A 1876 US Diplomatic Medal question - Not the 20th Century Restrike

[wdrob]

 

Is there a site that has the exact specifications on the 1876 US Diplomatic Medal as well as the exact specifications of the 20th century restrikes?

 

I searched and searched for more info on these last night and never came up with anything definitive. The numbers were all over the board and not consistent. Now my head is dizzy.

 

 

[BillJones]

I don't know of a web site, but the way to tell the difference between the 19th century and 20th century U.S. medals is to look at the finish. The 1876 Diplomatic medal has a rich mahogany finish while the 20th century medal has the sand blasted "yellow bronze" finish.

 

I don't have a Diplomatic medal, but here are examples of the 19th and 20th century medals.

 

19th century finish:

 

 

20th century sand blast, "yellow bronze" finish

 

 

I'll tell you up front that the 19th century Diplomatic medal is hard to find with a mintage of less than 100. The 18th century Diplomatic population is less than 5 pieces and therefore impossible for most of us.

[RWB]

See:

Heritage Lot 28128 1876 U.S. Diplomatic Medal, Julian-CM-15. One of 86 originals. Bronzed copper, 67 mm. 158.7 gm.

2008 September Long Beach, CA Tokens & Medals Signature Auction #1100.

 

Sold for: $1,610.00 (includes BP)

 

 

[wdrob]

RWB, I did see that as well as another at HA. The one you cited sold in 2008. There was another that sold in January 2014 for $3k and some change. Only one (the 2008) mentions weight.

 

The HA specs state 67 mm. 158.7 gm - I found another site that lists the specs as 67 mm (2-5/8”), 176 grams

 

Quite a difference.

 

 

Bill, I am familiar with what you are talking about between the finishes and that can be very helpful I would imagine. The weight discrepancy listed in these and other sources has me curious as to what kind of tollerances they had at the mint, pressing medals, in the 19th century.

 

I guess a revisit to 'From Mine to Mint' might be in order.

 

 

[wdrob]

I'll tell you up front that the 19th century Diplomatic medal is hard to find with a mintage of less than 100. The 18th century Diplomatic population is less than 5 pieces and therefore impossible for most of us.

 

Yes the original 18th century pressing of these medals, 2 were made of gold and were the only ones known to have been issued to foreign diplomats leaving.

 

Loubat states that two of these medals were presented by Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State under President George Washington, to the Marquis de la Luzerne and to the Count de Moustier.

 

The 18th century strike is out of the question. One would think that the 19th century re-strike with a mintage of only 86 would be a very lofty challenge as well. I am often surprised what one can find in the most unusual places.

 

 

 

 

[BillJones]

Eighty-six minted is tough, but it's not impossible. A great many 19th century bronze medals have mintages of less than 200. It's just a matter of being in the right place at the right time to buy it. I own a Washington Before Boston medal that was made from the original die pair. I would say that there 40 to 50 of those in existence, and I've seen that offered a few times since I bought my piece. Of course there is a matter of money which would knock some collectors out of the race.

 

BTW the Diplomatic Medal that sold for about $3,000 has been cracked out of the holder. It was offered to me for $4,500 which I thought was WAY too much money. I didn't care for the green spot on the obverse. I'm sure that a coin doctor will fix that eventually. To me a piece like that is not worth what I consider to be more than top dollar.

 

As for the weight of these pieces, I'm not so sure that is a good way to authenticate them. These piece had to be struck several times to bring up the design, and some trimming must be done between each strike which takes a varying amount of metal from each piece.

 

Thickness might be a better way. Many of the 19th century pieces were a good deal thicker than their 20th century counterparts. That's not fool proof, but can be an indicator for some pieces. You need so experience to know; I don't think that information has been published in any books.

[BillJones]

Here is a modern Diplomatic medal I purchased 25 to 30 years ago directly from the Philadelphia mint. The actual color is perhaps a little more "yellow.," but this is old and has mellowed a bit.

 

[wdrob]

Was there anything on that medal that would indicate a 20th century strike?

 

Also, what is the weight in grams that medal reads?

 

 

 

I thought $3k for that medal was way undervalued myself, however I have never seen the piece as you have.

 

I think one of the catch 22's for the medal collector is the lack of organized, thorough and easy to navigate publications or online resources. I bought the 'Guide Book to United States Tokens and Medals', and it has been a hard process trying to navigate this small (only 283 or so page) book to find what I am looking for quickly.

 

The Q. David Bowers 'Guide Book to Civil War Tokens' has proved to be laid out in a much easier structure (once I understood the ins and outs) and I can now easily find a particular token or store card and have an idea of the rarity and ball park figure on value.

 

I am after one certain large silver medal (CHRISTIAN GOBRECHT) right now and I think they tend to be scarce. I have an excellent bronze/brass version of the medal but I really want the 7+ oz silver medal to go with it.

 

I bought something that had the particular medal, along with a 1871 Liberty Seated Dollar, however I could not tell much from the picture if the Seated Dollar would be in good enough shape to recoup some of the cost of the medal I was initially after. Sadly the Liberty Seated Dollar was far below AU/BU as described and I had no other option but to return it for my $1,450.00 refund. I was not willing to go that high for the Gobrecht Medal.

 

Since collecting these larger medals I have had to order a smaller lens for my bellows setup since I can't fit the larger medals in the frame with the 105mm lens.

 

Bottom line; if you have the Gobrecht Medal that matches the following medal, only in silver, let me know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

"As for the weight of these pieces, I'm not so sure that is a good way to authenticate them. These piece had to be struck several times to bring up the design, and some trimming must be done between each strike which takes a varying amount of metal from each piece."

 

Yep.

The medal department struck pieces on oversize blanks without a collar. These were trimmed on a lathe between strikes (or as needed) to remove excess metal and to maintain the correct shape. Since each medal was an individual product, you will find that the weight varies from piece to piece. According to the extant "Medal and Proof Coin" journals, gold and silver medals were individually priced by weight of the finished product.

 

 

[BillJones]

A couple of comments.

 

First, the experts I know who know a lot about metals are able to tell the good ones from the not so good ones by the general appearance and any markings that might be on the edge. They don't need to weigh them in the vast majority of cases, and they don't blow off the idea that the finish has a lot to do with attribution.

 

As for the Gobrecht dollar medal you have cited, that piece was issued privately in the 1970s or '80s. It was advertised in the national magazines like "Coins" and "COINage." Silver pieces were offered in the ads, but to my knowledge these pieces have little numismatic value beyond melt.

 

If you don't believe me, I'll cite this example. The 1961 Kennedy inaugural medal was the first such piece to be heavily promoted to the public. As a result the mintages were high even for the silver medal. What is "high?" The answer is 7,500 pieces, which is quite low for a regular issue U.S. coin, but high for a medal. Today the silver JFK inaugural medal sells about 10% above melt or less, depending upon the price of silver. The higher the price of silver; the lower the numismatic premium will be.

 

This piece is a part of the official presidential inaugural medals series, which does have a collector following. It not just some random, privately issued medal. That means that there is an established market for this piece, and yet it does not sell for that much considering the fact that many people admire JFK.

 

It is easy to over pay for medals because there are no definitive guide books on them. Much of what has been printed is outdated. It is also harder to sell them than coins because many dealers don't know anything about them, and some even sneer at you when you mention them. My advice is don't get crazy when you see something you like. Look before you leap.

 

Here is an example of the JFK silver medal. It weighs about 5.5 ounces. I paid $125 for this, which was the melt value at the time. The piece is in a nicely preserved original box, and it has the descriptive papers that were sold with it at the time. Medals that are offered without these things a worth less.

 

[wdrob]

"As for the weight of these pieces, I'm not so sure that is a good way to authenticate them. These piece had to be struck several times to bring up the design, and some trimming must be done between each strike which takes a varying amount of metal from each piece."

 

Yep.

The medal department struck pieces on oversize blanks without a collar. These were trimmed on a lathe between strikes (or as needed) to remove excess metal and to maintain the correct shape. Since each medal was an individual product, you will find that the weight varies from piece to piece. According to the extant "Medal and Proof Coin" journals, gold and silver medals were individually priced by weight of the finished product.

 

OK. Good. I will just have to wait till I can get a better look at it when it gets here.

 

They don't need to weigh them in the vast majority of cases, and they don't blow off the idea that the finish has a lot to do with attribution.

 

I am a bit confused here Bill. Are you suggesting that I 'Blew Off' your advice given on the difference in appearance between a 19th century and a 20th century medal? If so I think you took that the wrong way.

 

Silver pieces were offered in the ads, but to my knowledge these pieces have little numismatic value beyond melt. - My advice is don't get crazy when you see something you like. Look before you leap.

 

And that was my intention when I purchased that other offering. I think when you read the figure of $1,450.00 you thought I was willing to pay that for the medal. That is an incorrect assumption.

 

It came with a 1871-P Liberty Seated Dollar (that did not have good pictures) which was advertised as being AU/BU. After looking at the realized auction prices for the Seated Dollar I came to the conclusion that if it was a true AU58 to MS60 (yes I was taking a chance but I could return it) then realized auction prices demonstrated that I could sell the Seated Dollar and then be in the medal at only melt, or slightly over.

 

I don't want the Medal to re-sell. I want the Medal to match the bronze one that I all ready have. The medal was part of a series of 6 (or more) medals commemorating various notable engravers such as Barber, Gobrecht, Longacre, etc...

 

I chose to focus only on the Gobrecht since I have always thought he had one of the best (if not the best) version of the eagle on the reverse flying.

 

As of yesterday there was one listing on eBay for that Gobrecht in silver and it was part of a group of all 6 and the seller was asking $4,000.00 for all of them. He had a large number of offers but I do not see it today and I do not see where it has sold so the seller may have just gave up for now after receiving offers at or just above melt. I did not even offer anything for them. I am looking for just the Gobrecht and in silver for 'around' melt value only.

 

I will add a presidential medal in silver that I paid LESS than melt for.

 

 

 

 

 

[disme]

There is some minor confusion here. Prior to 1901 Mint medals were struck in collars

but after 1901 collars were not used except in rare cases. The variation in weights seen

for 19th century copper-bronzed medals is due to the stock from which the planchets

were cut. The Mint purchased copper strips for medals after 1855 but it varied somewhat

in thickness which produced medals of different weights.

 

The reason for the change away from collars in 1901 was that the metal had changed

from copper to bronze, following the lead of the Paris Mint.

[wdrob]

Good info. The main thing I have learned is that you can't use weight to determine if it is a 19th century strike. This has explained the inconsistency.

 

Bill's examples offered a good comparison to use in the future so I will go from there.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[Conder101]

Why would switching from copper to bronze cause them to stop using collars? If you could use them for the copper medals, why couldn't you use them for bronze?

[RWB]

Multiple documents and the Medal and Proof coin journals plus extant sales journals indicate that silver and gold medals were struck without a collar. This allowed for better filling of the dies and fewer annealing/striking cycles. Likewise, small medals such as those for exhibitions, were struck in collars.

 

Mint workers did whatever was most efficient whenever they could. Coins provided very little flexibility in production, but large medals were a craft product especially those in silver and gold. The account books I’ve seen did not give details for bronze or copper medals, and sales journal pricing for them is consistent.

 

[BillJones]

Here is the contents of a PM I sent to wdrob. I am re-posting it here to show the difference between a 19th U.S. mint medal and a 20th century piece of the same variety.

 

Here is a Nathanial Greene medal I was stuck with, for a while. I bought this in a token and medal auction from a well known dealer. I replaced it a year ago with a piece with the proper finish. When I tried to sell it I found out that the it was a modern piece that was toned or had been toned. Fortunately the auction dealer was a real stand up guy, and he refunded my money after 20 years.

 

This piece is NOT good; it is modern.

 

 

This is a 19th century strike from the U.S. mint. The original pieces made at the Paris mint from the late 1790s to early 1800s are NOT available for most collectors, like the original Diplomatic Medals. The 19th century mintage for this Nathanial Greene medal is only 40 pieces in copper.

 

Greene was one of the great unsung heroes of the American Revolution. Washington greatly admired him, and he was one of Washington's most talented officers. Unfortunately he died before he could receive his gold medal. It was awarded to his widow.

 

 

[disme]

There is no doubt that collars were used on the larger medals, in all metals, struck

prior to 1830 as records exist of expenses for the collars. In addition records exist

showing that collars were used for the large copper medals of the latter part of the

19th century.

 

I have no records handy for the gold or silver medals struck after 1855 but it was

my impression, when writing the TAMS medal book in the 1970s (Medals of the

U.S. Mint, 1792–1892), that collars had been used for all 19th century medals.

 

One of the uncertainties about all of this is the change to an hydraulic press in 1894.

Prior to that time a four-inch copper medal required at least 60 blows on the large

screw press to bring up the design (with annealing between each blow) but the hydraulic

press used only three strikes.

 

As to why the change was made in 1901 to the new process (without collars) I cannot

say for certain but probably had something to do with the fact that bronze is much harder

to work than the pure copper used prior to 1901.

 

 

[RWB]

Easily might have been different techniques for different metals. However, I expect that if a tight collar were used, many blows would displace so much metal toward and above the rim that the fin would be huge or interfere with the dies. A loose collar would allow for expansion while restraining the metal somewhat to avoid cracking. The pre-1860 mint had lots of experience with open collars--

 

The documents and journals I've seen refer to trimming the in-process medals on a lathe. The 1901 Philadelphia Mint had a medal finishing room with several lathes, and it does not look like a sudden innovation.

 

(My files are all in storage pending sale of the house and moving to a tent in the park, so I can only depend on the limited memory I have left...)

 

 

[RWB]

PS: Photos of progression sets and work at Medallic Art (the old version) show incomplete medals being trimmed between blows...

[disme]

Easily might have been different techniques for different metals. However, I expect that if a tight collar were used, many blows would displace so much metal toward and above the rim that the fin would be huge or interfere with the dies. A loose collar would allow for expansion while restraining the metal somewhat to avoid cracking. The pre-1860 mint had lots of experience with open collars--

 

The documents and journals I've seen refer to trimming the in-process medals on a lathe. The 1901 Philadelphia Mint had a medal finishing room with several lathes, and it does not look like a sudden innovation.

 

(My files are all in storage pending sale of the house and moving to a tent in the park, so I can only depend on the limited memory I have left...)

 

I tend to agree with the above. My problem, however, is similar in that

several hundred pages of notes on medals made in the 1970s for the

TAMS book are boxed up.

 

An open (loose) collar is a good suggestion. One early record does

mention, if memory serves correctly, a “spring” collar.

[RWB]

OK...a "spring" collar - even if used in the summer or winter - would permit the metal to deform uniformly, yet restrain it enough to avoid most cracks.

[disme]

OK...a "spring" collar - even if used in the summer or winter - would permit the metal to deform uniformly, yet restrain it enough to avoid most cracks.

. No, it is to keep the medal from FALLing out of the press!

[RWB]

I knew I AUTUMN have avoided this thread!

[Conder101]

Is there also a possiblity that after striking multiple times using either no collar or a close collar, the final striking would be done with a close collar to provide the finished edge of the medal and rim? Striking with a close collar or no collar would leave a rounded edge. This would be removed and converted into a flat edge by trimming on a lathe but might leave tooling traces. A final striking in a close collar would provide a flat smooth finished edge.

 

Didn't they use that technique with the UHR and/or HR 1907 Saint-Gaudens double eagles? Initial strikes with a close collar and then the final strike with the segemented collar that applied the edge lettering.