Q. David Bowers
In the 1950s Stephen K. Nagy told the present writer that large quantities of 1801-2-3 Proof novodels passed through his hands in a single lot shortly after the year 1900, and that he had sold several hundred pieces in a group to a Colorado numismatist, and that they had not come on the market since then, nor did he disclose this information to Edgar H. Adams.(Adams was America's foremost numismatic researcher in the 15 years immediately following the year 1900, a time when Stephen K. Nagy was very active in the rare coin business.)No such cache of 1801-2-3 novodels (Nagy was careful to say that no 1804-dated dollars were included) has come to light since then, so perhaps a future generation of numismatists will be delighted and surprised with the dispersal of this hoard. There is no reason to doubt Nagy's assertion, for other information he provided seemed to be reliable. On the other hand, it may have been a made-up story to impress me.
If 1802 and 1803 novodels were made at the Mint in the mid- or late 1830s, a cache of these would have had to have remained intact until they were first marketed by Mint officials in 1876. From 1836 to 1876 is a long time, a span of four decades. During this interval, persons connected with the Mint had made and sold numerous delicacies, including restrike 1840-1849 half cents, 1856 Flying Eagle cents, 1851 1852 restrike dollars, and many other items. If these 1802-1803 novodels had been on hand in storage at the Mint, how could the temptation have been resisted to have marketed them before 1876? Of course, the same thing could be said about the dies in storage.(Possibility suggested by Harry E. Salyards, M.D., letter to the author, January 15, 1993. Presumably, dies would have been under tighter security than minted coins would have been.)
1801-2-3 novodels struck about the same time:
As the 1801 novodels were marketed in 1876 with the 1802 and 1803 novodels, the 1801 novodels were under the care of the same person. This seems to indicate a common purpose and, probably, a common striking time for the origin of the 1801 with the 1802 and 1803 pieces.
The rarity of the 1801 novodels today is explained by the attrition of the dies. The obverse failed, apparently early in the striking process. To create additional coins would have meant making a new obverse. This was not done. Presumably, only a very few 1801 novodels were made.
Weight of the 1801-2-3 novodels: It is curious, even telling, that all known 1801-2-3 novodels weigh in the range of 419.5 and 423 grains. (Newman-Bressett, p. 50, as well as the author's own findings.) These weights are far above any reported for Class I, II, or III 1804 dollars and are above the 416-grain authorized weight for silver dollars up to January 18, 1837, and the 412.5-grain standard in use after that time.
Returning to the puzzle of the weight of the 1801-2-3 novodels, at 419.5 to 423 grains, it seems indeed curious that if they had been produced in the mid-1830s, when most if not all Class I 1804 dollars were made, that they would not have been struck on planchets under the 416-grain standard. This has been demonstrated by the weights of Class I 1804 dollars. Conclusion: 1801-2-3 novodels were not struck before January 18, 1837, when the 416-grain standard was in effect.(Michael Hodder notes that he Groves-Gibson specimen from Superior's 1/93 sale, Lot 615 is said to weigh 370.70 grains, but this may be a cataloguing error.)
1801-2-3 novodel facts reviewed: We know these facts:
1. All 1801-2-3 novodels weigh from 419.5 grains to 423 grains.
2. Trade dollars, first authorized and minted in 1873, are of 420-grain standard (with a tolerance of 419.5 to 423 grains being acceptable), a weight unlike that of any other previous United States silver coin. In other words, prior to 1873, the Mint would not have had planchets weighing 420+/- grains on hand.
3. No 1801-2-3 novodels were known to numismatists until 1876. During the late 1850s and early 1860s, Mint officials and others connected with the Mint sold many fancy restrikes and special pieces, and yet during that time, no 1801-2-3 novodels came on the market.
Posing questions: Could it be that 1,801-2-3 novodels did not exist in the late 1850s and early 1860s? Could it be that they were not made in the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, or 1860s?
1801-2-3 novodels first struck in the 1870s?: So far as I know, all Class I 1804 dollars are of a reverse die state (break through NITED) earlier than the 1801-2-3 novodels. Accordingly, the 1801-2-3 novodels were made later than the Class I dollars.
Could it have been the case that the dies for the 1802 and 1803 novodels, plus the Reverse X die, were kept on hand at the Mint or in the hands of someone else, until the early 1870s, and first used to strike 1802-1803 novodels at that time? At that time, a new obverse die could have been made up for the 1801, using the damaged Draped Bust punch (or a die prepared earlier but only with the Draped Bust punch impressed), but new punches for the letters and stars (for, perhaps, the old ones no longer were on hand); this would explain why the l801 does not match the 1802-1803. Using 420 grain planchets on hand at the Mint for the current production of trade dollars, the 1802, 1803, and 1801 novodels were struck, in that order, sometime between 1873 and when they were first marketed in 1876.
Author's conclusion: Sometime c. 1873-1876, Mint Director Henry Richard Linderman or someone under his direction, took the 1802 and 1803 novodel obverses, to this point unused, made a new 1801 novo del obverse, and combined these with the Reverse X to strike 1801-2-3 novodel dollars on trade dollar planchets. This late striking could easily explain the significantly higher average grade of 1801-2-3 novodels in existence today, in comparison to 1804 dollars (all of which were made before the 1870s) and, for that matter, surviving Proof coins known to have been actually struck in the 1830s (such as original 1836 and 1839 Gobrecht dollars).
Point of caution: As this book goes to press, detailed die progression studies of extant specimens of Class I 1804 dollars have not been made. Should these studies be made in the future, it will be possible to make additional conclusions, such as whether any Class I 1804 dollars have the NITED break any more advanced than seen on the 1802- 1803 novodels. As we believe that the 1801 novo del represented the latest use of this die, any intermediate coinages of Class I 1804 dollars would have to show the NITED break more advanced than on the 1801-1802-1803 novodels.