|
|
The following article appeared in the John Reich Journal. I wrote it because I
was the only person who had all of the pieces to this puzzle and realized what
a great coin story it was. The piece in question is quite a dangerous forgery
and although I’ve on more than one occassion heard light made of its ability
to deceive, I would caution anyone in that regard. Most probably such people
simply like to reassure themselves by uttering such nonsense.
-Jesse Patrick
AN INTERESTING 1796 BUST HALF DOLLAR
Anyone seriously interested in United States coins that has not spent
time with old auction catalogues is really missing something. Besides being
loaded with interesting information, and in some cases being primary source
documents, these catalogues are the most extensive database we have for
rare coins. Auction catalogues thoroughly cover the over 150 years that
United States coins have been actively collected and are essential in
establishing the existence and whereabouts of particular rare coins during that
time. While it is extremely rare that any given coin does not have an auction
history, it is rather unusual to have any of that record preserved. In some
cases the information supplied in auction catalogues can be of considerable
monetary value. Personally I find it a great way to spend time with my hobby
without having to have the coins themselves around. No common burglar
would ever steal an auction catalogue as it often takes years of collecting
these before a person learns which has the most monetary value. The lore
and tradition of our hobby is no where better preserved than by the well
catalogued contents of significant collections placed at auction. Quite often
the cataloguers of these sales are the finest numismatic minds of their time
and the opinions offered of great importance, surviving the test of time.
Frankly, I attach so much importance to these sales catalogues and derive so
much pleasure from them that given the choice, I would sooner sell all of my
coins than part with the catalogues. As a dealer, I've heard it said that before
you can figure out where to sell an item it helps to know where it came from.
I know of no better education in that department than old auction sales
catalogues.
Once in a while you run across a really special catalogue that can take
you on an adventure. Such was the case one evening over a decade ago as I
perused a catalogue in which a previous owner had made comments about
some of the lots in the margins. One such comment read, "Nice, but I think
mine is nicer - few defects & etc." This is the sort of statement one would
expect to find in an old auction room copy of a sale catalogue. It was written
neatly in the margin beside lot 1289 of the Kreisberg-Schulman March 18-21,
1964 Sale of the Brand-Lichtenfels et al. Collections held in New York City.
The coin in question was a 1796 half dollar with 15 stars. Although a
noteworthy offering in any grade, this particular specimen was described in
various places in the write up as, "brilliant proof, obviously a presentation
piece, a gem and the finest specimen we have ever seen." The lot description
mentioned that this coin was originally in the famous Dr. C.A. Allenberger
Collection auctioned by B. Max Mehl on March 23, 1948, then having passed
into the collection of Dr. J.H. Judd. A check of the Allenberger catalogue
shows that the coin was indeed the same sold by Mehl as lot 385, having
realized for the time a strong $735.00. Mehl described the coin with similar
accolades noting its, "perfectly centered, unusually sharp, with even the
feathers on the eagle's breast struck up and a few minute hair-lines due from
the die and not from imperfections." Mehl also mentioned that Allenberger
had bought the coin from S.H. Chapman "many years ago". Since S.H.
Chapman died in 1931, Allenberger must have owned the coin for at least 17
years if Mehl's statement is to be believed and perhaps considerably longer.
Abe Kosoff's Illustrated History of United States Coins, published in 1962,
which is nothing more than a catalogue of Dr. Judd's Collection, shows a
picture of the same coin called proof and lists it as item 36 on page 9. That
all three coins are identical is quickly determined by a ragged, V shaped lint
mark depression on the lower left neck of Liberty. That the writer of the
concise note next to lot 1289 in the Kreisberg-Schulman sale would notice a
"few defects & etc." and prefer his own coin, although essentially agreeing
that the coin was "nice", is not uncommon. It is, however, rather unusual to
find such a comment next to a 1796 half dollar described as proof! The real
adventure begins in pondering how nice the writers coin could be compared
to that being offered and the myriad reasons any person prefers one coin over
another.
A multitude of factors come into play whenever anyone attends an
auction and views lots. Aside from financial circumstances, which seem
particularly able to alter ones perception of a coin, bidders often must rely on
mental images of other coins. Frequently a comparison must be drawn
between the coin at hand and one's memory of another, perhaps in one's own
holdings or that of a client's. If many lots are being viewed one's stamina may
come into play, here favoring those of us that are younger. Of course ones
level of expertise is extremely important.
In regard to expertise, the person making the written notation that his
coin was "nicer" was eminently qualified. Our commentator was Leo Young,
not only one of the best known dealers of his time, but also a world class
collector. His list of achievements include being one of the first members of
the Professional Numismatists Guild as well as once its president. Leo Young
was well known as a result of the many talks he gave on coins to various
groups and his close ties with many numismatic clubs and organizations. He
was very active on the West Coast, having held over two dozen coin auctions,
and was the official auctioneer for the 1959 ANA Sale held in Portland,
Oregon. Perhaps Leo Young's most important legacy to present day collectors
is the auction catalogue of his collection. His prominence as a dealer and
collector testify to the fact that Leo Young was accustomed to looking
carefully at coins. He was no doubt astutely aware that coins have many
dimensions which include surface quality, strike, luster, myriad different kinds
of toning and color, eye appeal, contact marks and pedigree; all the many
factors which illustrate the utter simple-mindlessness and stupidity of current
grading. What today is accepted as grading supposes that any coin can be
reduced and summed up in a single number by a "grading service",
subsequently to be entombed in plastic as though something truly wonderful,
or at least noteworthy, had been accomplished. Astute collectors and dealers
know better and the veterans I talked to recall Leo Young well and described
him as extremely knowledgeable about coins. Leo Young's opinion was
always direct and honest. We must believe that he thought his coin was better
than the one he was viewing when he wrote his comment. This was, after all,
his personal copy of the Kreisberg-Schulman sale catalogue and the opinion
was written for his own use and reference. Who else could possibly care
anyway if he thought his coin better than the Allenburger-Judd coin?
Perhaps Leo's coin was finer, more original in appearance or the
surfaces might have been cleaner or more even. Anyone who knows coins
will tell you that hairlines tend to stand out on mirror-like surfaces in
pronounced fashion. This would be especially true of a possibly proof example
of a coin minted in 1796! Perhaps it was such hairlines that made Leo Young
regard his coin as finer. It could be that the V shaped lint mark on the
Allenberger-Judd specimen stood out too much, was too detracting and/or
simply bothered him. Most likely he did not have his specimen in front of him
to do a direct comparison. Since the marginal note in the catalogue doesn't
give us any more information it is safe to say that at this point we'll never
know for sure exactly why he preferred his coin to the one in the auction.
That Leo Young had an eye for coins I can testify myself. Some
30 years ago, when I was still in my teens, I met him for the first and only
time. I was living in Detroit, Michigan and went downtown to a convention
that I recall was sponsored by the PNG. It was one of those sweltering, hot
summer days that only Detroit seems capable of having. One of the coins I
had been searching for was a high quality draped bust dollar. I noticed one in
a case that had been set up along one wall. This case contained a great type
set of United States coins. All of the coins were of exceptional condition. This
was apparently some sort of private exhibit since there was no one around the
case and I started asking people to find out who owned the coins and if
anything in the case was for sale. Finally a man showed up and asked what I
wanted. He introduced himself as Leo Young, a name I was already familiar
with from his auction catalogues, and told me that the bust dollar was not for
sale. However, he was very polite and opened the case to show it to me. In
the minutes following he showed me a number of coins in his type set. Believe
me, the impact of what I saw was slow to sink in. The superb barber dime in
the type set was not just an 1894 but an 1894-S! His trade dollar was an
1885! You see, Leo Young not only collected type coins but tried to include
the rarest coin of each type whenever he could. Not only were his coins of
high quality but any given type might include the rarest coin of the series and
occasionally, as above, a legendary rarity. I cannot remember seeing his 1796
half dollar that day as his display was mind boggling in itself, the coins so
beautiful and replete with great rarities.
Around a decade later I made my way to California and established
myself in the spectacular San Francisco Bay Area. One of the people I got to
know was Leo Young's son, Gary. By this time Leo Young was not as visible
on the numismatic scene and what void was left by Leo in the Oakland area
seemed to filled by Gary. After knowing Gary for a number of years I was
given the opportunity in the mid 1970's to buy his personal numismatic library
which was fairly substantial and most likely the best of its kind on United
States coins, outside of my own, in the entire Bay Area. That purchase in
itself is another great story. Suffice it to say that among the books and
auction catalogues which came with the purchase was Leo Young's personal
copy of the Kreisberg-Schulman Brand-Lichtenfels Sale boldly signed by him
on the cover. Noting that the catalogue had a lot of information written in the
margins and that it had been Leo Young's I decided to keep it.
Both Leo and Gary Young seem to have been blessed with the best
market timing. This is clearly evident in Leo's case with the sale of his United
States coin collection in 1980, right around the time of the ANA convention,
by RARCOA in their part of Auction '80. United States coins were bringing
record prices at the time. Some four months earlier the second part of the
John Work Garrett Collection had been sold at simply astounding prices. Leo
Young's coins also brought very strong prices and included in the sale as lot
1594 was his specimen of the 1796 15 Star variety half dollar. The coin was
shown on one of the full color plates in that catalogue and it was described in
part as, "The rarest silver type coin in the entire United States series. Brilliant
uncirculated, cleaned at one time." The coin realized $75,000.00 and was the
fourth most expensive lot in the RARCOA session following the 1894-S dime,
a Pan-Pac set and the 1885 trade dollar. Another knowledgeable, well known
and well healed dealer purchased the 1796 half dollar for inventory. We can
only imagine that the dealer who purchased Leo Young's 1796 half dollar
thought that it had gone cheaply at the price and would be either a quick turn
for him or something he'd have to keep awhile but that would yield a nice
profit when eventually sold. After all, how often do you get to even see a coin
like that let alone have an opportunity to buy it? But the high prices of that
era and the great demand for rare United States coins was not to last and
Leo's timing of their sale near flawless.
By 1981 coin prices had begun to weaken considerably and began a
decline that unfolded over several years. The bullion markets had collapsed
and silver, which had once traded as high as $48.00 an ounce was well on its
way down to below $5.00. The coin business was not a pretty picture.
Fortunes were lost virtually overnight. Many of the Garrett patterns, sold in
early 1980, had dropped to about 20 cents on the dollar within a year.
Needless to say, the hard times hit all dealers including the one who
purchased Leo Young's 1796 half dollar. In the mean time the coin remained
unsold in the new owner's inventory. I was told at the time that the dealer
dipped the coin to improve its appearance and placed it on a window sill to
retone, all in an effort to improve its appearance and increase its salability.
Still, the piece remained in inventory. Finally coming to grips with the fact that
the coin was no longer worth close to what he paid and that it needed to be
sold, the coin was reconsigned through Superior to Auction '86. It was
offered in that sale as lot 1136 and sold for a mere $46,200.00. Considering
this hapless dealer held on to the coin for six long years of declining market
and lost nearly $30,000.00 on the sale price, his purchase of the coin had
been a complete and utter disaster.
Again in Auction '86 comment was made about the great quality of Leo
Young's 1796 half dollar. The clean, matt like surfaces and the fantastic strike
were emphasized in the catalogue. "This is the boldest strike on this coveted
date that we have seen with full sharpness, including full separation within all
the denticles and full separation in the hairlines." It may have realized less this
time around but still everybody liked the coin.
Later in 1986 I was at a coin show in San Francisco held at what was
then called the Jack Tar Hotel. I was walking down the isle and Gary Young
flagged me over to his table. He asked me if I wanted to see something very
interesting. He pulled out his father's specimen of the 1796 half dollar and
told me I might want to study the coin for reference sake because it was a
counterfeit. Believe me, this coin looked great. It was as sharp as a tack detail
wise, had terrific surfaces, and looked like a coin that was essentially
uncirculated but had been cleaned at one time. Even the detail in the edge
device was sharp under magnification. Gary related the story of how the
individual who had purchased the coin out of Auction '86 had sent it in to be
authenticated and that the coin had come back as counterfeit. In the
intervening six years Leo Young's health had taken a turn for the worse and
Gary was handling all of his affairs. Immediately upon the determination that
the coin was counterfeit it had been returned and refunds given from one prior
owner to another until it had made its way back to Gary. Of course Leo had
owned the coin so many years that he had no recourse and simply had to
"eat" it. Could it have been made by E.G?
Gary knew that I collected auction catalogues, having sold me his own
library previously, and asked me if I knew of any catalogues containing plates
of high grade 1796 half dollars. The search was on to find the prototype coin.
Any extremely high quality cast counterfeit must have been produced from a
mold taken from an original coin. Tracing the providence of the original coin
makes it conclusive that the coin in question is in fact counterfeit because no
two coins will have exactly the same defects. Finding the prototype coin also
aids in fixing the time the counterfeit might have been produced. This 1796
half dollar, being a cast counterfeit of incredibly high quality, had to have been
produced from a mold made from a genuine 1796 half dollar. I recalled several
examples from memory having spent much time as a kid looking over old
auction sales catalogues and told him I would check on it that evening when
I got home. I knew I would find the prototype coin since, as I said earlier,
almost invariably such rare coins have some auction history and I did.
On the drive home that evening I became astounded with the thought
of the windfall this meant to the major dealer who had purchased the coin out
of Auction '80. What spectacular good fortune! This dealer had gone to the
auction and carefully looked at lots and picked out the coins he wanted and
bought them. What he didn't know is that by a stroke of vast luck he picked
out one of the few coins in the entire sale which wouldn't go down in value
and which he would be able to recover his full cost on! Instead of losing
$30,000.00 he got his money back in full!
So, a short note written beside a single lot in an old auction catalogue
has led us on an adventure and left us with one final question. Which coin
really was finer, the Allenberger-Judd coin or Leo Young's? I suppose that
ultimately you can't really compare a counterfeit coin to a genuine one and ask
which is in better condition. On the other hand, if you don't know one of the
coins isn't real then I guess you can. In retrospect, what Leo Young might
really have disliked about the Allenberger-Judd coin was the V sharped lint
mark on Liberty's lower left neck and the deep, subliminal uneasiness he felt
as he held the prototype coin.
|
[Contact us with comments]