An initial chilly reception for the $2.50 and $5 Indian gold coins

Today collectors admire the $2.50 and $5 Indian gold coins. Although they failed in their mission to provide a blueprint for a more durable design with their incuse devices, they are attractive, at least in the better grades.

Back when they were introduced, the reception was not so positive. Some critics said the Indian looked “tired” and “out of luck.” Others made a more serious charge. They said that the incuse design would be a germ catcher that would spread contagion though out America.

These claims were proven to be untrue, but they provide us with an insight into one of the wild accusations that were made about the spread to diseases.

Here are my two best examples. I bought both of them from Heritage at different Winter FUN shows.

This 1925-D quarter eagle has an NGC grade of MS-65. I think that it qualifies for that grade, although it's not in the "right" holder.



This 1913 $5 gold is in a PCGS MS-64 holder. This is what I call a "threshold grade." At the time that I bought this pieces, $5 Indians were selling for low figure numbers in MS-65. This was quite a bit less and not far off from the pieces that did get that grade.




When I was a young collector in the 1960s, I was never able to find a $5 Indian that I thought was strictly Mint State. Every one of the "Uncirculated" pieces I saw had a rub on the Indian's cheek bone or the eagle's shoulder. Finally I did buy one which ultimately ended up in a PCGS MS-63 holder.

Why are these coins so hard to find nice? It has to do with the design, which is one of the reason why the U.S. has never issued another incuse design coin. The highest part of the design are the fields. They are very vulnerable to marks and rubbing for that reason. These coins became unattractive fairly quickly while they were in circulation, and the mint officials took note of that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I gotta admit, I still don't like the $2.50 pieces, simply because of the size. Too easily lost!

 

Oh, but I think that the same designs were usually more attractive on the $2.50 gold coins. Which one do you think looks nicer?

Quarter Eagle



Half Eagle

 

Meh, it all looks similar to me!

 

Great design I think. Someday down the road I want MS-65 of both denominations. Thanks for sharing these.

 

sure, but in the holder/slab they are all the same size.
Easy to not lose.

 

I own coronet issues, but just as bullion really. I have never cared for the design. I love all of the "new" 20th century designs, and between all 4 denominations own maybe 25 today. The $10 is my favorite by far, but love all of them.

 

The $5 gold is the size of a nickel, so it's not exactly huge. The $2.50 is the size of a dime but weighs a good deal more.

 

I also think that the Indian gold coins have some of the best designs on U.S. coins overall. I've only managed to wrangle up a few of them, but they remain among my favorite coins.

Speaking of these coins, has anyone read Allen Schein's "The Gold Indians of Bela Lyon Pratt?" It looks fantastic.

 

I always liked the 2.5 Indian.

 

Yes, that is a very good book.

 

That's the definition of incuse -- fields have the highest point ? Not the rims ?

That's not the case on Double Eagles ?

 

Eagles and double eagles are struck like all other coins, the design the highest points.

 

Actually on the Indian quarter and half eagle the high points of the design are also still the highest points, same level as the fields.

 

Nice Indians!

 

No really. The main design devices are below the surface of the fields, and there is no protective, upset rim which appeared on the earlier types to help shield the fields. The only part of the design that at or close to the level of the fields is the Indian's cheek bone. That's the reason why it almost always appears to be rubbed, especially on the $5 coin.

 

I have owned a couple of those Indian head gold coins in the past years, should have held on to them. Very good looking coin, never mind about the germ holding ability of them. Any gold coin is worth keeping.

 

And that is the high point of the design. That's why the proper description of the coins is not incuse design, it is "sunken relief".

I always find it interesting to try and visualize what the dies would have looked like that made those things.

 

Is it not true that once coin design and minting basics stabilized by the mid-1830s with the closed-collar process a major design criterion was that coins be stackable - a requirement of the banks and commerce? For all coins, that meant the upset rim was the high point so that each coin would rest rim-to-rim upon the one below it. For the Indian Head quarter and half eagles sans an upset rim, that meant each coin rested upon the fields of the adjacent coin, contributing to the marks we see in these areas.

 

I don’t care how you slice it, cut it, package it, sell it or use it, IMHO gold is just simply beautiful in all its many forms.