Although the final results are not as neat as hoped, I believe that the following is very close to the truth. It is such a complex series that die state data was the only hope to sort out this mess. Alignments I through IV are accepted as the 4 basic alignments, but there have been plus and minus variants found for all 4 positions. The one new introduction to the numismatic vocabulary is alignment V (previously called IV-). The alignment of the head and reverse lettering is more precise, but harder to visualize.

After examining the 1838 and 1839 Smithsonian coins, I realized that the “slightly rising eagle” likely was an intentional variant, as these uncracked Originals had identical alignments. It was also the last known alignment for original striking period 1836 Name on Base alignment (State h…States a-h represent the original striking period for the Starry reverse, while i through k are Restrike states). It would seem to be too coincidental for all three of these coins to have the identical alignment. Also, Judd 61 (reeded edge 1836) is alignment V and it is State h (probably struck in 1838 as a test of the reeded edge collar).

The flaw in this theory is the existence of uncracked 1839 examples with IV and IV+ alignments. As can be seen by the chart below, they fit the original striking period. However, I believe the original striking period may have lasted into the 1840s (see below). There should be other Original 1838’s, as the 1851 Roper sale coin had to be struck before 1851. Thus, some of the lightly cracked 1838’s probably belong to the Original Striking period. (This is like calling all eight 1804 dollars Originals, even though two were struck in 1834, probably 2 in 1835, and the other 4 sometime in 1835 or possibly in the 1840s. Of course, we can’t be exactly sure when the Original 1804 dollars were struck, so we call all 8 Originals, not just the 2 struck in 1834.) There might be Original 1838s with only a lightly cracked reverse (State b with only ITE crack – currently only seen on 1839).

There are two changes to the nomenclature, one tough and one easy to prove. They have been called Proofs since their existence, so that will be hard to change. J58, however, does not exist in “Original” so it can’t be a “Restrike.” I don’t know what you want to call it, but the first Name Below Base coins were undoubtedly struck in 1859. The dies might also have been made at that time.

1)- Originals are not Proofs. You may not want to call them MS, but they don’t meet PCGS’s criteria for Proofs of that era (the graders at PCGS all agree, per personal conversations). The Restrikes are Proofs, of course, and should still be called Proofs. I have suggested SP for Originals, but MS or SP would be fine. I think they are special, but the Originals were made for circulation and were put into circulation, so technically they are MS. Of course, coins struck after 1836 with that date technically are Restrikes, too. Highly polished dies does not equate to Proof status.

2)- The Name Below Base goes down in flames (I think coin dealers knew this as early as 1870 and some collectors refused to buy them during that era!). As Part 2 reveals, the Name Below Base die was made after the Name on Base die(s). I believe the same working hub (with name removed) was used to make Judd 58, probably in December 1859, when they appeared, although it could date to as early as 1837 or 1838. All three coins struck after the 1836 Name on Base (1838, 1839, and Judd-58, the Name Below Base) had the name effaced. Each one is different, but the incuse nature of the base makes it likely the removal was from the working hub (the alternative is the master hub, thus requiring the master hub to make working dies or another stage with a new master die and new working hub). The raised graver lines seen on each die indicates that further work was done on each working die even though the name had already been removed. The 1839 may indicate that some remnant was present on each die, as there is still quite a bit of the mess left on the 1839. Maybe, they really needed to work on them to remove the remnants of the name. Judd 58 has the most intense work (not surprising to me) and the only evidence of the name is the dark area where the name used to reside. It has so intense graver lines (I noticed these at least a year ago) that at one point I thought it was from a different master die than the Name on Base!

Here are the breakdowns for alignments in the two striking eras. I have not included the variants (IV+, I++, I-, etc.), although they are included in the tables in Part 2 of the article. I consider the Original striking era to be 1836-1840s and the Restrike era to be 1859-1885 (others differ on both these dates and I have seen 1857 and 1858 as the starting period for Restrikes, while coins dated 1836, 1838, and 1839 that were struck in the 1840s are Restrikes, too, of course, but I have included them in the Original striking era).

I have broken these down like this because of die state and MS/PR status. We can’t be sure of exact dates of striking and the only ones I am really sure about are the State a coins, which were struck first in late 1836 for J60. I think State b and c were struck in 1836, but can’t prove it. I can’t prove the 1838 and 1839 in the SI were struck in those years, either. I think they were as they have uncracked reverse dies, but can’t prove it. The evidence is overwhelming that no Judd-58, Name Below Base coins were struck anytime near their 1836 date and likely were struck in late 1859.

1836(including J58)

1838

1839