Q. David Bowers
Over the years various specialists have given their opinions concerning rarity, and updatings have been published of the ratings given by M.H. Bolender in 1950. This information has been of great value to me in compiling rarity information concerning early dollars. In many instances, Bolender was conservative, and allowed for the future discovery of additional pieces. In other instances, he was optimistic. In any event, the Bolender estimates are history now, for two generations of numismatists have had the opportunity to build upon and refine his ideas.
All research efforts in numismatics build upon the efforts of others. In 1950, M.H. Bolender took under advisement the comments made by Capt. J.W. Haseltine in his 1881 Type-Table, and if that old time Philadelphia dealer called a variety "excessively rare" (one of Haseltine's favorite ways to describe an ultra-rare piece), surely Bolender factored this into his own ratings. For dollar enthusiasts, the Bolender text with its subsequent updatings serves as a jumping-off spot, a home base to which one constantly returns for information and numismatic nurturing.
However, the Bolender work has its inconsistencies. In one instance, he mentioned that he had seen just one specimen of a subvariety, and yet he called it Rarity-6 meaning that dozens are known, if he meant R-6 on the Sheldon Scale. In other instances, he described one or two die cracks on a coin, and ignored others, sometimes almost as obvious.
Apparently, Bolender knew little about the die-making and coin striking processes. This was not unusual; most other numismatic writers didn't know much on these subjects either, In 1950, Walter H. Breen was a relative beginner in numismatics, Don Taxay was completely unknown to the collecting fraternity, and RW. Julian hadn't been heard from yet. Today, in the 1990s, a lot of what we consider" common knowledge" concerning Mint history can be credited to the research efforts of these three researchers, plus notable efforts by Walter Thompson, Raymond Williamson, Eric P. Newman, and others.
Years ago, clash marks caused by dies coming together without an intervening planchet were not fully understood. The resultant die damage traces were curiously called "suction marks" by Bolender, as if some sort of vacuum process was responsible. The "suction marks" misnomer dates back at least to 1908 in Lyman H. Low's catalogue of the Dudley R Child Collection. Nor, apparently, did Bolender know much about die lapping and resurfacing, die alignment and spacing, or other technical considerations. With today's fund of information on Mint processes, it becomes easier to understand early silver dollars and their idiosyncrasies.
As strange as it may seem today, Bolender was not concerned with grading. For his own collection he endeavored to acquire one of each variety, and a VF or EF would do nicely. Had he wanted to, he could have acquired AU and Mint State specimens for certain varieties at relatively little cost. While the guidelines for building his own collection were properly his own business, it is to be regretted that he did not keep notes on the grade levels of the 5,000 specimens he observed over a period of 40 years, in the manner that Dr. William H. Sheldon did for his Early American Cents book, which was published in 1949, the year before Bolender's opus.
Today, the sophisticated collector of early dollars is interested in more than a basic rarity rating. If I were to write that 200 specimens existed of 1795 Bolender-50 (to create a hypothetical variety), this would not be a fraction as useful as information stating that 100 are known, including one MS-65 coin, one MS-63, two to four MS-60 pieces, a dozen AUs, 25 to 50 EF coins, and 100 or so in VF grade, etc.
As noted, grading information is close at hand with the population reports issued by NGC and PCGS, but it is largely useless unless the coins are seen in person or reliably reported, for published data of these two certification services do not identify the die varieties.
Auction catalogues, price lists, and dealers' advertisements present another grading problem. Is a coin advertised in 1935 as Uncirculated, in a grade we would call Uncirculated today? Often not. After examining many coins from old-time collections over a long period of years in conjunction with my rare coin business, I have come to these general conclusions for most listings prior to about 1986 (to which there are many exceptions, of course):
1. If a coin was called choice back then, it mayor may not be what we would designate as Uncirculated (Mint State) now. If it was called gem, the chances improve greatly. If it was simply called Uncirculated (or brilliant Uncirculated), chances are great that if NGC or PCGS would grade it today, the coin would be AU.
2. Rare coins such as 1794 dollars tended to be graded more liberally (at all condition levels) than common ones.
3. Among nineteenth and early twentieth-century listings, pieces described as Fair or Good were undergraded by today's standards. Further, AU was not commonly used, and many pieces graded as EF back then are what we would call AU today. Of course, this conservative grading seems a bit strange in view of the overgrading of pieces at the Uncirculated level.
4. If a coin was cleaned, this wasn't mentioned, unless it was horribly cleaned or rubbed. Nicks and edge bumps were usually overlooked.
5. Catalogue illustrations, particularly of the photographic variety, can be useful in determining grade. However, it was a common practice to use "stock" photos instead of the coins actually being sold. Certain catalogues of B. Max Mehl, Numismatic Gallery, and Hollinbeck Coin Company are notable in this regard.
How, then, did I determine grading as part of the rarity equation for the present book? The answer is that I usually employed printed catalogue grades such as Good, VG, Fine, VF, and EF as they were given, unless examination of catalogue illustrations suggested otherwise. Fortunately, some of the most extensive and best modern offerings of early dollars appeared in the catalogues of New Netherlands, Stack's, Lester Merkin, Superior, my own firm, and others I consider to be reliable (with some scattered exceptions for individual coins).
The matter of Mint State vs. AU is another consideration, and no collector, dealer, museum, or anyone else who graded Uncirculated coins years ago could have known that in 1986 and later, grading interpretations would tighten considerably. For example, in the 1950s it was perfectly acceptable for a coin described as Uncirculated to have some light rubbing. Indeed, it might be called something like "Uncirculated with light rubbing on the high points," or something similar. Today, the same coin would probably be graded AU. For this reason, I suggest that more "Uncirculated" coins appear in the historical record of auction sales than actually exist by today's standards.