NGC Article About Restrike MCMVII Double Eagles Has Been Updated - Well Done NGC

[RWB]

This may seem like a trivial gripe, but it is an example of how old, copycat misinformation is disseminated when better, more accurate information is available just by opening a book. The following quote from the NGC article about the US Mint restriking MCMVII double eagles includes several errors, noted in bold:

 

The coins possess astonishing detail—the consequence of receiving nine blows apiece from the dies at a pressure of 172 tons. The late Walter Breen, a renowned numismatic scholar, observed that "only these faithfully represent Saint-Gaudens’ conception, cherished as the stunning climax of American coin design."

 

A second experimental trial of this most beautiful American coin had the diameter of the $10 gold piece. These are affectionately called "Baby Ultras." By reducing the diameter, coiners attempted to produce a version that would be much easier to strike. No Congressional authorization allowed for the coin production, and all but two were melted. They both reside in the National Numismatic Collection.

 

Corrections, all of which are supported by contemporary documentation:

1. The extremely high relief experimental pieces received seven blows from a medal press. Exact tonnage is unknown but likely ranged between 150 and 170 tons/square inch.

2. Breen had not seen the final models, with additional detail and minor changes to composition, produced by Saint-Gaudens in March 1907. He was also not aware that the December 1906 models were labeled “Test Model.” The final models were eventually used to make the high relief MCMVII version, although those coins are not completely faithful to the artist’s work.

3. The term “baby ultras” has no meaning and must have been invented recently. The US Mint never referred to these pieces in this manner, only as “small diameter,” or “thick pieces.” (The normal diameter pieces were nearly always referred to as "experimental" and "extremely high relief.")

4. The small diameter double eagles were just as valid as experimental pieces as any other pattern or experimental piece made by the U.S. Mint. The assumption that they were “illegal” originally came from Mint Curator T. Louis Comparette who had no legal expertise. The mint has consistency been able to prepare experimental coinage in any metal, size and format it chooses to test. No Congressional approval is required. (Placing them in circulation, which was never contemplated, would be a completely different matter.)

 

End

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Roger that, Roger.

[MarkFeld]

This may seem like a trivial gripe, but it is an example of how old, copycat misinformation is disseminated when better, more accurate information is available just by opening a book. The following quote from the NGC article about the US Mint restriking MCMVII double eagles includes several errors, noted in bold:

 

The coins possess astonishing detail—the consequence of receiving nine blows apiece from the dies at a pressure of 172 tons. The late Walter Breen, a renowned numismatic scholar, observed that "only these faithfully represent Saint-Gaudens’ conception, cherished as the stunning climax of American coin design."

 

A second experimental trial of this most beautiful American coin had the diameter of the $10 gold piece. These are affectionately called "Baby Ultras." By reducing the diameter, coiners attempted to produce a version that would be much easier to strike. No Congressional authorization allowed for the coin production, and all but two were melted. They both reside in the National Numismatic Collection.

 

Corrections, all of which are supported by contemporary documentation:

1. The extremely high relief experimental pieces received seven blows from a medal press. Exact tonnage is unknown but likely ranged between 150 and 170 tons/square inch.

2. Breen had not seen the final models, with additional detail and minor changes to composition, produced by Saint-Gaudens in March 1907. He was also not aware that the December 1906 models were labeled “Test Model.” The final models were eventually used to make the high relief MCMVII version, although those coins are not completely faithful to the artist’s work.

3. The term “baby ultras” has no meaning and must have been invented recently. The US Mint never referred to these pieces in this manner, only as “small diameter,” or “thick pieces.” (The normal diameter pieces were nearly always referred to as "experimental" and "extremely high relief.")

4. The small diameter double eagles were just as valid as experimental pieces as any other pattern or experimental piece made by the U.S. Mint. The assumption that they were “illegal” originally came from Mint Curator T. Louis Comparette who had no legal expertise. The mint has consistency been able to prepare experimental coinage in any metal, size and format it chooses to test. No Congressional approval is required. (Placing them in circulation, which was never contemplated, would be a completely different matter.)

 

End

Roger, with respect to your #3 above - I don't see anything in the NGC article which claims that the term "baby ultras" was ever used by the US Mint and/or wasn't invented recently. Also, regarding #4 above - does it necessarily follow that the article assumes the "baby ultras" were "illegal" simply because "No Congressional authorization allowed for the coin production"?

[RWB]

Mark,

I understand your comments and disagree with them. The distinctions are important if marketing hype and Breen-induced confusion are to be replaced with solid original-source data. I am fully aware that information about the EHR $20s for this short NGC article comes from Breen’s encyclopedia. I am also aware that the mistakes are not anything intentional. However, as a major numismatic organization and one that is committed to excellence and helping educate collectors, NGC should be expected to be reasonably accurate, and I know they can do better.

 

The phrase…” These are affectionately called "Baby Ultras,” clearly implies some sort of acceptance of a term that is nonsense in context of the originals. (The most common term applied to the small diameter pieces by those who have examined them, as far as I know, has been “lump.” They literally feel like a lump of gold in the hand and lack the coin-like dimensions and "feel" common to most of the coinage.)

 

The “…No Congressional authorization allowed for the coin production, “ phrase implies some sort of special condition existed for these pieces that was absent for the normal diameter experimental pieces struck earlier in the week, or that they were made illegally, neither of which is correct. (Technically, neither of the experimental pieces were real coins - the designs had not been approved for use on coinage.)

 

[DC Dawg]

Roger, can you clarify something:

 

When TR went to redesign the coinage, didn't he targeted coins that were design more than 35 years earlier to avoid having to go to congress for them to approve the change? If true, this meant that Roosevelt (through his Secretary of the Treasury) have the gold coinage redesigned without congressional permission. But if the Mint changed the size of the coin, wouldn't that have to be approved by congress?

 

Wasn't there a case against a collector of patterns in the very early part of the 20th century that either the government lost or settled by returning the patterns to the collector? This was interpreted as patterns are legal to own.

 

So... if the experimental coin was never "monetized," how was it illegal?

 

(I hope I have the logic right!!)

 

Scott

[RWB]

First: “monetized” is an invented term to hype the supposed special status of the 1933 double eagle auctioned a few years ago. This was a cute way for the Treasury to look like they were doing something special when they weren’t. There is no “blessing and scattering of monetary holy water.” The two key steps in making struck metal into money were: 1) coiner accepts struck pieces as coin, and 2) Superintendent authorizes release of the coins to reserve banks and/or commercial banks. (Seigniorage was booked when the coiner accepted the coins.)

 

Re: Wasn't there a case against a collector of patterns in the very early part of the 20th century that either the government lost or settled by returning the patterns to the collector? This was interpreted as patterns are legal to own.

 

The long-term practice by the Treasury Dept. has been to not contest private ownership of pattern and experimental pieces. When an attempt was made to seize pieces from the Henry Linderman Estate, the United States Attorney for New York found that the mint had misinterpreted both law and department regulations. There was, “...no statute provision, governing pattern pieces, and the like; that there is no statute provision governing the sale of pattern pieces, struck in any metal, whether adopted designs or not.”

 

The 1910 attempt to prosecute John Haseltine for selling off-metal patterns failed on similar grounds. The matter has not been tested in any court at any time. Note: the 1933 double eagles are not pattern or experimental pieces. Their situation is very different since they are regular issue coins alleged to have been stolen by a Treasury employee.

 

Re: TRs coinage plan.

Roosevelt wanted Saint-Gaudens to redesign all of the U.S. circulating coins. However, Treasury Secretary Shaw determined that due to the Coinage Act of 1890, only the gold coins and cent were eligible for change in 1905. Therefore, TR and S-G concentrated on only those coins. I the Coinage Act, authority to change designs is vested in the Director of the Mint and Secretary of the Treasury, the Congress has no role. If Congress objects, such as to omission of the religious motto in 1907, they can pass legislation to change things. Congress can certainly interfere if they want to, and that was something TR did not want. As far as the mint striking experimental pieces, there are no legal restrictions of any kind, and the pieces are no more illegal than scrap metal or waffled defects so long as they are not stolen. (In 1907 the Mint Director bought two of the small diameter pieces and two normal diameter pieces, later giving one of each to Acting Director Preston. The small diameter pieces were later returned on Director Leach’s request. The EHR pieces ended up as pocket pieces and both have been sold at auction within the last decade.)

 

[BillJones]

Note: the 1933 double eagles are not pattern or experimental pieces. Their situation is very different since they are regular issue coins alleged to have been stolen by a Treasury employee.

 

The 1913 Liberty Head nickels were stolen by a Treasury employee too, and the circumstances surrounding their production are also legally murky. Yet there has never been a prosecution over them.

 

I think the 1933 double eagle has been a bur under the Treasury’s saddle because of the whole Gold Surrender Order thing and the government obsession about enforcing that law. For years it was illegal to own a gold certificate for reasons that are beyond my ability to comprehend. Thank goodness the government declared coin minted prior to the Gold Surrender Order legal to own in collections. Otherwise a large part of our national heritage would have gone to the stupid government melting pot.

 

[RWB]

The 1913 Liberty Head nickels were stolen by a Treasury employee too, and the circumstances surrounding their production are also legally murky. Yet there has never been a prosecution over them.

 

Actually, nothing is known about how/when/why/by whom the 1913 Liberty nickels were made. We do know from documents that the Buffalo design was approved in December 1912 and that Liberty nickel dies existed as late as Feb.22, 1913.

 

[BillJones]

Well some guy named Sam Brown who was U.S. store house employee placed an ad to buy 1913 liberty nickels in The Numismatist in 1920, several years after he had left the mint's employ. If you don't think that something illegal went on there, I think you are a bit naive. What legal claim did Brown have to those coins?

 

All five coins together with a Buffalo nickel pattern and a regular Buffalo nickel ended up in a case in the possession of Col. Ned Green. Green had lots of money and lots of pull in the right places and that probably kept him immune from prosecution. Since the precedent was set with Col. Green subsequent owners, including Eric P. Newman, who once owned all five coins, were not bothered.

 

But no, I think that that the owners of the 1933 double eagle have a better claim to the legitimacy of their coins than the 1913 nickel. At least their coins were made legally.

 

[PerryHall]

Well some guy named Sam Brown who was U.S. store house employee placed an ad to buy 1913 liberty nickels in The Numismatist in 1920, several years after he had left the mint's employ. If you don't think that something illegal went on there, I think you are a bit naive. What legal claim did Brown have to those coins?

 

All five coins together with a Buffalo nickel pattern and a regular Buffalo nickel ended up in a case in the possession of Col. Ned Green. Green had lots of money and lots of pull in the right places and that probably kept him immune from prosecution. Since the precedent was set with Col. Green subsequent owners, including Eric P. Newman, who once owned all five coins, were not bothered.

 

But no, I think that that the owners of the 1933 double eagle have a better claim to the legitimacy of their coins than the 1913 nickel. At least their coins were made legally.

 

Brown chose 1920 because of the seven year statute of limitations for theft.

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

Bill,

Sure, Sam Brown was the first to publicize the nickels. But we know nothing about what occurred before then. Only the two substantiated facts mentioned above are known. From the approval date of the Buffalo design in December 1913, we can reasonably infer that use of a Liberty design for 1913 was not approved. (It would be ludicrous to have both designs approved for use simultaneously.) But we don't know anything more. If the coiner's records or engraving dept records existed, there might be clues there. The book about the coins published a couple of years ago does a good job of tracing the history after Sam Brown.

 

I agree that the 1933 $20 are fully legitimate coins. The question that some court will have to answer is were they lawfully removed, and who has to prove that.

 

[Conder101]

Brown chose 1920 because of the seven year statute of limitations for theft.

I see that a lot, but as stolen items, title to the coins can not change hands and the are still government property. Also my understanding is the statute of limitation for prosecution begins when the theft is discovered or reported, So the seven years would have begun in 1920 not 1913.

[RWB]

NGC is to be commended for updating their original article. The improved clarity and accuracy will benefit anyone reading the article.

[wayneherndon]

People don't often understand those nuances of the statute of limitations. Usually, they find out the statute of limitation is x years but don't bother to look further to see when it starts to run or what exceptions there are.

 

Brown very well could have waited until 1920 thinking he was then in the clear.

 

WH

 

 

[DWLange]

Brown's ads actually ran in 1919. This was his way of establishing an alibi, as he could claim that the coins he displayed at the 1920 ANA convention and later offered for sale had been obtained as a result of his earlier advertising.

[RWB]

It appears that Sam Brown had a lot to do with the 1913 Liberty nickels – he’s the first person associated with them. But, no one has discovered a "confession" or anything from his family that explains what occurred. As far as legality goes, you can’t convict somebody of a crime that you can’t prove occurred.