The 1804 Dollar: Scam or Swindle?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by kaparthy, Oct 10, 2010.

Page 1 of 2
  1. kaparthy

    kaparthy Well-Known Member

    We all know the basic story. You can find it on Wikiepedia and you can read The Fantastic Book by ANA President Kenneth Bressett and ANS President Eric P. Newman.

    The purpose of this thread is to show that the "King of Coins" has no clothes.

    In the thread on Self Slabbers, I pointed out that the Reed Hawn Queller had been graded Very Fine and then became Proof 62. My mistake was not tracking that earlier grade from Very Fine to Proof 62. It would take a checking of the Stack's auction book from 1974 for the Hawn Collection to validate the actual grade. I believe that in the days of Parmelee, the auction catalogs did not call this a Proof coin.

    It is true that all 1804 Dollars are nominally "proof" in that they were limited strikings on the request of the President. However, beyond that actually requires some validation. President Jackson only asked for a set of coins. What the Mint did is another matter entirely. Did they polish the planchets and strike each coin at least three times?

    The Byron Reed specimen was known to have been cleaned with a cloth by a curator, at least twice, and yet was graded Proof 64 by ICG.

    Beyond the first eight Originals are another seven "copies." (One a second strike, the other six third editions.) They continue to sell well. One has to ask, "Why?" That word "copies' is in quotes because they were not actual restrikes from the same dies, but remakes. All but one were seized by the Mint.

    Ultimately, the 1804 Dollar is no more genuine than a Chinese fake. After all, we know that at least one Chinese factory uses genuine old US Mint machinery and dies. So, what's the difference?
     
    kaparthy, Oct 10, 2010
    #1 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. cubenewb

    cubenewb Consumer of Knowledge

    I think I know what incident you're talking about, but why not link us to it anyway? Also do you mean president Jefferson, not Jackson?
     
    cubenewb, Oct 10, 2010
    #2 + Quote Reply
  4. Hobo

    Hobo Squirrel Hater

    The first 1804 Silver Dollars were struck in 1836. Jackson was President then, not Jefferson.
     
    Hobo, Oct 10, 2010
    #3 + Quote Reply
  5. 900fine

    900fine doggone it people like me

    Why ?
     
    900fine, Oct 10, 2010
    #4 + Quote Reply
  6. Farstaff

    Farstaff Member

    Was this the standard in 1836 for a proof coin?

    I could envision a proof coin being lightly wiped twice and still grading as a Proof 64.

    The 1804 dollar was not minted in China but rather by the USA mint and/or their employees.
     
    Farstaff, Oct 10, 2010
    #5 + Quote Reply
  7. Farstaff

    Farstaff Member

    Here a link that you may find helpful.
    http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article1261.chtml
     
    Farstaff, Oct 10, 2010
    #6 + Quote Reply
  8. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

    mmarotta,

    Just where is your evidence that they use genuine old US Mint machinery and dies. I have heard about the machines, but not the dies.
     
    rlm's cents, Oct 10, 2010
    #7 + Quote Reply
  9. cubenewb

    cubenewb Consumer of Knowledge

    Did not know they were struck in '36, I erroneously assumed that they were struck in the year the coin bears
     
    cubenewb, Oct 10, 2010
    #8 + Quote Reply
  10. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Personally, I think Mike makes a very valid point. At least 7, Class II and Class III, of the 15 coins were struck entirely for the purpose of being able to scam or swindle collectors and no other reason. As for the 8 Class I examples, even they are somewhat dubious.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 11, 2010
    #9 + Quote Reply
  11. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I have always felt this way too Mike. The king of Siam coin is the only one I would say is official, and even that to me is more of a unfortunate error on the mint's part. The US has some really great, cool coins, and its unfortunate promoters and shysters have elevated the 1804 dollar, 1913 liberty nickel, and the 1894s dime as the ultimate US coins. All of these are fantasy pieces, created to scam collectors.
     
    medoraman, Oct 11, 2010
    #10 + Quote Reply
  12. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    At least two different Proof sets containing 1804 Dollars were commissione - one for the King of Siam and the other for the Sultan of Muscat and Oman.
     
    Mark Feld, Oct 11, 2010
    #11 + Quote Reply
  13. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    I don't think that "scam" or "swindle" is necessarily fair or accurate. Often times, coins were made for collectors who wanted to buy them and had a pretty good idea as to their rarity. In other words, the buyers were not victims of scams.
     
    Mark Feld, Oct 11, 2010
    #12 + Quote Reply
  14. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    If that were the case Mark then why in the world would the coins have been artificially worn by the people who struck them so that it looked like the coins were genuine and got that wear from their being in circulation ?

    So no, I do stand by my comments. The Class II coin and the 6 Class III's were a scam and a swindle.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 11, 2010
    #13 + Quote Reply
  15. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    Doug, how many of the coins are "artificially worn"? Certainly nowhere close to all of them.
     
    Mark Feld, Oct 11, 2010
    #14 + Quote Reply
  16. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    From the Heritage web site -

    Artificial Wear

    Four of the six known Class III dollars were artificially worn, giving the appearance of coins long in circulation. This imbued the coins with a certain legitimacy in relation to the concocted stories of their discovery, intended to hide their true origins with persons closely tied to the Mint.
    The Idler and Linderman specimens are unworn proofs. Since both of the original owners were Mint insiders, there was no reason to give those coins an artificially worn appearance. Today, both are in museum collections.
    The Berg specimen was purportedly found in Austria and today is considered PR50. The Davis specimen when it first surfaced was alleged to be an original rather than a restrike, explaining the XF grade. The Ellsworth coin, now in the ANS, was first rumored to be the property of a former slave, explaining the XF grade and the surface nicks. The Adams-Carter specimen, the coin in the present sale, had a concocted provenance from an old English collection, and is graded AU58 by PCGS today.

    Of the six Class III 1804 dollars known, three are now in museum collections. As the example with the least amount of artificial wear, the Adams-Carter specimen is by far the most desirable of the three Class III dollars available to collectors today.

    Given that info Mark, there is little doubt remaining as to what their (the minters) intentions were.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 11, 2010
    #15 + Quote Reply
  17. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I believe 5 were made, maybe I missed it where the Sultan of Muscat set has appeared. I will change my statement to, only the original 5 included in sets for presentations I would consider "authentic", and even those are really unfortunate mint mistakes and not really 1804 silver dollars.
     
    medoraman, Oct 11, 2010
    #16 + Quote Reply
  18. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    Thanks Doug - I was unaware that so many of them were worn.
     
    Mark Feld, Oct 11, 2010
    #17 + Quote Reply
  19. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I think you'll find that 4 sets were commissioned for diplomatic presentation pieces, but only 2 were ever actually given to foriegn dignitaries.

    However, the point that everybody seems to forget is that there were no orders or instructions given for the coins to bear the date of 1804. That was done purely by the choice of the Mint Director.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 11, 2010
    #18 + Quote Reply
  20. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    What really cinches it being a scam Mark is that the only 2 examples that were left alone and not artificially worn were those taken by mint employees - the people who made them.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 11, 2010
    #19 + Quote Reply
  21. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Yes, it was his choice but I believe it was an honest mistake. I think he honestly believed, based on mint records, that the last dated silver dollar was 1804, since they were struck that year, just dated 1803. Just clarifying for other readers, I know that you know that. :)

    Thank you for pointing out 4 sets. I think in the past they thought all of them were given out, but I could be wrong.
     
    medoraman, Oct 11, 2010
    #20 + Quote Reply
4 more messages...
Page 1 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page