Finally a decent coin shows up on ebay

[dooly]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1802-Novodel-Dollar_W0QQitemZ270239410958QQihZ017QQcategoryZ523QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Wowser click on the link you will not be disappointed !!!

[harvey8542]

Now if he really has it

[dooly]

£99.00 starting price and no reserve

 

I think if i was letting that go it would have to send it to a Major auction house myself..

 

not that i would sell it if i owned it .. i would have to get it NGC slabbed though..

[rrantique]

hcptl252( 0 )

[TomB]

I'm sorry, but a feedback of zero and someone lists that for sale? Do you want to buy a bridge...

[MarkFeld]

I viewed that coin last month in a Heritage sale and it brought $920,000. Accordingly, I suspect the seller doesn't have it.

 

Please report it to Ebay : here

[dooly]

That's more like the price for it !! will do mark but i am going to have some fun first..

[SteveInNebr]

Pleeze let us know how your fun goes.......

[dooly]

i have just sent this email to the seller

 

Hi there that's an amazing coin you have there.. could you tell me if it is the one which recently sold in the USA heritage auction sale a while back.. and how much would you like for this stunning bit of USA numismatic history..

 

 

lets see what he says !!

 

Gonfishing

 

[cpm9ball]

i have just sent this email to the seller

 

Hi there that's an amazing coin you have there.. could you tell me if it is the one which recently sold in the USA heritage auction sale a while back.. and how much would you like for this stunning bit of USA numismatic history..

 

 

lets see what he says !!

 

Gonfishing

 

 

That's a nice handful of baitfish!

 

Chris

[EZ_E]

Is this the one and only Dooly?

[dooly]

No mate it's my mate colly about 20years ago fishing out of North shields.. (thumbs u

[EZ_E]

Looks like a blast as long as you weren't looking for a full belly of fish.

[Toad]

That's more like the price for it !! will do mark but i am going to have some fun first..

 

Can I bid against you? We can have a bidding war. I'll bring the popcorn you bring the beer. (thumbs u

 

Ribbit

 

Ps: I'll place first bid.

[physics-fan3.14]

Yowzer, thats a fine coin. If I had a million bucks that I didn't know what else to do with, I would probably consider it.

[James_OldeTowne]

I would much rather have that coin than an 1804!

 

That said, I don't think the odds of actually getting a real one from that seller are very good....

[MarkFeld]

I would much rather have that coin than an 1804!

Why, James?

[braddick]

Mark,

I can't speak for James, bit I agree. Between that 1802 and an 1804 I'd rather own (the collector part of me speaking right now...) the 1802.

 

I personally believe the 1804, was a contemporary fantasy piece while the 1802 is legit.

[MarkFeld]

Mark,

I can't speak for James, bit I agree. Between that 1802 and an 1804 I'd rather own (the collector part of me speaking right now...) the 1802.

 

I personally believe the 1804, was a contemporary fantasy piece while the 1802 is legit.

Pat, the 1801, 1802 and 1803 Proofs are rarer than the 1804, but aren't any more "legit" than it is. My suspicion was that James had a similar misconception.

 

Briefly, from the Heritage description of the 1802 in question:

The 1802 proof novodel silver dollar is an issue that is usually grouped by numismatists with three others: the 1801 proof novodel, the 1803 proof novodel, and the famous 1804 silver dollars. Like the 1804 dollar, which has been referred to as the "King of American Coins" for more than a century, the 1802 proof novodels were manufactured in a minuscule quantity, sometime after 1832.

[Oldtrader3]

The listing has disappeared as (I hope) have the mackerel, hopefully, because they both would smell smell the same by now, fishy, very fishy, pun intended.

[James_OldeTowne]

I would much rather have that coin than an 1804!

Why, James?

I know that the 1802 was struck as a proof much later than the year 1802, but to me, 1804 carries too much baggage (overhyped). 1802 is a special year in my mind, as I always associate it with the half-dimes, and that is one of my favorite coins. Another of my favorites are the 1802/1 quarter-eagle and half-eagles.

 

If I could choose to own an 1802 "type set", or an 1804, I would choose 1802.

 

For me, 1804 represents the Louisiana purchase, so my historic interest in that year lies outside of coins. But from the numismatic standpoint, the 1802 "proofs" were struck with a date for which dollars were actually minted. In other words, there were "real" dollars struck dated 1802, so a proof striking of that date makes sense. But NO silver dollars dated 1804 were struck for circulation! So, what are the "proofs" proofs of? A coin that never existed?

 

Sorry to ramble, and I know the rationalization isn't all that great, but that is just how I feel.

[braddick]

Mark, I learned something today. I didn't know the 1802 carried the same status as the 1804.

 

I would wonder though, on a completely unrelated note, if the 1802 is the earliest graded PCGS coin to carry the CAMEO designation?

[James_OldeTowne]

Mark, I learned something today. I didn't know the 1802 carried the same status as the 1804.

If you really want to dig into some weird numismatic history, poke around for information on the infamous 1805 dollar ... There were 321 bust dollars minted that year!

[MarkFeld]

I would much rather have that coin than an 1804!

Why, James?

I know that the 1802 was struck as a proof much later than the year 1802, but to me, 1804 carries too much baggage (overhyped). 1802 is a special year in my mind, as I always associate it with the half-dimes, and that is one of my favorite coins. Another of my favorites are the 1802/1 quarter-eagle and half-eagles.

 

If I could choose to own an 1802 "type set", or an 1804, I would choose 1802.

 

For me, 1804 represents the Louisiana purchase, so my historic interest in that year lies outside of coins. But from the numismatic standpoint, the 1802 "proofs" were struck with a date for which dollars were actually minted. In other words, there were "real" dollars struck dated 1802, so a proof striking of that date makes sense. But NO silver dollars dated 1804 were struck for circulation! So, what are the "proofs" proofs of? A coin that never existed?

 

Sorry to ramble, and I know the rationalization isn't all that great, but that is just how I feel.

James, that works for me - thanks for the explanation. And it is duly noted that my suspicion regarding why you preferred the 1802 Proof to an 1804 was dead wrong.

[MarkFeld]

.....I would wonder though, on a completely unrelated note, if the 1802 is the earliest graded PCGS coin to carry the CAMEO designation?

Oh, that's just GREAT, Pat - now I'm going to rack my brain trying to remember or guess about that and/or look it up later - thanks a LOT pal!

 

 

[EZ_E]

Whoa horses...let's back up and address these 1805 dollars James was talking about. hm

[braddick]

Yes James, more info. on that 1805!

 

All of this reminds me of a Bust dollar offered on eBay about three years ago. It was a VF'ish and had a great look about it. It was a contemporary carved/altered 1802 that appeared as an 1804. It was very, very well done.

 

I almost bid on it but others chased it passed $800. (at the time that was a steep price for bust dollars) so I had to let it go.

 

Anyone else remember that coin? I believe it was a subject of a thread here way back then.

[WoodenJefferson]

1805 Dollar?

[MarkFeld]

Yes James, more info. on that 1805!

 

All of this reminds me of a Bust dollar offered on eBay about three years ago. It was a VF'ish and had a great look about it. It was a contemporary carved/altered 1802 that appeared as an 1804. It was very, very well done.

 

I almost bid on it but others chased it passed $800. (at the time that was a steep price for bust dollars) so I had to let it go.

 

Anyone else remember that coin? I believe it was a subject of a thread here way back then.

Pat, I'm not sure if the first of the two coins offered below in the 2003 Pre-Long Beach sale is the one you're thinking of or not. But either way, I think these make for fun and interesting reading:

 

 

The Werner/Ostheimer Altered Date "1804" Draped Bust Dollar

Lot 540

"1804" Altered from an 1802/1 B-4, BB-232. The Werner/Ostheimer coin. Sharpness of VF-30 but cleaned and altered. No coin in American numismatics is steeped in as much history and speculation as the 1804 silver dollar, "The King of American Coins". Born of improper accounting, coined in subsequent decades, coveted by all collectors, owning an 1804 dollar is the zenith of a numismatists collection, and precious few will ever be able to afford to realize this common dream.

Origins of the 1804 "originals" (please see the superb reference The Fantastic 1804 Dollar by Eric Newman and Ken Bressett). Newman and Bressett finally teased out the truth on the origin of the known 1804 proofs. Apparently, an order came down to the Philadelphia Mint from on high to produce a couple of proof sets sometime in 1834, one to be given to the King of Siam and another set to the Imaum of Muscat. As most denominations were currently in production, dies were simply polished up and proof coins produced as needed. However, the eagle and silver dollar were no longer being produced, and records indicated both ceased in 1804 and 1805 respectively. Luckily for the Mint workers, Franklin Peale was an able engraver on hand at the time, and best of all, the original die punches for the date, lettering, Lady Liberty and the eagle were still on hand at the Mint. A new 1804 dollar obverse and reverse die were engraved, and a few coins struck to fill the coins needed for the sets, thus proof 1804 silver dollars and proof 1804 eagles were produced. Remarkably, no official record of the King of Siam set or the Imaum of Muscat coins exists, but sure enough in 1962 the King of Siam set walked into Spink's in London, with the coins still housed in the yellow morocco leather case. This caused quite a numismatic stir, and was no doubt the highlight of the 1962 ANA convention where the discovery was announced. It is probable that the set given to the Imaum of Muscat was disbursed along with the C. A. Watters collection sale by Glendening & Co., on June 14, 1917, as that collection contained an 1804 proof dollar, as well as an 1834 proof half dollar, quarter and half dime and notably an 1834 dime, cent and half cent, although no condition was included on these three, they presumably were proofs, if indeed Watters ended up with the silver and minor issues from the Imaum of Muscat proof set. Newman and Bressett theorize that Watters was not a gold collector (as evident in the referenced sale of his coins) and the 1804 eagle and other 1834 gold coins may have been sold separately when the set was broken up.

Apparently, the Philadelphia Mint of the 1830s struck a few additional 1804 silver dollars, perhaps for collector demand, or for the Mint cabinet, but of the originals, 8 are known today. Demand continued, and the Philadelphia Mint created an additional 7 1804 proof silver dollars (Class II and Class III) around 1857/58, setting off a rather nasty mint scandal. Each of the 15 known specimens are well known, and the appearance of any of these at auction creates a tremendous numismatic stir.

So, getting back to the Mint records, they report officially that 19,570 silver dollars were delivered during 1804. Remarkably, the Mint also reported that 321 silver dollars were delivered in 1805! To date, no collector had found a regular issue 1804 or 1805 silver dollar, though many alterations had been attempted to fool the uneducated. One of the earlier attempts was by John A. Bolen, who was famous for fabricating copies of early American coins during his heyday of 1862 to 1869. Bolen made an 1804 dollar by altering an 1803 B-6 dollar, which remains in the ANS collection. Bolen was kind enough to stamp his name on the edge as well! Numerous electrotypes were created from the few known 1804 dollars, and many collectors had to settle for one of these as the price for a "real" 1804 dollar has always been very high. The history of numismatics is rich with the number of collectors, and even dealers, which have been duped into believing their 1804 dollar was real. Even Sylvester S. Crosby was duped by two 1804/3 dollars (altered from an 1803 B-6) which crossed his path, Crosby stating that the die itself was overdated at the Mint, just as seen on the 1805/4 half dollars. Frossard, based on Crosby's authentication, listed one in his April 1892 sale of the Saltmarsh collection, but it was withdrawn before the sale as an alteration before the sale took place. Where these coins are today is a mystery.

Thus, it shouldn't have been a surprise when yet another fraud appeared in 1939. The story of the coin offered herein begins. The British Museum received a package of two coins in 1939 reportedly from the West Indies, with a letter requesting their verification, appraisal and sale. (Newman/Bressett, The Fantastic 1804 Dollar 25th Anniversary Follow Up). The coins were an 1804 and an 1805 silver dollar. The two coins were shown to a visiting American numismatist, Samuel L. Friedenberg. Friedenberg thought they were genuine, but was uneasy with his decision and wished to examine them further, but was unable to return to the British Museum before returning home. Friedenberg wrote about the coins in the 1939 Numismatist, page 799. Meanwhile, the coins were sent to Spink & Son., Ltd., who selected B. G. Johnson of St. Louis to best give an opinion and assist in a possible sale. B.G. Johnson received the coins, and quickly pronounced them forgeries, and his findings were published by Spink's (without Johnson's name) in the same issue of the Numismatist in 1939. Spink's then unloaded the two dollars on Farren Zerbe, who purchased them as alterations. Zerbe then sold them to New York numismatist Louis S. Werner in 1941, who purchased them as alterations "for an undisclosed sum". Zerbe later displayed the two dollars at the New York Numismatic Club in 1941 and again in 1944, although they belonged to Werner, but always stating they were alterations. A member of the club, F. C. C. Boyd offered to purchase them from Werner, but Werner declined, believing them to be genuine.

Werner laid low for a while. In 1950 he sent a rubbing of the 1805 to Milferd H. Bolender, who had just published a new variety book on Early Silver Dollars, and he was now the recognized expert in the series. Bolender wrote back that he thought the rubbing may in fact be an alteration of his 1803 B-1 dollar, and wanted to examine the coin. Werner would not send the coin, as he could not obtain enough insurance to cover his perceived value of the numismatic treasure. In 1951, Werner displayed his 1805 dollar at the ANA show in Phoenix, stating it was the "numismatic find of the century" and that no dollar of 1805, whether genuine or false, had ever appeared, and further, Werner claimed that his coin has passed all tests of genuiness, including the heat test. In 1952 Werner brought the 1805 (see next lot) dollar to Freeport, Illinois to allow Bolender a chance to examine it. To his surprise, Bolender believed it to be genuine and not altered. Werner continued to believe, or at least promote, his unique 1805 and very rare 1804 dollars.

By 1960 Werner thought it time to move on, and sent his priceless alterations to the Academy Testing Laboratories, where they were declared genuine and not altered after a series of tests in March 1960. In June 1960 the pair was sent to Lucius Pittien in New York to test and photograph the coins. Again they were declared genuine and no indication was found that they were altered. Werner then contacted none other than Louis Eliasberg about purchasing his treasures. Eliasberg wrote Werner that there is "no record of its existence other than your communication". Undaunted, Werner then sent both coins to Milferd Bolender asking for his opinion. Bolender wrote a letter dated December 8, 1960 that the 1804 was authentic, struck at the U.S. Mint and not altered, and issued a similar letter on the 1805 dollar dated December 10, 1960.

Werner now had metallurgical tests and authenticating letters from the most noted authority on Early Dollars, so on December 12, 1960 he wrote Alfred J. Ostheimer, III, who owned the most advanced early dollar collection ever formed to that time, that the two coins were available. Werner including both discussions of those who thought they were alterations, as well as the letters and studies which confirmed their genuiness. Ostheimer was very interested, but for $30,000 for the pair, wanted to be really sure. A complex contract was structured, wherein Ostheimer had the option to purchase the pair. Notably, there was no guarantee of authenticity, only a guarantee of title or ownership. Ostheimer paid the deposits required, and concluded the transaction with Werner. Ostheimer soon began publishing articles in the various numismatic media about the coins. Eric Newman requested and received photographs of the 1804 and 1805 dollars. Newman soon stated that he believed they were both alterations, and requested to examine the coins further, and travelled to Philadelphia where Ostheimer showed him the coins. Further, Bolender changed his mind, and decided he had been fooled, and now felt they were indeed alterations.

Ostheimer hated to be duped (who wouldn't!), and kept the coins for another nine years. In 1970 he wrote Werner that he should take back the coins and refund his money, apparently Werner did not. Later, when the Ostheimer collection was sold (Superior, August 1975), these alterations were not included, and they have not been publically displayed in the last three decades to our knowledge.

Newman states in conclusion on these pieces: "The purpose of this detailed discussion is to emphasize the importance of guarantees of authenticity; the danger of relying on testing results by numismatically-inexperienced people; the risk of reliance on the opinions of people who have a conflict of interest; the frequency of opinions being changed, and the reappearance of non-genuine coins." Newman also states that "These dollars are very high in contention for being the most deceptive alterations of genuine coins" in his 25th anniversary review of the 1804 dollar.

All things considered, this numismatist (JMM) was frankly amazed at how non deceptive this coin is. An experienced Early dollar collector learns that all dies have familiar lumps and die scratches which are unique to that die, some are minor, others are very obvious. Each die pairing has its peculiarities, and learning these can assist the collector in quickly identifying a given variety. Newman notes that these alterations were likely made by Smith of Ann Street, an engraver who apparently was quite skilled at alterations. I would guess that whoever altered this coin, was not an expert in early silver dollars, as the two host coins used to make these famous alterations both contain obvious die "signatures" which confirm which die variety they were prior to the alteration. On this particular coin a glance will note the 4 mm die scratch on Liberty's chest which extends nearly to the thirteenth star, this die scratch is present on the common 1802/1 B-4, BB-232 variety, and anyone experienced with early dollars will recognize this die scratch in a glance, and know what variety it is instantly. Somehow, this obvious feature was ignored by most of the experts, whe wanted to believe in this great new numismatic discovery, which at last gave credence to the 1804 silver dollar mintage long reported in reference books. Further, the E of LIBERTY is high, well above the base of B, and this is also a diagnostic for this obverse die. By not removing this 4 mm die scratch, identifying the obverse die is mere child's play to the experienced dollar collector. Curiously, great effort was made to redirect a few of the obverse stars, as noted by Newman. He also notes (page 107) that "the points of certain stars on each obverse having been reaimed to alteration in an attempt to make the dies appear to differ from all other dollar obverse dies regardless of date" Examination shows that star eight and nine were reaimed (the points slightly redirected) as faint tooling is evident with a 10X loupe.

The coin itself has been harshly cleaned, and we note extensive faint pin scratches around STATES OF where some dirt was likely removed by someone less appreciative of the importance of this coin. As to the date, there are tooling marks on the right side of the "4", and the post of that number is awkward in appearance. I suspect that after the coin was altered, it was dipped in an acid solution, which micro pitted and altered the surfaces enough to hide most of the fine tooling marks around the date, enough so that other experts agreed that the date had not been altered. Today the coin has a cleaned and retoned appearance, and there are minor handling marks and light scratches on both sides. Two surface marks will help identify this one in the future, a small field mark below the LI of LIBERTY, and a small knock just above and to the right of the Eagle's head.

Estimated Value $7,500-UP.

Sent to the British Museum in 1939, sold as an alteration to Farran Zerbe, then to Louis S. Werner in 1941, then to Alfred J. Ostheimer, III and next to our consignor who wishes to remain anonymous.

 

 

The Werner/Ostheimer "1805" Draped Bust Dollar

Lot 541

"1805" Altered from an 1803 B-6, BB-255. The Werner/Ostheimer coin. Sharpness of VF-30 but altered date and cleaned. Please note the story of this famous pair of alterations on the previous lot which discusses how they came about, and how they fooled several known experts, including Milferd H. Bolender for a time, and Alfred Ostheimer, III, who formed one of the greatest bust dollar variety sets of all time. Both this coin, and the 1804 just offered, survived a battery of tests which confirmed that they were struck coins from the Mint (they are), and that the dates had not been altered, the tests were obviously wrong on this count.

The surfaces have been cleaned, and we suspect the coin was lightly bathed in an acid which helped reduce the tooling marks on the date and some of the stars, which were reaimed to throw off any inquiring eyes trying to match the obverse die to any known bust dollar die. These alterations are certainly amongst the most famous not because they are the best, but because of the number of experts fooled by them! Eric P. Newman declared them to be altered dates soon after he examined photographs, and this was further confirmed when he viewed the coins. Eventually, they were condemned as altered dates, and even Ostheimer knew he had been dupped by Werner, but was never able to get his money back for the purchase.

We note that the 1805 is toned with pleasing dark patina in the fields, with lighter silver on the devices. Evenly worn and recovering from an old cleaning, the surfaces show minor roughness near the devices, especially where the alterations were covered up.

Once again, Newman states the "Smith of Ann Street" likely created this alteration, although I have found no further reference to this skilled craftsman. Examination will note tooling around the 5, and how Bolender and Ostheimer missed this is beyond me, and the evidence is clear with a 10X loupe. Further, for all the skill of the person who altered this coin, the host coin chosen was quite easy to decipher. By simply turning the coin over, the numismatist who is paying attention will note that the reverse die is rotated about 25 degrees counter clockwise! Once again, only one bust dollar die variety regularly comes with this curious reverse die feature, always 25 degrees counter clockwise: the 1803 B-6, BB-255! Other diagnostics, like the drawn reverse lettering and die crack from the rim to the second feather down on the left wing, confirm the die pairing as well. Even the edge lettering fits as well, as the 1803 B-6 always comes with the L's of DOLLAR broken, so the right serif is alone and separated from the post of the L, as the edge die must have been breaking up when these were coined. Amazingly, Bolender even figured out where in the emission sequence this 1805 fell, as well as the 1804 just offered! Naturally, they were coined just after their respected host varieties in 1802 and 1803! Tooling is noted around the first, eighth and ninth stars as well, and importantly a small hint was left on Liberty herself, that being a small low area on her drapery just above 5, no doubt where the engraver worked off a little too much metal in that area, and nicked or worked into Liberty's drapery while forming the 5 out of the 3. Personally, I would have left the doubled lower loop on the 5 as seen on the 3 of this variety if I were the fraudulent engraver! Again, it is remarkable that this coin fooled anyone more than a novice, but given the results of the tests by the metalurgical experts, and the hoped for location of such a coin after years of seeing the reported mintage of 321 silver dollars from 1805, allowed even Bolender and Ostheimer to be sucked into the fantasy created by this made to order rarity.

Here at last after years of being hidden away, are two of the most famous frauds perpetrated on the numismatic community, the 1804 and 1805 altered date dollars! Do you believe? .

Estimated Value $7,500-UP.

 

 

 

[brasseye]

1805 Dollar?

 

"bids will only be accepted in Euro's" lol