An unusual group of coins, generally accepted as part of regular United States pattern coinage in standard references on the subject by Edgar Adams and William Woodin, R. Coulton Davis, J. Hewitt Judd and Andrew W. Pollock III, really belongs in a category of its own. (Indeed, author Don Taxay relegated most of these restrikes to a special category.) Although these coins are struck from genuine United States Mint dies, they are not Mint products, but rather fantasy patterns produced by individuals outside the Mint.

One such specimen (Judd 516) is an 1866-dated Washington pattern struck over a regular-issue 1867 Shield nickel, a most spectacular fantasy first reported in B. Max Mehl’s 1944 Belden Roach Sale (Lot 2903). One other ‘back dated’ pattern is mentioned by Pollock in his United States Patterns and Related Issues-an 1839 Gobrecht dollar struck over an 1859 regular-issue Seated Liberty dollar. In a Texas collection is an 1865 dollar struck over an 1866 dollar. There also is a more normal 1859-O dollar struck over an 1851 dollar.

Besides the absurdity of two-headed nickels or a 5-cent obverse artfully combined, or ‘muled’ with a half-eagle reverse, the most obvious difference between these and normal Mint patterns is that none are known in true proof strikings. (Authenticators at the coin grading services must shudder when classifying one of these issues as a proof.) Yet virtually all known U.S. pattern coins after 1836 in their pristine state are known as proof specimens. Some patterns probably were placed in circulation (or used as pocket pieces), thereby receiving varying degrees of wear. The infamous restruck 1856 Flying Eagle cents, when made in quantity, often were produced in uncirculated condition rather than proof.

The mules under consideration here-some 43 pieces made with 11 ex-Mint Dies-are struck on off-size planchets, or flans, of varying diameter; most are considerably oversize. Even in their as-struck state they could not be mistaken for true uncirculated or proof specimens.

As further evidence that these mules were struck outside the Mint, consider their composition. Their content varies, as shown by the brass flake on some copper specimens. The official Mint patterns of Washington made in 1866 occur mainly in nickel and copper, and occasionally in bronze. Nickel (the regular fabric) and copper (an inexpensive trial metal) were used to strike the Mint-produced nickel patterns. However, the mules occur not only in nickel and copper, but also in silver, white metal, steel, lead and brass-materials never used previously for a nickel pattern and not at all commonly used by the Mint.

The diameter of the regular-issue nickel .808 to .811 inch is tightly controlled. Unfortunately, the diameters of the mules are sparsely recorded in the auction literature, but the four published figures are .850, .853, .854 and .856 inch. This enlarged diameter of the mules is considerably outside Mint tolerances. Direct observation over the past 45 years shows that they generally are larger than called for in Mint regulations. In addition, die alignments vary from variety to variety.

The weights of the mules also tend to be much higher than the authorized nickel weight of 76.16 grains. In copper, three examples of regularly issued pattern nickels weigh 56.0, 58.2 and 58.1, and and two specimens showing thin and thick variations weigh 71.9 and 77.8 grains. Even more revealing are the nickel weights. Five regular pattern issues ranged in weight from 76.4 to 77.2 grains, with two others, at 77.0 and 79.0, relatively close to the authorized weight of 76.16 grains. On the other hand, the mules struck in nickel have recorded weights of 72.1, 84.3, 86.1 and 96.3 grains. These are far from the normal tolerance of 2 grains allowed by Mint standards. Silver mules have recorded weights of 72.1, 83.2 and 88.3 grains-quite a variation; white-metal mules have a wide range of weights - 59.6, 84.5, 86.7 and 92.9 grains.

Auction catalogers of the past 15 years must have strongly suspected that these mules had a ‘fishy odor’. They went to the trouble of checking die alignment and often recorded their weight, although for 95 percent or more of pattern coinage, these facts were not even considered. Detailed measurements, such as weight, diameter and thickness, have been further hampered by the advent of encapsulated coins. Catalogers have not questioned the mules’ origins in writing (with the exception of Bowers & Merena in the March 1996 Halpern-Warner Sale) for fear of upsetting valued clients and collectors. Yet, when the true status of the 1804 dollar was revealed in 1962, did the value of the piece decrease? Perhaps this knowledge made the coin even more desirable. Likewise, the truth about the mules should make them a desirable subset of a collection of pattern coins.

It is difficult to completely document the origin of the 11 ex-Mint dies involved. They may have been in the possession of Joseph J. Mickley of Philadelphia, and the fantasy mulings could have been made at his behest. Many pattern dies appeared in the 1878 sale of the Mickley Collection-cataloged by E.L. Mason and auctioned by M. Thomas & Son - as did a number of regular (non-pattern) dies of various denominations dated from 1806 to 1820.

Most of the dies in the Mickley sale were called ‘hubs’ (right-reading impressions from which working dies were produced), but, according to Arlie Slabaugh’s April 1965 Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine article ‘Mickley and the Mint Dies’, Oliver Bosbyshell, coiner of the U.S. Mint, stated that when he received these pieces for destruction, they all were dies. None of the Washington dies are directly mentioned in the Mickley sale; indeed, they are first discussed in detail by Arlie Slabaugh in his 1965 article. A good case can be made for the thesis that none of the pattern mules were in the Mickley sale, since the dated dies were all from 1820 or earlier, and the earliest mule die is a half eagle first made in 1843.

Various U.S. coin dies offered in the Mickley sale (Lots 909-17) were seized by the United States government before the sale and peremptorily destroyed. Numismatists of the day raised a loud clamor. An editorial by R. Coulton Davis in the January 1879 issue of American Journal of Numismatics reflects contemporary opinion:

The statement that the dies, hubs, &c., of U. S. Coins, advertised for sale with the Mickley Collection, were seized by the United States authorities, has given rise to a great deal of comment. We have received from a gentleman in Philadelphia the following account of the affair.

A few days previous to the sale, the United States authorities claimed the above, viz : Some 20 obverse and reverse dies of the U. S. Coinage, mostly in a damaged and corroded condition, the same having been condemned by the Mint authorities above half a century agoand as tradition says was the custom in those days, sold for old iron. Since then we have grown more artful, and it has been deemed politic under existing laws, that the whole multitude of dated dies should be annually destroyed in the presence of three designated officers of the Mint. In the above described lots in the catalogue, there was not a complete pair of obverse and reverse dies. Even the obverse die of the half-cent of 1811 was muled with the reverse die of a different year. We cannot conceive by what authority the government, after making sale of its ‘refuse material’, could seize upon the same property without tendering some compensation. There is scarcely a numismatist in the United States, but who is aware of the existence and whereabouts of similar dies, and who is also aware of the many ‘re-strikes’, known to be such, being made from the dies, say of the 1804 cent, the 1811 half-cent, and of the 1823 cent, outside of the Mint.

Philadelphia, December, 1878. 'Coulton'

From what we have seen in the public prints in reference to this matter, we infer that the government authorities were somewhat hasty in their action, and claimed the property without first satisfying themselves as to the ownership. No one would for a moment suspect Mr. Mickley of any wrong doing in the matter. The affair was settled, we believe, by a payment to the family of the estimated value of the dies, which were then presented to the Mint, and subsequently destroyed.

There is no definite proof that the Washington dies were seized by the government, but until other evidence surfaces, it could be assumed that possibly 7 of the 11 ‘Mickley’ pattern dies were part of Lot 917 of the 1878 Mickley sale, where they are described as 917 Miscellaneous Lot Die and hubs; obvs. and revs. Of American coins, 8 pieces, broken, and in poor condition.

More recently, U.S. Treasury agents destroyed an important historical Relic-an original Mint reverse die of an 1814 dime-rather than consign it to a permanent home in the Smithsonian Institution’s National Numismatic Collection. The perpetrator of the ‘crime’ was the late Robert Bashlow, who restruck the 1814 uniface dime and used the initial ‘M’ on the newly created reverse die used for the 536 illegal impressions that were struck in Scotland. The ‘M’ could stand for Mickley or Mint. All copies of the restrike were seized by the United States Secret Service. (The late Walter Breen recounted details of this ‘infamous’ incident in Whitman Numismatic Journal.)

The other pattern restrike dies have an equally unhappy story, one in which I was intimately involved. In Spring 1956, a Cranbury, New Jersey, dealer (the late Ed Rice) offered me two extremely unusual pattern strikings. They involved the two Washington obverse dies most prevalent in this series (the head of Washington facing right with UNITED text continued on page 518 STATES OF AMERICA/1866 around, and the same hub with IN GOD WE TRUST/1866). The pieces were struck on irregularly shaped bars-one of coin silver, one of aluminum measuring approximately 11/2 x 3 x 1/2 inches.

Between the two impressions from the dies was the incuse letter ‘P’ surrounded by a shield. Initially, I assumed this to stand for Philadelphia. Based on my knowledge of the Mickley restrikes, and assuming these pieces were made from the lot of dies seized in 1878, I purchased the bars as contemporary patterns of a ‘near unique’ nature.

Speculation surrounding the pieces was quiet for several months, until rumors began to circulate about their authenticity. Apparently this ‘unique’ cache of pattern ‘bars’ originally consisted of nine aluminum specimens and one silver piece. Slowly, the facts surrounding this pattern curiosity began to emerge.

Sometime between 1869 to 1878, the pair of Washington dies (never used for any regular U.S. coinage) was donated to the cabinet of the Boston Numismatic Society (BNS), perhaps as an inauguration gift (the Society was founded in 1870). There is no record of the pieces’ donor, but Joseph Mickley is a suspect. The dies remained in the Society’s collection without any formal recognition of their origin (or great historical importance). In early 1956, the curator of the coin cabinet, a Mr. Pollock, decided of his own volition to strike samples in his basement. No criminal charges were made against him, as it was believed he did this innocently.

We now know that the counterstamped letter ‘P’ on the bars stands for ‘Pollock’, rather than for Philadelphia, as was originally assumed. It should be noted again that the venture in his basement ‘mint’ was operated entirely without authorization of BNS officers or members. The one silver impression was made on a bar cast from scrap foreign coins. The aluminum piece was made from a standard commercial material.

Curator Pollock sold several of the pieces to the late Mel Came, a New Hampshire dealer, who may or may not have known the facts surrounding their issuance. The pair I acquired from Ed Rice was purchased from Came. (Rice later stated that he was unaware of their background.) The entire episode occurred within six months of early 1956.

Upon hearing of the ‘restriking’ from an unknown source, the Secret Service became enmeshed in the controversy about the legal ownership of the dies. The assistant director of the Philadelphia Mint, Dr. Leland Howard (now deceased) became involved-an unfortunate turn for collectors, as he was notoriously ‘anti-numismatic’. Since the dies involved never were used for official Mint issues of regular coinage, the question of counterfeiting was nebulous at best. The Secret Service concluded there was no intent to defraud. Pollock was required to obtain and surrender all copies of the pattern bars, and they were immediately destroyed.

Full restitution was made by all involved parties, and no criminal proceedings were instituted. However, at Howard’s insistence, the Secret Service destroyed the historically important Washington pattern dies as well!

Stuart Mosher, late curator of numismatics at the Smithsonian Institution, attempted to have the dies permanently preserved there, a proper and safe resting place. But as in 1878, when the Mickley dies were destroyed, and as in the case of the ‘Bashlow’ incident with the 1814 dime, valuable historical relics again were destroyed.

The nearsightedness of government officials and their hasty and irrevocable action is much deplored by the numismatic community. Today, given the more cordial relationship between Treasury, Mint officials and numismatists, such historically inappropriate events are not likely to be repeated.

The ‘Mickley’ pattern restrikes were not a dead issue even as late as 1956, when the BNS pieces appeared. The surrounding facts probably will not alter their importance as collector’s items. All restrike pieces likely date from about 1870 to 1880; all were made in strictly limited issue, possibly on Mickley’s orders. Starting in the late 40s, I have heard from various sources that the mules in question were restrikes. As far as is known, only Fuld (in 1965) and Taxay (in 1971) committed in writing that these coins were not Mint products.

It is interesting that the only large offering of these mules in the 19th century was found in the collection of Sylvester S. Crosby, sold in 1883 by J. Haseltine. Perhaps Crosby realized what this series entailed and made a special effort to accumulate these pieces. (The table on page 513 lists, as best can be interpreted, the lot numbers from the Crosby sale and the equivalent Judd numbers.) It also is possible that the mules in the Crosby sale were not the property of Crosby, but placed there by Haseltine to legitimize their origin.

Efforts to locate any of these mules in sales between 1866 and 1883 have mostly failed. If records do exist, they are very sparse. The 1870 Fewsmith sale contained an extensive offering of pattern 5-cent pieces, but no mules. One piece, Judd 512 (P-596) was struck in steel! It was sold by Haseltine in September 1876 (Lot 562) and then in Cogan’s A.S. Jenks sale in November 1877 (Lot 209).

The 43 mules made with the 11 Mickley dies are a most intriguing part of pattern Americana. Under no circumstances should these pieces be included with the regularly issued patterns listed in J.H. Judd’s or Andrew Pollock’s references. Rather, they should be listed in a supplement as restrikes. Collectors need not worry that proper listing of these mules will affect their value.

DIE 1

1. Bust of Washington facing right, undraped, probably modeled after Houdon bust. Around, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; below, in exergue, 1866. Originally for Judd 461-63 (P-535-37, A-W 541-42). Two, distinct dies were made, with only microscopic differences, as Judd 525-26 (P-553-54, A-W 587) has the same design on both sides of the striking. The two dies are designated 1A and 1B in the listing. In the Bowers & Merena sale of March 1997, Andrew Pollock defines the differences in the two 'identical' dies: the O of OF is open and the M in AMERICA has bold top serifs (Die A), while on the other side the O is closed and the M has vestigial top serifs (Die B). Judd 525-26 is undoubtedly the only pure two-headed nickel pattern known. From photographic evidence, all mulings with Die 1 use version A

DIE 2

2. Bust of Washington, from the same hub as Die 1. Around, IN GOD WE TRUST; below, in exergue, 1866. Originally intended for Judd 464-66 (P-558-89, A-W 543-44); Judd 467-69 (P-560-61, A-W 545-47); Judd 470-72 (P-562-63, A-W 548-50); and Judd 473-75 (P-564-65, A-W 551-53

DIE 3

3. Exact prototype of the regular Shield nickel of 1866. Originally used for Judd 415-17 (P-488-89, A-W 506-07), the 1865 Shield nickel pattern, then for Judd 473-75 (P-564-65, A-W 551-53), a Washington pattern. Also used for Judd 497-99 (P-583-84, A-W 564-66) on modified regular-issue die combinations in ‘off-metals’. At the center, a large 5 surrounded by 13 stars; rays between stars. Above, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, below, CENTS.

DIE 4

4. Regular reverse die for the second Shield nickel, first issued in 1867. Identical to Die 3, but without the rays between the stars. Originally intended for Judd 418 and 507 (P-490 and 591), the so-called transitional patterns of the Type II Shield nickels. Pattern die first used in 1865 and on regular-issue coinage in 1867.

Pollock carefully delineates the two types of ‘without rays’ reverse. The most obvious distinction of Reverse A, used to strike the 1866 Shield nickels, is that the star points to TS of CENTS. On Reverse B, used for the 1867 regular Shield nickels, the star points directly to the T of CENTS. Usually Reverse B is used for the mules, possibly confirming a post-1866 issue date. Reverse B has two variations, one a perfect die, one with a strong die break.

DIE 5

5. Reverse die of regular-issue half eagle of 1843-65, without IN GOD WE TRUST. Eagle facing forward, head to left; above, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; below, FIVE in large letters. There appears to be no official Mint use of this die in the pattern series-obviously a discarded half-eagle die made obsolete in 1866 when IN GOD WE TRUST was adapted.

DIE 6

6. Head of Liberty in coronet (no star on headband), facing left. Similar to adopted 3-cent nickel issue of 1865. Above, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; below, in exergue, 1867. Apparently the only original use was for Judd 566-67 (P-627-28, A-W 626-27) and the unique Judd 569 (P-629).

DIE 7

7. Very similar to Die 6, but with a raised star on the front of the coronet. Originally intended for Judd 570-71 (P-640-39, A-W 644-47). Two minor obverse die variations exist: on one variation, the curl of Liberty’s hair touches the ‘7’, on the other variation, it does not. (On the die used in the muling series, the curl clears the ‘7’). Judd assigns the same number to both variations and mentions the die variety in a footnote; Adams-Woodin and Pollock assign the variations separate numbers.

DIE 8

8. Extremely similar to Die 7, with a star on the coronet; the date, however, is 1869. Originally intended for Judd 683, 684-85, 686 (P-762, 763-64, 765; A-W 802, 803-04, 808).

DIE 9

9. Pattern die of 1866-67 with ‘tall 5’ in wreath, CENTS in straight line, and IN GOD WE TRUST above. Originally intended for Judd 529 (P-556) and in 1867 for Judd 566-67 (P-627-28); also used for Judd 568 and 573a (P-637 and 647). Further study might reveal that some other combinations actually are restrike mules.

DIE 10

10. Pattern die of 1866 with slightly curved 5 CENTS in a laurel wreath, IN GOD WE TRUST above. First used for Judd 461-63, 466a and 593 (P-535-37, 555 and 586), and for the famed Lincoln issue, Judd 486-88 (P-575-76).

DIE 11

11. Regular obverse die of 1866 Shield nickel, first used for issues dated 1865, Judd 416-17 (P-488-89) ‘with rays’ and Judd 508-09 (P-490-91) ‘without rays’. Multiple use on 1866 patterns and on three types of 1867-dated patterns.

A true, two-headed nickel with identical wording on both sides, but microscopically different dies. Fred Weinberg reports two white-metal pieces ’thick and thin’ weighing 86.7 and 59.6 grains.

1) Crosby (Lot 1788); Garrett (Lot 993), bronze, $6,000; Superior ‘Auction 82’ (Lot 1492), 86 grains

1) Boyd; Farouk (Lot 1803); Green; Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 210); Kagin’s ‘Great Eastern’ (Lot 3264), Oct. 1983; Heritage ‘ANA 1996’ (Lot 5012), PCGS PR-63, $5,500

2) Crouch (Lot 211), duplicate

3) R.L. Hughes ‘Warner’ (Lot 14), 1980; Stack’s ‘Sprinkle’ (Lot 451), June 1988; B & M ‘Halpern-Warner’ (Lot 2017), Mar. 1997

Crosby owned three (1787, 1789, 1790) specimens. Per Taxay, two were in Lohr collection.

The ultimate mule, with Washington on both sides.

1) Crosby (Lot 1776); Garrett (Lot 991), $11,000, 72.1 grains (called silver); Stack’s ‘Auction 84’ (Lot 1226), July 1984; B & M ‘Halpern-Warner’ (Lot 2016), Mar. 1997 (called nickel)

2) Roach (Lot 2902); Mehl ‘Olsen’ (Lot 417), 1944; Lohr; Empire Coin Co.; B & R Rare Coin Review, No. 21 (1974), p. 43; B & R ‘River Oaks’ (Lot 298), Nov. 1976; Stack’s (Lot 503), Jan. 1987, probably ex-Frossard #34 ‘Isaac F. Wood’ (Lot 287), Feb. 1884

3) Boyd; Farouk (Lot 1803); Green; Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 208); Stack’s (Lot 569), Mar. 1985; W. Wilcox, 88.3 grains, .853 in.

Lemus specimen 83.2 grains, .850 in., 360 degrees. Sid Olsen of Akron, Ohio, reportedly owned a specimen. Crosby (Lot 1777) thin planchet probably is Garrett (Lot 991).

1) Crosby (Lot 1778); Stack’s ‘Garrett’ (Lot 583), Mar. 1976; Stack’s (Lot 456), Dec. 1980; J.E. Drew Heritage ‘ANA 1996’ (Lot 5117), Aug. 1996, PCGS Proof-64, $4,620

2) J.C. Mitchelson, 1913; Connecticut State Library (Inv. No. 11915).

3) Woodin; Judson Brenner specimen (ANS, 1914) per Taxay.

See also Crosby (Lot 1779), only Fine probably one of last two.

1) Crosby (Lot 1780); Garrett (Lot 992), 88.1 grains; Stack’s ‘Auction 84’ (Lot 1227), July 1984; Rarcoa ‘Auction 89’ (Lot 358), July 1989, .856 in.

1) Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 209) in white metal, copper-plated and then brass-plated over white metal, specific gravity 11.15; B & R Rare Coin Review, No. 30 (1978) p. 67, and No. 31 (1978) p. 62; B & R ‘Hall Collection’ (Lot 2216), Oct. 1978

An elusive mule that might not exist. No record of an actual coin has been found.

Reported on a large planchet.

Judd 516-20, Pollock 543-47, Adams-Woodin 588

1) Roach (Lot 2903); Lohr; ANA 1952; Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 205), overstrike on 1867 Shield nickel; B & R ‘Branigan’ (Lot 1771), Aug. 1978

Probably W.S. Baker, HSP. Woodin, Brenner, ANS 1914.

A non-overstruck example may exist in nickel.

1) Boyd; Farouk (Lot 1803); Green; Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 206), rotated reverse, double strike

2) Crosby (Lot 1791); Stack’s ‘Garrett’ (Lot 582), Mar. 1976; Stack’s (Lot 455), Dec. 1980; Melnick ‘Hoffman’ (Lot 45), Nov. 1982; Stack’s ‘Barker’ (Lot 309), Oct. 1986

3) Kreisberg, Feb. 1960; Kagin’s ‘Sale of the 70s’ (Lot 339), Nov. 1973; probably B & M (Lot 1194), June 1996, with reverse double strike

4) Stack’s ‘Lemus’ 74.5 grains, .854 in., 360 degrees­Perfect reverse.

Baker; HSP per Taxay. Crosby (Lots 1791-92), thick and thin.

Crosby, per Taxay (but not found in sale). May not exist.

1) B & R Rare Coin Review, Nos. 21 and 22 (1974), pp. 43 and 80 perfect reverse.

Crosby (Lot 1793). Woodin, Brenner, ANS 1914. Very likely all three citations refer to a single coin.

1) Boyd; Farouk (Lot 1803); Green; Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 207); Kagin’s ‘Great Eastern’ (Lot 3266), Oct. 1983

2) Kagin’s ‘Metropolitan Washington’ (Lot 1125), July 1975; Kagin’s ‘ANA Sale’ (Lot 2109), Aug. 1988

3) Kreisberg-Schulman ‘R.K. Harris’ (Lot 2496), May 1958; Stack’s ‘Auction 89’:(Lot 1848), July 1989; B & M (Lot 932), Sept. 1994; Heritage ‘ANA 1996’ (Lot 5011), Aug. 1996, PCGS PR-60, $3,520

Crosby credited with having three pieces, per Taxay (Lots 1794-96). Woodin, Brenner, ANS 1914. Apparently all three reported specimens have cracked reverse.

Crudely struck with one style of the Washington head. Discovered at same time as Muling 2/5.

1) Wm. Guild (circa 1947); Dr. J.H. Judd; A. Kosoff Illustrated History (Lot 321), 1962; Crouch (Lot 600); Kagin’s ‘Great Eastern’ (Lot 3267), Oct. 1983

An absurd combination, with 1866 on one side, 1867 on the other. May be the same piece as Muling 1A/7. The coronet star is not obvious.

May be the same piece as Muling 1A/6.

1) Crosby (Lot 1786); Garrett (Lot 999), 85.1 grains; Stack’s ‘Auction 84’ (Lot 1228), July 1984; Rarcoa ‘Auction 89’ (Lot 359), July 1989

May not exist, or may be a misdescription of nickel piece.

1) B & M (Lot 2376), Jan. 1996, called silver. Possibly Crosby (Lot 1786).

1) Crosby (Lot 1781); Garrett (Lot 994), $13,500; New England ‘Inventory Selections’ (77), p. 25, 84.3 grains

Holland, W.S. Baker, HSP. Farouk (Lot 1800) - unverified.

1) Superior (Lot 1204), Oct. 1992, PCGS PR-62 BN

E. Frossard (Lot 416), Oct. 1884, called brilliant proof.

May not exist or is a misdescription of J477

1) Crosby (Lot 1782); T.H. Garrett; J.W. Garrett; Johns Hopkins University; Garrett (Lot 988), $7,500; Stack’s ‘Auction 84’ (Lot 1225), July 1984; Heritage ‘ANA 1996’ (Lot 5005), Aug. 1996, PCGS PR-64, $8,800

2) Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 190); S. Ivy ‘ANA Sale’ (Lot 754), Aug. 1980. Struck on crude planchet with large planchet breaks. Weight 92.4 grains.

An absurd combination of a 5-cent obverse with a half eagle reverse. Crudely struck. Taxay called it a ‘private restrike’. This specimen may no longer exist; rumor has it that it melted when it was heated to inhibit corrosion.

1) Wm. Guild (circa 1947); Dr. J.H. Judd; Kosoff Illustrated History (Lot 320), 1962; B & R ‘Austin Sale’ (Lot 1114), May 1974

A double-dated coin.

May actually be the white metal example below.

Lennox Lohr, per Taxay. Woodin, Brenner, ANS 1914 called A-W 647a.

A double-dated coin.

1) Fuld; Picker; Kosoff; Crouch (Lot 221); Kagin’s ’Great Eastern’ (Lot 3265), Oct. 1985

California dealer, 84.5 grains, .85 in., 360 degrees. Crosby (Lot 1784), per Taxay.

1) Crosby (Lot 1783); Garrett (Lot 1001), $10,000, 96.3 grains; Stack’s ‘Auction 84’ (Lot 1229), July 1984; Rarcoa ‘Auction 89’ (Lot 360), July 1989; B & M ‘Halpern-Warner (Lot 2037), Mar. 1997

Haseltine called it silver.

An odd muling. In God We Trust on both sides.

W.S. Baker, HSP per Judd. Seavy, Parmelee (pedigree may be questionable)

No record of sale.

Listed in 4th edition of Judd, but not in 2nd edition. If a restrike mule, it is the earliest auction record known. Editors note: I believe this to be a misdescription.

Haseltine (Lot 425), Sept. 1876, No. 25.

W. Newcomer of Baltimore, per Taxay.

Muling of two ‘without rays’ 5-cent reverses of type used for 1865 patterns, but not for coins until 1868-69. One die developed a break.

1) Crouch (Lot 212)

The existence of this piece needs to be confirmed. May well be Muling 4B/7.

Haseltine sale, June 1879, per Taxay.

Woodside (Lot 212), per Taxay. Woodin, Brenner, ANS 1914.

1) Boyd; Farouk (Lot 1811); Kreisberg-Schulman ‘R.K. Harris’ (Lot 2948), May 1958, plated

2) Kosoff Illustrated History (Lot 335), 1962

Crosby (Lot 1803), double-struck reverse. Lohr, described as EF.

Adams-Woodin states this piece is on a thick planchet, but it might not exist. May be a misdescription of Elder ‘Gschwend’ (Lot 254); very likely Judd 573A (P-647) per Saul Teichman.

1) Crosby (Lot 1805); Garrett (Lot 999), $7,500, 86.1 grains, specific gravity 10.4; J. Leidman 1980; Stack’s ‘Sprinkle’ (Lot 452), June 1988; B & M ‘Gore’ (Lot 657), Jan. 1990

2) Virgil Brand?; Stack’s ‘Giacomo Opezzo’ (Lot 1826); Mehl ‘Olsen’ (Lot 422A), 1944; probably Sid Olsen, Akron, OH - could duplicate one of below

3) B & M (Lot 482), Jan. 1997, ex-J. Parrino, NGC-63

Brenner, ANS 1914. Garrett, Johns Hopkins University specimen was overweight (high specific gravity indicates silver rather than nickel).

1) Boyd; Farouk (Lot 1806), EF; Green; Dr. J.H. Judd; Kosoff Illustrated History (Lot 338), 1962; Kagin’s ‘Beverly’ (Lot 978), Jan. 1975; B & R ‘Bartlett’ (Lot 2993), Nov. 1979; New England ‘FUN’ (Lot 1143), Jan. 1981

1) Crosby (Lot 1812); Garrett (Lot 1086), $8,000, 67 grains; J. Leidman 1980, Judd plate coin

1) Melnick ‘Hoffman’ (Lot 46), Nov. 1982

2) Heritage ‘ANA Sale’ (Lot 3304) Aug. 1985; B & M (Lot 461), Aug. 1995, NGC PR-65

Kagin (Lot 219), May 1969, either 1) or 2).

May have been struck at the Mint and not part of the restrike series. A specimen should be examined in light of current knowledge per Saul Teichman.

These may well be Mint products and not part of the restrike series.

1) Superior (Lot 2729), Jan. 1990, PCGS PR-63BN

2) Cogan ‘A.S. Jenks’ (Lot 208), Nov. 1877

3) Gschwend (Lot 239), 1908, to Virgil Brand

Another muling of the ‘without rays’ reverses using the 1866 type Shield nickel reverse.

1) Haseltine (Lot 562), Sept. 1876; Cogan ‘A.S. Jenks’ (Lot 209), Nov. 1877; Parmelee (part of Lot 165), 1890; Woodin, Brenner; ANS 1914; unknown intermediaries; Kagin’s ‘Mid Atlantic’ (Lot 1871), Nov. 1974; B & R Rare Coin Review No. 24 (1975), p. 58, No. 25 (1975), p. 69, No. 26 (1976), p. 75, No. 28 (1977), p. 66; No. 29 (1977), p. 75, and No. 30 (1978), p. 67; J.E. Drew

May be a Mint product, as it was known as early as 1876, before any of the restrike mules were reported. Could be pure nickel. Hands-on examination would be helpful.

1A/1B copper, white metal

1A/2 nickel, copper, brass, white metal

1A/3 nickel, copper, brass

1A/4B nickel, copper, silver, brass, white metal (lead?), overstruck on 5-cent piece

1A/5 white metal

1A/6 silver

1A/7 nickel, white metal, silver

2/4B nickel, copper, brass?, white metal, silver

2/5 white metal

2/6 nickel?, white metal

2/7 white metal

2/8 nickel

2/9 nickel, white metal

2/10 silver

3/6 white metal

3/11 copper (bronze), steel? Or pure nickel

4B/4B white metal

4B/6 nickel

4B/7 nickel?

4B/10 copper

5/7 nickel?, silver

5/8 brass

10/11 nickel

1774 J 470

1775 J 473

1776 J 521

1777 J 521 thin flan

1778 J 522

1779 J 522 only fine

1780 J 523

1781 J 476

1782 J 479

1783 Garrett Lot 1001 (P-767)

1784 J 585

1785 J 461 Stack's 3/76

1786 J 579/584 actually Garrett Lot 999

1787 J 526

1788 J 525

1789 J 526

1790 J 526

1791 J 517

1792 J 517 thick

1793 J 519

1794 J 520

1795 J 520 thicker

1796 J 520 crude

1797 J 504

1798 J 497

1799 J 489

1800 J 495

1801 J 490

1802 J 532

1803 J 583

1804 J 561

1805 J 601 Ag

1812 J 778

Lots 1774-84 have IN GOD WE TRUST obverse; Lots 1785-96 have UNITED STATES OF AMERICA obverse; Lots 1797-1812 have various obverses.

* Based on data supplied by Saul Teichman, 1995.