Posted 8/25/17
Distinguishing Dickeson's Dollars:
1876 Dickeson Continental Currency Dollar Imposters
The Dickeson Continental Currency
Dollar Copy of 1876 is such a perennial favorite among Hibler-Kappen, So-Called
Dollar collectors, that it even has its own restrikes.[i] After all, these
medals are the closest most will ever come to owning the prohibitively
expensive, 1776 Continental Currency Dollars, upon which they are based. The
original Continental dollars were primarily struck in pewter, with just a few in
brass and silver; and were likely produced between 1776 and 1783.[ii] They start out, in the worst condition, around $20,000. The
Dickeson versions of 1876, and their 20th Century restrikes, were
made from similar metals and are much more affordable by comparison, at about $1000
for the 1876 and about $100 for a modern version. That said; the 1876 medal in
copper, cataloged as HK-853, is actually scarcer than some of the 1776 coins.
So elusive is HK-853 that few people have seen one, and it is often confused
with its modern restrikes. Some collectors, dealers, auctioneers, and even some
expert graders have been fooled by common 1962 restrikes, masquerading as rare 1876
originals, primarily due to the lack of accurate, published information on the
differences between them.
During the 1876 US Centennial Convention
in Philadelphia, Montroville W. Dickeson; 1809 to 1882; capped off his long and
illustrious career as doctor, archaeologist, numismatist, and author of the
groundbreaking, American Numismatic
Manual of 1859, by presenting his own version of the famous Continental Currency
Dollar.[iii] These medals were minted by the hundreds in gleaming white metal,
HK-854, with just a few handfuls struck in showy red copper, HK-853.[ix] Trial
strikes also exist in lead and brass, and a few dozen were struck in silver. Collectors
often find the copper version the most aesthetically pleasing, and with an average
thickness of about 4mm, they were hefty and substantial works of art. Unfortunately
for collectors, the HK-853 is exceedingly difficult to find today.
It should be noted that these Dickeson medals are often
incorrectly categorized as “restrikes.” However, Dickeson created a more
refined, innovative design than seen on the 1776 Continental Currency Dollar. While
mimicking the 1776 issue, his is much more sophisticated in both style and
execution; perhaps representing what the original may have looked like had it
been coined a century later. Thus, because it is a new design, it is not a restrike,
and more appropriately referred to as “the Dickeson Continental Currency Dollar,”
or even “the Dickeson Copy,” etc.
Despite the enhancements, Dickeson’s dies maintained a level of rustic
craftsmanship, due to a number of delicate, hand-cut features. The wood grain
table was hand-engraved, and the letters show numerous re-punched characters.
Many of the original Dickeson Continental Dollars were noticeably double
struck, as well. Also of note is the hand-engraved rim beading, probably
applied in sections with a punch containing several beads, as there is a raised
shelf connecting them. The sections must have been meticulously overlapped, end
over end, as a doubled image shows on each of the overlapped beads.
Images Courtesy of Heritage Auctions
1876 Dickeson Continental Currency Dollar Copy, HK-853, Copper
The Dickeson
Continental Dollar Copies were special medals, even in their day, and there
seems to be some controversy concerning where the dies went, and exactly how
they were used, after Dickeson’s death in 1882. Some have suggested that additional
HK-853 mintings took place.[v] All we know for certain is that the obverse die was in the
possession of Pittsburgh coin dealer and auctioneer, Thomas Elder, in 1917. Where
they were before that is a mystery. Whether
or not Elder possessed both dies; and more importantly, whether or not he decided
to make any additional HK-853 medals from them, is undocumented. Nevertheless, all existing evidence suggests
he did not. For many years, it was believed Elder was responsible for pairing Dickeson’s
Continental Dollar obverse die with other reverse designs to strike a series of
mulings, as the first documentation of such creations came when they were
offered in Elder’s numismatic auctions, in the early 1900s. If he was able of
making these, he was capable of making HK-853s as well, if he had the reverse
die.
However, a study in 1980, by numismatist and Elder specialist, Thomas
K. DeLorey, suggests the thick planchets used for these mulings were more
similar to the work of Dickeson, “or one of his contemporaries,” than to the
documented works of Elder.[vi] DeLorey could not prove they were the work of
Dickeson, but he chose to list them “as such only to disassociate them from
Elder.”[vii] In other words, Elder did not make them, but Dickeson might not
have, either. DeLorey’s general observation was that, “the letter and number
punches” for the various mulings were “noticeably 19th century in
style,” but also different from those used for Dickeson’s work.[viii]
Continental Currency/Confederation Muling. HK-860. Images courtesy of Heritage Auctions.
For example, the lettering on the Continental Confederation muling
reverse, HK-860, is clearly of different style than the Continental Currency
obverse. Another indication that someone struck these pieces after Dickeson’s
time can be seen in the large, uniformly machined rim decorations used on the reverse
of the same Continental Confederation muling, which was resoundingly different
from the hand-engraved rim treatment used on Dickeson’s obverse, with which it
was paired. Perhaps after Dickeson’s death, the company that produced his
medals sought to profit by quickly realizing new dies from an unfinished Dickeson
design sketch; adding a less tedious rim decoration; and pairing the mismatched
sides together to strike new medals on Dickeson’s leftover planchets. It is
doubtful that Dickeson would have approved of this sloppy coupling, had he intended
to associate himself with it.[ix]
Original hand-engraved rim decorations. Click to enlarge.
Machined rim dentils of Confederation reverse. Click to enlarge.
An even stronger indicator that these were post-Dickeson issues is
the die emission sequence. It is easy to see that the various post-1876 mulings
were struck from an advanced die state. A noticeable obverse die break had
developed through the outer circle, just above the C in CONTINENTAL; and die
clashing of the sun’s rays appears through the XII on the sundial on all post-1876
issues. Additionally, the coiner, whoever he was, felt it necessary to file
down and polish the surfaces to remove rust and imperfections, prior to production,
creating impressive Prooflike and sometimes DMPL luster on these various
mulings.[x]
Some remnants of this die crack (left) and these clash marks (right) are present on all post-1876 issues
The old dies were brought back to life by somebody; probably after
Dickeson’s time; whether it was someone in the 1880s, or even Thomas Elder. It
cannot be forgotten that Thomas Elder did possess at least the obverse die in
1917, and he did strike a muling with it, using a reverse that bore his name
and date.
But, even if Elder did make the mulings, he did not strike any
HK-853s; again, all post-1876 uses of the obverse die, including Elder’s 1917
medal, show the same refinished surfaces and die breaks, which no known HK-853
exhibits. We have examined, both in person and through auction records, as many
HK-853s as possible to confirm that none have either the die breaks or the
refinished surfaces. In 1980, DeLorey was
also of the opinion that “no Elder strikings from the original reverse die are
known.”[xi] Anecdotal evidence that they were not reproduced comes in the very
low surviving population of the HK-853, at about a dozen pieces.
1917 Thomas Elder Muling. Note rim decorations similar to HK-860/ Images courtesy of Heritage Auctions.
With the Elder debate closed, the actual restrikes came some 85 years after the original 1876 issue, in 1961
and 1962, when the coming Bicentennial created a new popularity surge in
patriotic ephemera in America. First, Q. David Bowers’ Empire Coin Company acquired
the original Dickeson dies; which were now definitely together and in the famous
collection of John J. Ford. Empire then commissioned some 7,200 pieces to be
coined in white metal, HK-854A, by John Pinches, Ltd., of England.[xii]
Soon
thereafter, the dies were sold to dealer, Robert Bashlow; already known for coining
similar reproductions of the 1861 Confederate Cent. In 1962, he hired a
Philadelphia firm, August C. Frank Co., to create a second, massive wave of
restrikes of the Dickeson Continental Currency Dollar, amid excessive hype.
After 2,000 were struck in silver, HK-852A; 3,000 in golden brass, HK-856A; and
5,000 in bronze, HK-853A; Bashlow’s advertisements boasted that his medals were
already trading for premiums. And further, he claimed that the mintage figures could
never increase because “the dies [had] already been donated to the Smithsonian
Institution.”[xiii]
This set quickly becomes a challenge to assemble due to the number
of pieces needed for completion, but also because of the risk of mis-identification.
In fact, some of the modern restrikes have been masquerading as 1876 originals.
In recent years, we have documented several 1962 Bashlow medals that were
unknowingly certified as 1876 originals and sold at auction by unwitting
dealers, to equally unaware collectors. If all slabbed and catalogued examples of
HK-853 could be recalled and re-categorized, the true survival rate would be
smaller than population reports and auction records indicate.
The problem stems from the lack of reliable information on the
nuances of these medals, and a detailed analysis is now in order. Popular
belief is that the 1961 Bowers and 1962 Bashlow Restrikes can be differentiated
from the 1876 Dickeson originals by the presence or absence of a few reliable
die scratches around the word CONTINENTAL. Unfortunately, while this works for
Bowers Restrikes, it does not always work for those of Bashlow. First, one must
accept that, despite misleading assertions made in Bashlow advertising, the evidence
confirms that neither the Bowers nor the Bashlow pieces were struck from the
original Dickeson dies. Rather, transfer hubs and dies were made from molds of
the original dies, before Bashlow donated the original dies to the Smithsonian,
where they reside today.
Note the S near the bottom of the reverse on Bashlow's silver medal, HK-852A. Image courtesy of EZ_E of the NGC forum.
It was long believed that Bowers and Bashlow used the original dies, but in his article, DeLorey confirmed that Bashlow
actually made transfer dies, noting that “the transfer hubs are still in numismatic
circles, as are at least one copy obverse die and two copy reverse dies.”[xiv] More
recently, David Bowers confirmed in writing that both his 7,200 white metal restrikes,
and Bashlow’s various issues, were made with transfer dies.[xv] An ounce of common
sense tells us that Bashlow must have had more than one set of dies because his
silver version displayed a special S mark on the reverse, in the fashion of a
mint mark, denoting its silver content. On the Bowers dies, it's harder to tell.
Next, we must acknowledge that multiple dies mean multiple
diagnostics. First of all, the defects on the Bowers medals do not match those
of Bashlow, proving they are not from the same dies. It appears that all the
Bowers Restrikes were coined from a single set of transfer dies, which display
several prominent, unique die defects. The most notable of these is a die gouge
in the beading above the O in CONTINENTAL, which holds true as a diagnostic of the
Bowers issue and does not seem to exist on the original dies. Also, the Bowers Restrike, which was advertised as a Proof,
generally comes with gleaming Prooflike surfaces, indicating special
preparation of the dies. That said, the Bowers dies faithfully reproduce the classic die break,
near the C in CONTINENTAL, and some of the clashing through the XII; which,
again, developed at some point after the 1876 runs were completed. Additionally, the Bowers dies also preserve evidence of die rust, and die scratches, as they
existed on the originals. It is easy to see how some may think these were struck from the original dies.
As for the various Bashlow pieces, those of golden brass, which he
called “goldine” do not resemble the originals in any way. Further, Bashlow’s
silver pieces have their distinctive S mark. Therefore, these two metallic
compositions can be eliminated from the discussion of diagnostics. Likewise, Bashlow
advertisements suggest that some were struck in various other metals as “trial
pieces” or trial strikes.[xvi] While these are not specifically documented, at
least one silver Bashlow Restrike has been found to be struck over a Peace
dollar; another in gold was struck over a U.S. Double Eagle. These overstrikes
are likely what were referenced in the Bashlow ads, and again, do not pose any
risk of misidentification.
The bronze pieces, on the other hand, are more easily confused
with the 1876 copper originals. Sometimes the Bashlow packaging even leaves
these red coppers with dark streaks and, occasionally, brown patina; making
them seem older than they are. Full red specimens are scarce. In terms of diagnostics, the die defect above O,
used to identify Bowers Restrikes, is absent from Bashlow’s dies. Instead, collectors
have been looking for a die scratch at the rim, between the C and O in CONTINENTAL,
as the diagnostic of Bashlow pieces. However, this advice has proven
inadequate; the die scratch is actually a die crack that developed after a
number of coins were struck from a specific die. Our analysis of high-grade
pieces reveals some examples with and without the crack. Additionally, we have
observed examples showing as many as three cracks along the word CONTINENTAL.
It also remains a possibility that more than one set of dies was
used to achieve this high mintage, i.e., 5,000 in bronze and 3,000 in brass, but
our analysis was not conclusive. We did find evidence that the same cracked
dies were used across both bronze and brass, which could indicate that the
surviving obverse and two reverse dies, about which Delorey spoke, were the
only dies produced.[xvii] This seems the likely case, as we also noticed extensive
die polishing taking place after the dies cracked, which indicates that efforts
were made to refurbish them along the way.
The same obverse die was used interchangeably on both bronze, HK-853A, and
brass, HK-856A, pieces. Early die states of Bashlow's dies show no cracks on right side, and later ones show three or more. Therefore, die lines on the right side are not diagnostic of Bashlow Restrikes.
The previous information is valuable, but frankly, unnecessary. There
are much easier ways to tell the differences between the 1876 and 1962 issues. The
restrikes actually bear little resemblance to the 1876 originals, in the eyes
of seasoned experts, or just anyone who has actually seen the real Dickeson
medals. First of all, the intricate details and luster flow lines of the partially
hand-engraved, Dickeson originals do not compare to the factory molded appearance
and transformed surface texture of the modern, transfer die restrikes.
In
addition to completely changed surfaces, the Bashlow issues, in particular, are
actually missing some major details. Bashlow’s transfer dies were heavily
polished to remove evidence of the aforementioned die breaks, clashes, and die
rust; all of which were preserved on the Bowers issue. DeLorey may have
examined the Bashlow hub, firsthand, as he noted that “95% of the die break had
been removed” from it.[xviii] A tiny spike can still be seen on the circle, on
Bashlow medals.
However, Bashlow did not stop there; the transfer dies were so
heavily resurfaced to remove old-time defects that major design elements were
also carelessly erased. Nearly all definition of the table-top is missing. In
fact, the top left edge is completely gone, causing the sundial to seemingly hover
above the ground. Parts of the sun’s delicate rays, as well as much of the fine
detail around the rims, are also gone. The shelf-like connectivity of the long,
plump beads on Dickeson’s original medals are replaced by small, misshapen, and
obviously separated nubs that are so far away from the rims that they seem to
be floating in the open fields. This effect becomes more pronounced as the
Bashlow dies were further polished, taking away even more of the beading. One
should also note that the restrikes have a thin, wire-like rim, which stands in
sharp contrast to the thick, squared-off rims of the HK-853. These skimpy beads
and wire rims bear no resemblance to the original medals.
The hand-engraved table lines on Dickeson's original dies, which do weaken over time; as seen on Bower's dies; actually disappear on Bashlow's dies. Click images to enlarge!
Additionally, there is an obvious flaw on all Bashlow pieces, which
is a true diagnostic. A curved, incuse gouge that interrupts the dentils just
left of the date is readily visible on all
Bashlow Restrikes, across all metallic compositions. This defect was likely created
on the hub during the initial transfer process, or it is another indication
that only one obverse die was produced. This flaw is easy to spot and is a true
diagnostic of Bashlow’s crude creations.
In summary, the 1876 dies were perfect when the 853s were struck. After
1876, the dies were put back into service with the clashing and die scratches,
and heavily polished, refinished surfaces. Next, the Bowers transfers were made in England,
closely mirroring the original dies except for an obvious die defect near O. Bashlow’s transfers were made the
following year in Philadelphia, and were heavily lapped to remove the original imperfections,
along with many fine details in the table lines and rim beading.
1) The thick rims and connected beading of the 1876 dies do not compare to the Bashlow transfers. 2) The Bashow dies show a distinct die defect left of the date. 3) The same dies were used interchangeably across both compositions, suggesting these may have been struck to order. 4) Late die states show misshapen beading.
Finally, in differentiating original from restrike, one should not
forget the hefty nature of the 1876 copper medals. Auctioned examples of HK-853
have ranged between 3.75mm and 6mm in thickness. Even the 1876 white metal,
HK-854 pieces measure in around 3.75mm. The Bashlow and Bowers Restrikes were
made on a standard, 2.5mm planchet stock and are much thinner, lighter, and
easily discovered imposters.
The 1876 Dickeson Continental Currency Dollar Copies are both
coveted pieces of numismatic history and high-quality, early So-Called Dollar treasures.
Yet, because few people have been able to examine original 1876 copper
examples, and because there are so many restrikes, misinformation has caused some
modern bronze pieces to be confused with copper originals. High demand for
representations of the historic Continental Currency Dollar will continue to
drive interest in related So-called dollars. For instance, Bashlow’s hub was
used again in 1964 to create dies for a Boy Scouts medal, differing from the
1962 version only in its added inscription, 6th BOY SCOUT JAMBOREE
’64, on the obverse, and the word COPY on the reverse. Indeed, perhaps Bashlow
was right that his Continental dollars “were big, bold, and impressive;” the
silver version contained “more silver than a silver dollar,” after all.[xix] Nevertheless,
if the Bashlow Restrikes are large, hefty, and shiny, when considered by
themselves, they are actually cheap imitations of Dickeson’s original medals.
Footnotes:
[i] Hibler, Harold E.; Kappen, Charles V. So-Called
Dollars: An Illustrated Standard Catalog. Tom Hoffman, Dave Hayes, Jonathan
Brecher, John Dean Ed. Clifton, NJ: Coin & Currency Institute. Kindle
Edition. 1963, 2008. P 164
[ii] Bowers, Q. David. Whitman Encyclopedia of Colonial and
Early American Coins: The Only Authoritative Reference on All Pre-Federal
Coinage. Atlanta; Whitman Publishing, LLC. 2009. P 238.
[iii]. Bowers, 305. Of Dickeson’s Manuel, Bowers notes
that, “Today it remains a classic and is worthy of rediscovery by collectors” (Bowers,
18).
[iv] Bowers, 307.
[v] Bowers
speculated of “additional pieces by Elder” (Bowers, 307).
[vi] DeLorey, Thomas K. “Thomas L. Elder: A Catalogue of
His Tokens and Medals.” The Numismatist. Vol. 93, No 6-7. June-July. American
Numismatic Association, Colorado Springs. Crawfordsville, Indiana. R.R.
Donnelley & Sons Co. (1980). p 1622.
[vii] DeLorey, 1623.
[viii] DeLorey, 1622.
[ix] For what it’s worth, this distinctive rim treatment
also appears on a muling of Dickeson’s obverse and Thomas Elder’s dated, 1917
reverse.
[x] DeLorey found that this refinishing was probably done to
remove some of the clashing that had developed on the well-used dies (DeLorey, 1623).
[xi] DeLorey, 1624.
[xii] Bowers, 306 .
[xiii] Bashlow, Robert. “The Continental Currency Dollar.”
The Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine. August 1962. P 2255
[xiv] DeLorey, 1623.
[xv] Bowers, 307.
[xvi] Bashlow, 2255.
[xvii] A detail that DeLorey also asserted (DeLorey, 1623)
[xviii] DeLorey, 1624.
[xix] Bashlow, 2255.
Bibliography
Hibler, Harold E.; Kappen, Charles V. So-Called Dollars: An
Illustrated Standard Catalog. Tom Hoffman, Dave Hayes, Jonathan Brecher, John
Dean Ed. Clifton, NJ: Coin & Currency Institute. Kindle Edition. 1963,
2008. P 164.
Bashlow, Robert. “The Continental Currency Dollar.” The Numismatic
Scrapbook Magazine. August 1962. P 2254-2255.
Bowers, Q. David. Whitman Encyclopedia of Colonial and Early
American Coins: The Only Authoritative Reference on All Pre-Federal Coinage.
Atlanta; Whitman Publishing, LLC. 2009.
DeLorey, Thomas K. “Thomas L. Elder: A Catalogue of His Tokens and
Medals.” The Numismatist. Vol. 93, No 6-7. June-July. American Numismatic
Association, Colorado Springs. Crawfordsville, Indiana. R.R. Donnelley &
Sons Co. (1980). p 1337, 1622-1624.
Thomas Elder and HK-860 images used with permission from Heritage Auctions.
Special thanks to EZ_E of the NGC forum for supplying original Bashlow advertisements from The Numismatic Scrapbook, in addition to several photographs.
