Q. David Bowers
'I critically examined the above coin and pronounce it genuine and an original dollar of 1804, (Signed) R.A. McClure, Curator.
'I examined the above coin and quite agree with all that is said in the letter. (Signed) Chas. E. Barber, Engraver.'
"We come now to the celebrated Haseltine-R, Coulton Davis specimen for which, 'curiously,' no older pedigree can be provided.
"The affidavit reads: " 'United States Mint, Philadelphia, Penn. Assay Department. Septr. 17, 1878. "
'In compliance with the request: of Mr. R. Coulton Davis, I have made a critical examination of the, Dollar of 1804, in his collection.
" 'Upon comparison with the specimen in the Cabinet of the U.S. Mint, I have no doubt that this dollar is one of the original issue-and not a "restrike" from Mint dies. (Signed) Wm. E. DuBois, assayer & in charge of the Mint Cabinet.'
"This letter affidavit is, perhaps, the most curious of all since it is from the pen of William E. DuBois, curator of the Mint Cabinet for over forty years. DuBois, the Nestor of the Mint's employees, had witnessed the striking of the first 1804 dollars in 1834-1835, and was undoubtedly familiar with the events that followed. Furthermore, being a proficient numismatist, and having both issues at his disposal, he could undoubtedly detect the marked differences between the reverse dies of each. He must also have known that whereas the edge lettering on the 1834-1835 'originals' had been applied to the planchets prior to striking, and was subsequently defaced by the die collar, the opposite was true with regard to the later 'restrikes.' And yet he does not merely authenticate the R. Coulton Davis specimen, but he asserts that it 'is one of the original issue-and not a 'restrike' from Mint dies.'
"It was to be expected that such official nonsense would soon insinuate itself into the great auctions of the day. Thus, in the description of the Linderman specimen by Scott & Co., Feb. 28, 1888, we read: 'The latest impressions are said to have plain edges, and the others have muddled inscriptions, but this is of neither sort. At previous sales, inferior specimens have sold for $1,000 and $2,000. The perfection of the one now offered should command a large advance on all preceding offers.'
"And again in the May 21, 1888 Woodward sale of the aforementioned R. Coulton Davis restrike: 'REV., sharp and equal to obv., head and breast of eagle also slightly worn by circulation, the edge bears the usual incused description "HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT," plainly visible and not partly destroyed as in the restrikes. Extremely Fine, the finest original dollar of this date ever offered at auction. Entirely different in appearance from the brilliant Proof restrikes of which several specimens have within a few years made their appearance in the market.'
"Thus the argument, which had, anyway, never been settled to anyone's satisfaction, was given the impetus of six new contestants, The owners of the so-called 'originals' naturally looked askance at the interlopers who, in turn, castigated the former with sophistries' which were ingenious if not altogether convincing.
"As a critical juncture an even more challenging question was put to the numismatic fraternity: Aside from the dozen or so known specimens which might or might not be genuine, what had become of the near twenty thousand dollars said to have actually been coined in 1804 according to the duplicate reports of the director and the Bullion Ledger?
"Over the past century numerous conjectures (most of them highly fanciful) have been advanced to account for this strange contradiction. It is known that in 1804 Director Boudinot halted the coinage of silver dollars because the majority were being exported for their foreign trade value, As a result of this fact it has often been inferred that-the entire issue. was thrown back into the melting pot, The difficulty with this theory is that of the 19,570 coins said to have been struck, only 14,070 pieces were deposited in the Bank of the U.S. where they could be easily retrieved. The remaining 5,500 went into 'sundry accounts' which were scattered throughout the country.
"The first clue to the mystery came in a surprising way. In 1913, S.H. Chapman pointed out that the early 'Mint ledgers showed only the amount of coins turned over during the year by the cashier or the treasurer of the Mint, Without any reference to actual dates. By way of a supplement, a study of coin varieties revealed that dies, in the early days Of the Mint, were generally used until worn out, even when they survived beyond the length of a given year. Thus, the absence of all but a dozen or so rather questionable 1804 dollars becomes intelligible. For despite three different attempts at the Mint to create this rarity, and the hundreds of thousands of words which have been written on the subject-despite even the records which tell you in black and white that 19,570 silver dollars were struck in that year, the fact remains that no genuine 1804 dollar ever existed. All that were made in that year were dated 1803!
"In addition to the directorship, the Hon. James Pollock inherited from his predecessor an incorrigible love of numismatics. The grande obsession, in fact, sometimes found expression in his annual report which would close with a plaintive appeal for more appropriations for the Mint Cabinet.
"Unlike Snowden, however, the new director seems to have been keenly sensitive to the growing animadversions against the private and select distribution of patterns, and the restriking of earlier dates which were subsequently used to deceive credulous collectors.
"As a result, on July 1, 1866, he issued a 'circular letter' (the original document is in the library of John J. Ford Jr.) providing a set of rules and regulations governing the public distribution of 'Cabinet Coins,' a euphemism adopted to cover the category of patterns in its new extended meaning. It read in part as follows:
" ' .... To aid in the execution of Medal and Coin dies, the Mint, nearly thirty years ago, imported the French Machine, the Tour a`Portrait of Contamin, for making dies from models. The Mint has recently contracted for, and is daily expecting, Hill's Engraving Machine, purchased under authority of Hon. Hugh McCulloch, secretary of the Treasury, an English invention, for which it is claimed, that for its superior powers, and singular ingenuity, it will supersede the other apparatus. We therefore expect to do justice to any orders, at a less expense, and in less time, than under the former system.
" 'The occasion calls for a revision of our operations in this line, and for some reduction of prices, as will be found in the annexed schedule. And as cognate branches, it is proposed to unite therewith, the annual issue of Proof or master coins of the regular series, as heretofore; and the specimen or "pattern" coins which are not adopted, or do not become so, within the year of their date. [The term "pattern" is used here, out of deference to the technicalities of collectors, not because of its peculiar fitness; for if the piece fails to be adopted, it is not properly a pattern. "Experimental" is a better term.] These last have hitherto been given out, or withheld by no rule whatsoever; although they have by degrees attained to a very considerable importance, on account of the eagerness of many collectors to obtain them. There is, indeed, a pretty strong reason, why these should be used only for their special purpose; namely to aid the Treasury Department, or a congressional committee, in forming an idea of the size, appearance and practicability of any newly proposed coin, or of any change of devices in an old one. But it has been found impossible to put this rigid limit upon them. If we strike only a few, the ambitious collector will have one at any price; and a competition is created, out of all proportions to the merits of the prize. It seems better, therefore, avoiding the error of making such pieces too plentiful, to give some scope to the acquisition of them.