The
So-called Restrike Proof Gold Dollar of 1865 By John Dannreuther
- June 22, 2005
Walter
Breen speculated that some of the Proof gold dollars of 18651
were restrikes, although he noted that they might have been
struck in late 1865, which, of course, would mean that they
are not restrikes at all. He was right about them being struck
in 1865, so they are not restrikes! In fact, they are the
earliest struck Proofs of 1865 gold dollars! This can now
be proven by die state data, as the obverse die used for 1865
gold dollars in Proof was the same in each case.
However, the proof (pun intended) of this theory produced
another startling result! There were three reverse dies used
for Proof gold dollars in 1865! This new information was discovered
when the example in the Smithsonian Institution turned out
to be an example from a different reverse die than the two
previously known dies used. It, too, was labeled a "restrike,"
as the date slants up to the right, as on the so-called restrike.
In fact, Andy Lustig was the sharp-eyed numismatist who noted
that the Bass example (thought to be one of the examples cited
by Breen as a "restrike") had a date position similar,
but distinctly different than the Smithsonian Institution
example (also possibly one of the examples cited by Breen).
The coin in the Smithsonian is the Mint Cabinet coin and,
undoubtedly, has been in the collection since it was issued
in 1865.
Now, why would there be three different varieties of Proof
1865 gold dollars? One of these coins sheds some light as
to why a coin with a reported mintage of 25 would have multiple
varieties. The reverse used with the first pairing (Example
1) was defective.
There are a couple of theories that have been
proposed to explain the "defective" die. The first
theory involves the making of the die, as improper hardening
of this reverse may have caused the "rippling" effect
seen on this example. Another theory is the basining of the
die in preparation for its use was not properly done. If the
workman who prepared this die did not follow the proper procedures,
the resulting die would have struck coins with the "rippling"
effect seen. Whatever the cause of the defective die, it appears
that it was immediately replaced with the die used for the
Smithsonian Institution example (Example 2, photo by Tom Mulvaney,
courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution).
This die pairing, of course, is also rare and
the only example currently known is the Smithsonian coin illustrated
here. Why this die was replaced with the one most often seen
on Proof 1865 gold dollars (Example 3) is not known. What
we can do, though, is determine the striking order of these
three die pairings, as each reverse was paired with the same
obverse (that of 1862, used on nearly every Proof gold dollar
from1862-1873, as well as all those of 1875 and some of 1876),
albeit in slightly varying states, as it was lapped on several
occasions.
When looking at the Proofs of 1862-1873 (also
1875 and some of 1876), one finds almost all of them2 share
this common obverse die. This so-called Obverse of 1862 was
specially kept by Mint workman and only brought out each year
to strike Proof gold dollars. Sometimes it was lapped to prepare
for striking, other times it was not deemed necessary to polish
this die for Proof strikes. As the years went by, the first
and then the second feathers were nearly obliterated by this
repeated lapping to prepare this obverse die. In fact, in
1874, this obverse was replaced, only to resurface for the
Proof strikings of 1875 and some of those of 1876. The Proof
gold dollars of 1876 appear to be the swan song for this oft-used
obverse die - although the number of strikings from this obverse
was limited to a few hundred coins, as Proof gold dollars
from 1862 through 1875 all are rare.
How do we now know that the so-called restrike 1865 gold
dollars (they are the easiest 1865 gold dollars to recognize,
as the date slants up to the right on both dies) were actually
struck first? Die information is the strongest clue the researcher
has to identifying striking order. The state of a particular
die is the truth machine for the emission sequence. Detail
cannot "reappear" on a die, so if a die has detail
missing from lapping, then it is a later state of that die
and the coins struck from that state were struck after coins
with that detail intact. Such is the case with the so-called
restrike 1865 gold dollar Proofs.
The gold dollars of 1865 are found with 2 different obverses
and 4 different reverses! It appears that the circulation
strikes of January 27TH are from a unique die pair with the
reverse date minutely slanting up to the right and about twice
as far from DOLLAR as from the bow tip. The three reverses
used for Proofs are easily distinguished from this circulation-strike
reverse. The so-called restrikes3 have the dates low and strongly
slanting up to the right (Examples 1 & 2). The third Proof
reverse (Example 3) has the date level and three times as
far from DOLLAR as from the bow tip.
The position of the date on Example 3 is similar
to that of the circulation strike, but it is closer to the
bow tip and level (the date minutely slants up on the circulation
strike). Since these dies were dated with a 4-digit logotype,
the dates are identical except for placement. Even the little
"dot" to the right of the 6 is found on all these
dies - the "defect" was on the punch!
So, how do we know the so-called restrike 1865 dollars were
struck first? The obverse die is in an earlier state for both
these dies - the so-called restrike 1865 gold dollars have
less polishing noted in the first feathers, as well as other
"earlier" characteristics4.
One constant on this oft-used obverse is the
straight die line found from the curl above the ear. This
die line is in the recessed area of the head, so it remains
constant throughout the life of this die.
So, the so-called restrike gold dollars of 1865
(Examples 1 & 2) were both probably struck on March 8.
The Bass example of the so-called restrike 1865 was thought
to be one of only two known with this reverse! Harry Bass
correctly noted that the obverse was the same as the ANS example
with the "normal" Proof reverse5. Why is this coin
so rare? We may never know, but as mentioned in the footnote,
the unusual surface noted on the so-called restrike coin (Example
1) is the likely reason this die was discarded. This, no doubt,
was the reason Breen thought they were restrikes, as the surfaces
are like the 1873 "dished" Closed 3 "restrike"
three-dollar coins! Also, some 1865 three-dollar Proofs have
this unusual surface and have the obverse of 1872, leading
to the probably correct conclusion that they were restruck
around that time! Breen likely extrapolated the gold dollar
restrike theory from the 1865 restrike three-dollar coins.
The fact that the strange surface of this rare die is found
on other known restrikes is strong evidence that the 1865
gold dollars were restruck. Die evidence contradicts this
supposition - of course, it is the final arbiter in such cases.
So, it appears that circulation strikes were made first, followed
by the two so-called restrikes, and finally the "normal"
Proofs.
We may never know all the reasons behind the striking of
Proof 1865 gold dollars with three different reverses, but
we know that between the strikings, the obverse die was removed
from the press and lapped each time. Comparison of the die
states of the common obverse is the tool used to prove this
theory - why three different dated dies were used likely will
forever elude us.
______________________
1 He noted that he had seen 2 examples of the coins he called
"restrikes" and a third example was rumored.
2 At least some 1866 Proof gold dollars (c.f. Bass III, lot
43) were struck with a different obverse. Other coins from
these years may yield Proofs from different obverses, but
currently only 1866 issues are known with a different obverse.
Those other coins that have been labeled Proofs of these years
with a different obverse usually do not meet today's standards
for Proof coinage. This obverse was replaced in 1874, but
was resurrected for all the 1875 Proofs and some of the 1876
ones.
3 Of course, one can immediately see that these two reverses
are different. The Smithsonian example (#2) has the 1 centered
under the left edge of the first L of DOLLAR, while the other
die (#1) has the 1 centered under the upright of the first
L.
4The area to examine is the next to the last feather, about
in the middle, near the feather shaft. These feathers are
separated by the shaft and, in front of the shaft, the area
in the middle is not polished on Example 1, while on Example
2 it is polished, but there is a strong "dot" connected
to the feather. On Example 3, this "dot" is faint
and is disconnected - it is an "island" in this
polished area. The other significant area is below the third
from the last plume. On Example 1 this area is filled, while
on Example 2 there is a small polished area. Example 3 has
a very large polished area indicating further lapping has
taken place.
5 Of course, this Bass coin may be unique, as the "rippling"
effect probably was noticed and another die was prepared.
There would be few collectors even then who would accept such
a "defective" coin for their collection.
6 New scholarship indicates that these unusual coins are probably
the originals of 1873, not restrikes as previously believed;
the Open 3 coins of 1873 are now thought to be the restrike
three-dollar coins. This is logical, as all the other original
1873 Proof coinage (copper, nickel, silver, and gold) employ
the closed 3 numeral - none of the other denominations have
open 3 digits for original Proofs.
John Dannreuther grew up in the rare coin
business. His father ran trade paper ads in the 1950s as V.J.
Dannreuther and Sons. After graduating from the University
of Mississippi with a degree in chemistry, John went back
into the coin business, becoming a full-time dealer in 1973.
Today he is considered one of the top rare coin experts of
all time. In 1986, John was one of the co-founders of Professional
Coin Grading Service. In 1997, he was the principal text author
of "The Official Guide To Coin Grading And Counterfeit
Detection," the Numismatic Literary Guild's "Book
Of The Year" award winner for 1998.