contemporary publications such as all 19th century coin auction catalogues, Ed Frossard's Numisma, E. L. Mason's Coin Collector's Magazine, and The American Journal of Numismatics can the proper time frame be approximated.

Interestingly, the 1827/3/2 Restrike Quarters in silver and Class III Restrike 1804 Dollars share a common background. Both of these issues first appeared in 1876; the O.H. Berg 1804 Dollar pedigree to 1875 is erroneous (the actual wording used by Haseltine in his 1883 Berg sale catalogue is "obtained about eight years ago"). The quarters were quietly slipped into the marketplace along with the Class III Restrike 1804 Dollars, which received nearly all the attention. The 1804 dollars had been "front page news" due to several electrotypes and two so-called Originals appearing at auction within the previous two years. The November 1874 Sanford sale and the October 1875 Cohen sale each offered a so-called Original 1804 Dollar, and both were plated by cataloguer Ed Cogan. These became the first and second photographs of any 1804 United States Dollars in numismatic literature. 

Both the quarter and dollar Restrikes mentioned above were in all probability made by William E. DuBois, assayer and curator of the Mint Collection. With Jacob Eckfeldt's death in 1872, and as Nestor of the Mint, DuBois was free to do pretty much anything he pleased. After Adam Eckfeldt (DuBois' father-in-law) retired in 1839, DuBois had the keys to everything. I firmly believe he was the one responsible for making all electrotype, Class II and III Restrike 1804 dollars, all 1827/3/2 Restrike quarters, and other "numismatic delicacies" such as Proof restrike half cents and Gobrecht Dollars, post-dated and off-metal Patterns, etc. It's clear that many of these pieces went directly into Mint Director Henry Linderman's collection. Just how much influence was applied by Linderman remains unknown for the most part. However, when anyone studies the myriad of different issues, which first appeared during the five year span of Linderman's second term (1873-78), it becomes quite clear that DuBois and Linderman were "on the same page". Together, they went far beyond the limits of legality in the production of certain United States coins.

Since this is the first time DuBois's accountability has been pinpointed concerning these 1804 Restrike Dollars, the comment made by Samuel H. Chapman in his November 1913 Lyman catalogue becomes significant: "When I entered this business in 1876, these dollars were being put on the market by a certain Mint official now long deceased". DuBois died in 1881. S.H. Chapman did not mention a particular name, probably because of his friendship with, and respect for, Mrs. Susanna DuBois (William's wife and daughter of Adam Eckfeldt) who was still living in Philadelphia. This is strong contemporary evidence from one who was actually involved with American numismatics in Philadelphia during 1876. Samuel Chapman's reference is well validated for at the time he was working for John Haseltine who "channeled" many of these pieces into the marketplace. Even Haseltine, who was still alive and living in Philadelphia, did not challenge or deny Chapman's statement. His silence gives further credence to the DuBois origins of the Class III 1804 Dollars.

Initially, collectors were skeptical. When the first example was shown and offered by Haseltine at the January 1876 Jewett sale by Ed Cogan, there were no takers at $600. When John Colvin Randall, Haseltine's closest numismatic friend at the time (this changed in 1881), was asked why he would never own an 1804 Dollar, he replied something to the effect that it was not a real coin. Obviously, he had been told the true background of the Restrikes. In October 1877, when local druggist and long time collector Robert Coulton Davis decided to go ahead and purchase one of these pieces from Haseltine for $500, he wisely had Haseltine write down that he would "protect Mr. Davis in the purchase should any trouble arise from its sale". Davis just wanted to make sure he was getting an Original like the one his friend Joseph Mickley had owned, which was sold for $750 in 1867. Who could blame him? However, he had serious doubts after checking with Randall, Mickley, and perhaps a few others. Upon learning of the true background, he took the coin directly to DuBois who finally, in September 1878 in what must be considered an act of uncontrolled arrogance, signed his name to an official U.S. Mint "Certificate of Authenticity" regarding Davis' coin. DuBois wrote that it was one of the Original issue, and not a Restrike from Mint dies. Amazingly, in the June 1868 issue of the American Journal of Numismatics, DuBois even lied in print about how he spelled his own last name! Talk about a credibility gap… 

As to when these 1804 Class III Restrikes were actually created, no one alive today knows for certain. If they were struck at an earlier date, which is quite likely, DuBois' accountability would still apply as he had been at the Mint since September 1833. He began his employment working in Director Moore's office (who was DuBois' uncle) until Moore's announced retirement in May 1835, which was just one month after the "two caskets of coins" had been delivered to special envoy Edmund Roberts. This means he had direct knowledge regarding the first 1804 Dollars, which were placed into the "sets of coins" requested by President Jackson. Payment was made by the State Department on May 8,1835. 

Based on the time frame of DuBois' employment with the U.S. Mint, along with the position he held as curator of the Mint Collection after 1839, the distinct probability exists that he was the clandestine creator of all subsequent 1804 dated U.S. Dollars which appeared after 1842. This was the year the existence of this date was first revealed to the public. Not too surprisingly, this disclosure was made by DuBois himself, who in reality was America's first commercially oriented coin dealer. His long list of clandestine issues would have to include all 1804 Class II and Class III silver pieces, along with the various electrotypes, including the unique Class II example in copper, which was catalogued as coming directly from DuBois in New Netherlands 53rd sale of June 1959, Lot #1750. (This piece reappeared in Heritage's April 2002 Central States catalogue, Lot #6715.) It is entirely possible he was directly responsible for nearly half of the so-called Originals as well. 

Another unique numismatic item that first appeared in 1876 and was "discovered" by Haseltine is the 1794 No Stars so-called "Pattern" dollar in copper, which was purchased that year by the intrepid R.C. Davis.

THE FIRST APPEARANCES OF THE 1827/3/2 "RUSTED DIES" SILVER RESTRIKE QUARTERS

Nearly all of these quarters were placed privately rather than being presented through the auction venue. They were most likely sold at bargain prices compared to what the so-called Originals had garnered earlier, with the first one ever sold realizing $225.00 in 1863. The single circulated piece (Lewis White sale) entered the market in April 1876 and certainly didn't set any record prices. However, this event may have paved the way for the "shiny-but-rusted" pieces being accepted for this rare date. The next example sold at auction was Cogan's October 1876 Henry Adams "proof" at $83.50; probably the first Restrike sold at auction based on the price realized. The next one appeared in Cogan's 1878 James Root sale where it sold for $52.50 (most likely another Restrike although not listed as such). And so it went until January 1884 when W.E. Woodward came out with the "Mickley at the Mint in 1827" story. This story appeared only once in the Heman Ely catalogue where the prices mentioned in the lot description were 20 years old! The Ely so-called Original was purchased for $215.00 by George Massamore acting as agent for T. Harrison Garrett who had earlier refused to buy one of the Restrikes from George Cogan. Fortunately, by the early 1880's most of the dealers had seen these 1827/3/2 Rusted Silver Restrikes and began describing them as being either "rough" and/or "rusted" and being of recent origin.

These rusted dies 1827/3/2 Capped Bust Quarters are correctly labeled as Restrikes and not Patterns, as found in several reference books (Judd, Pollock). Based on the interest generated by the two Essay pieces which first appeared in 1873 and 1874, the possibility exists that DuBois created these 1827/3/2 Restrikes as "Centennial souvenirs" for coin collectors in 1876 when the nation's Centennial Exhibition was being held in Philadelphia. The dies used for the Essay pieces were still inside the Mint and had been appropriately labeled and stored for decades. Even though the obverse die had been sealed in a box in the Mint Director's vault, and the reverse die had been left unsealed in the coiner's vault, it was very easy to retrieve the proper dies in order to re-create these pieces. Many of these silver Restrike pieces were channeled through local dealer John Haseltine, who conducted a series of seven "Centennial Sales" that year. He had his office at 1225 Chestnut Street, just one block away from the Mint on the corner of 13th and Chestnut, and held his auctions at 1110 Chestnut, a block away from his office. Extremely convenient, eh?

THE COPPER RESTRIKES

The copper Restrikes represent one of, but not the last, striking of the 1827/3/2 quarter dies. These, too, should be considered Restrikes and not Patterns, even though they were listed as such when the first one appeared in 1877. This is a complete turnaround in normal die usage for various metals because copper is used first to test dies, as it is a much softer metal. This was not necessary because the dies had been used decades earlier, and again the previous year, and did not crack under striking pressure using silver planchets. These four or five known copper pieces were probably struck as an afterthought by DuBois. It is quite possible they were created to comply with various collectors' requests for an example in a different metal, which was a very popular segment of collecting at the time. Keep in mind, the year 1877 was a significant year for unusual pieces to be made at the U.S. Mint; it was the only year the $50 Half Union Patterns were coined in both copper and gold. Also, it should be remembered that in his later years, DuBois was always ready to provide special items of interest for trading purposes to obtain coins not included in the Mint cabinet. 

These 1827/3/2 copper quarter pieces, which first appeared in John Haseltine's February 1877 sale, are struck on thicker planchets than any other regular coinage. This leads to the conclusion that the planchets came from the Medal department of the Mint, which was busy striking many various medals. The planchets used just happened to be the correct diameter, and a screw press would have self-adjusted with the manual pressure process. One such screw press, which was fully operational throughout the 19th century, is on display inside the present United States Mint.

All of these thick planchet copper Restrikes have a reeded edge, just as all of the silver issues do; however, the edge reeding found on these Restrikes is not from a regular collar die as these are, technically, open collar pieces. As mentioned earlier, the copper planchets were too thick; they would have spread out over the collar when struck, plus the fact that no properly sized, reeded edge collar die was being used for any regular production coinage during this timeframe. Therefore, I suggest the reeding was done by hand afterwards, using an old Castaing machine. This caused a partial wire edge on several pieces.

More proper research (and not guesswork) is needed on these copper pieces to determine which planchets were used and how they were produced. This has been difficult since the owners of these rare items have never offered them for study purposes. One copper Restrike, owned by William Woodin at the time, was exhibited in the fabulous 1914 American Numismatic Society presentation of United States and Colonial coins. 

Once again, the information provided by Walter Breen in the 1992 Browning/Breen quarter book about "the old claim that '3 struck' originated in the Parmelee catalogue" is incorrect. For the record, the listing of '3 struck' first appeared 13 years earlier in Ed Cogan's April 1877 Jenks sale, Lot #359 where it was the very first 1827/3/2 Restrike ever to be plated in an American auction catalogue.

Another one of these copper pieces was silver-plated many years ago by some unknown party. It passed as a regular silver planchet Restrike and was first properly described in the 1975 ANA sale conducted by Superior. It re-appeared in the 1980 ANA sale conducted by Steve Ivy, followed by an appearance in the January 1990 Stack/Teich sale conducted by Stack's. If it has been encapsulated by a third-party grading service (which is quite likely), it may yield a fortunate discovery to the person who recognizes it for what it really is.

FINAL USAGE OF THE DIES

The final production of 1827/3/2 silver Restrike quarters took place after the copper pieces had been created. This can be confirmed by the noticeable damage to the obverse die. There is now a small, intermittent three-piece "die scrape" in the neck area near the lower curl, which indicates these pieces were the last ones struck. So far, there have been several different examples traced that display this characteristic. One was the March 1988 Norweb coin (Bowers & Merena) re-appearing in Superior's July 1993 Baltimore sale. Another was the October 1993 Reed Hawn coin (Stack's), probably ex-Kagin, March 1964; and a third example, the March 1998 Connecticut Museum coin (Stack's). Since many of these Restrikes are not plated with enlargements in auction catalogues, and the earlier cataloguers failed to accurately describe the entire coin, it is unknown at present how many others show this diagnostic flaw in the die. This is not a separate variety, but it does deserve it's own designation in references as it was a separate and later restrike of the earlier silver and copper restrikes. This issue is identical to the silver 1876 open collar Rusted Restrikes except for the die scrape. Several other "die scrape" examples traced by the author include the Atwater/Jay/Delp/Hawn/Robison example, the Frank/Wolfson coin, and the Dupont/Baldenhofer/Auction '85 coin.

Trying to plate match these pieces by toning patterns is the best way to establish the pedigrees as the written descriptions can be repetitive and vaguely misleading. Besides, all the 1827/3/2 Restrikes look basically the same except for the toning. The trouble is, the exposures are different in each catalogue and the coin may have been cleaned or re-colored, making it virtually impossible to track ownership. One such example of this is the WGC/Neil coin, which was harshly cleaned sometime between 1947 and 1969 when it reappeared in the Miles sale. Moreover, "house coins" and pseudonyms have restricted accurate accountings.

It is my guess that some, if not all of these silver "die scrape" Restrikes were made especially for Mint Director Dr. Henry Linderman who, at the time of his death in January 1879, faced charges of misconduct of office. He was an over-zealous collector who most likely found out about these pieces after they were already distributed by Haseltine, Cogan, and others. Since his office was in Washington, D.C., and not at the Philadelphia Mint, he would not have known about them when they first appeared in 1876. Another fact that helps to validate this theory is that Linderman, after finishing his book, took an extended trip that lasted until fall of 1877 to the Carson City Mint and then on to San Francisco conducting an investigation of abuses within the San Francisco Mint and Custom House.

It is no coincidence that there were two 1827/3/2 silver Restrikes in his collection when it was first offered in 1887. One of these pieces was described thusly, "the lack of polish on portions of the dies prevented the brilliancy customary with proofs of more recent date", indicating it was one of the last pieces struck. Not too surprisingly, there was also a previously unrecorded Gem Proof 1804 Class III Restrike dollar included in his holdings.

An interesting note to the June 1887 Linderman sale is that some unnamed official within the Treasury Department decided to confiscate 12 pieces from this, the first offering of Linderman's collection. This forced a cancellation of the sale by cataloguer Lyman Low, who immediately closed his own business and went to work for J.W. Scott & Co. This same catalogue appeared in February 1888 under the Scott name, minus the 12 lots, along with a note listing the missing pieces. 

FIVE DIFFERENT EMISSIONS OVER 50 YEARS

This, then, is the believed breakdown of classifications and labels for all five emissions, along with current estimates of extant pieces, for the 1827/3/2 Capped Bust Quarter Dollars:

1. 1827, Essay, close collar (2 pcs.); 
2. 1827 , Original, open collar (8 - 9 pcs.);
3. 1876, Rusted Silver Restrike, open collar (9 - 10 pcs.);
4. 1877, Rusted Copper Restrike, open collar (4 - 5 pcs.); 
5. 1877-78, Rusted "Die Scrape" Silver Restrike, open collar (5 - 6 pcs.). 

The background contained in this article is the first such listing of probable origin and emission sequence. Regrettably, as of this writing, even after having done comprehensive research, there has been absolutely no documentation uncovered, official or otherwise, regarding the origin of these interesting 1827/3/2 overdate Capped Bust Quarters.

THE 1827/3/2 BUST QUARTERS ARE NOT PROOFS!

Let's face it. How can a completely over-dated, experimental, unauthorized and undocumented, over-struck and later re-struck, cracked, scraped, acid etched, and severely rusted die coin ever be considered as a Proof? These triple digit overdate quarters were not struck and presented to any visiting dignitaries, and there was no special event involved other than testing the new close collar dies. Yes, I've heard the argument that Proof is a method of manufacture, which may be correct for the close collar issues of 1828 and thereafter; but this term is hardly applicable to any open collar coinage.

It's time to be realistic for a change! Most freshly polished dies create highly reflective surfaces on coins, medals, and tokens until the polish wears off. This happens with all denominations, at all different Mints, in all countries of the world, and has been happening for centuries. The earliest dated example the author has traced in American colonial numismatics is a prooflike 1652 Pine Tree Shilling (ex-Mills/Smith/October 1933 J.C. Morgenthau (Brand) sale, Lot #11). Stop and think about it for a second - 1652 and Prooflike?!! The coin is obviously not a Proof, it merely has a prooflike surface, exactly like the 1827/3/2 Capped Bust quarters. For those who want to check, this piece isn't even mentioned in Breen's early Proof book. Of course, neither is the "Perfect mint state with brilliant proof surface" 1792 half dime found in the same Morgenthau sale, Lot #77. Both of the coins listed above are plated, and are properly described.

Adam Eckfeldt was masterful at his job as Chief Coiner from 1814 until 1839, when he retired at the age of 70. He learned well from his mentor and previous Chief Coiner Henry Voigt, who had learned the die polishing process when he worked at the Saxe-Gotha Mint in Germany in the  1770's. As Assistant, and later Chief Coiner, it is within the realm of probability that Eckfeldt polished all the dies from 1793 to 1839. If so, he  would be the one constant factor in the creation of the many prooflike coins spanning this time frame.

The creative present day descriptions associated with open collar American coins from newly polished dies are completely out of line with contemporary thinking and have been since the 1860's when these were first labeled as Proofs by coin dealers.

No single individual, as has been blindly accepted in the past with regard to Walter Breen, should be an absolute judge in determining any particular coin's status. Breen's invalid and unconfirmed writings regarding early so-called Proof issues have been the source of a large amount of confusion and creative license in American numismatics for the past 50 years. Rather than go into specifics in this article, I will simply restate the salient fact that there is not a shred of evidence, official or otherwise, to suggest that these reflective surface open collar pieces are anything other than prooflike circulation strikes; regardless of what they have been labeled in the past (e.g. "Proof", "One-sided Proof", "Presentation Piece", "Specimen", "Specimen Striking", or "Specimen Proof"). In reviewing contemporary Mint Director correspondence from the late 1830's, I believe the usage of the word "specimen" simply meant sample or example, nothing more. 

As I recommended in my article on Joseph J. Mickley in Rare Coin Review #142, July 2001, it would be most beneficial if an open forum were created to review the diagnostics, examine the striking characteristics, develop an accepted set of standards, and re-classify coinage from this pre-close collar time frame back to the original, contemporary reference. These United States open collar issues that were newly struck from the die should be correctly labeled as "MASTER COINS"! This was the term Chief Coiner Adam Eckfeldt, Assistant Assayer William DuBois, and Mint Director Robert M. Patterson used in the 1830's. As far as any contemporary official documentation will convey, not one of the Mint officers before the 1850's ever used the term "Proof" regarding any American coinage. 

The grading and classification system currently in place is inconsistent, extremely vague, and woefully inadequate. Since the third party grading services are the purveyors of these subjective classifiers, perhaps they would consider it advantageous to create and adopt proper, precisely written terminology and descriptors defining Master Coins, which could then be applicable for all early Federal open collar coinage. You can count me in to assist in this worthy project. It's a challenge which today's numismatic scholars should accept with honor and conviction, with the underlying theme of truth being the ultimate goal. 

SOMETHING "NEW"

Another rather interesting discovery made by the author in 1999 is the counter-stamp of the letter D on the obverse (in the cap above ER in LIBERTY) on one of the Essay 1827 overdate quarters. This coin belonged to James V. Dexter, who had apparently counter-stamped the letter D on a cloud on his other most prized coin - an 1804 Dollar. This small letter could easily identify them as belonging to him in case they were ever stolen. This obverse counter-stamp on the 1827/3/2 Essay went completely unnoticed for over a century.

John J. Ford, Jr. has suggested the D found on the counter-stamped 1804 Dollar may be associated with W. F. Dunham, based on a similar looking D found on a few inexpensive Hard Times Tokens. The main problem with this theory is that Dunham never owned an 1827/3/2 quarter, at least none were listed in the catalogue of his collection when it was offered by Max Mehl in June 1941. However, Dunham did own the D counter-stamped 1804 Dollar after James Dexter. As of this writing, nothing has been scientifically conducted regarding these particular counter-stamps. Until proper research is done, we are left with only speculation. Since Dexter was highly suspicious and quite paranoid, it is my belief that it was Dexter who counter-stamped his last initial on his two most expensive coins. He died in 1899. 

When this coin later appeared in Max Mehl's 1947 Will Neil sale, a stock photograph was used with no mention of the coin being overstruck or counter-stamped. This piece is traceable only by the lot description. It then appeared in Stack's 1975 James Stack sale, where it was properly described as being overstruck. Paramount International Coin Co. purchased the coin and eventually sold it to Dan Drykerman. Later, it appeared in Bowers and Merena's 1992 Somerset sale, Lot #1173, where it is plated with an enlarged photo. This is the best place to see the D in the cap and underlying design of the Heraldic Eagle planchet.

---