1868 Large Cent -- The Most Underpriced Rarity?

CACfan

Yes, a genuine 1868 large cent with the adopted Braided Hair design and metal composition despite its official ending in 1857. Martin Paul told me that it was his favorite coin of all time.

I have heard that just five unique coins actually exist although the population reports are inflated with duplications. I have only owned one, which was rejected by CAC. In fact, just one of my patterns was ever approved. What does JA have against patterns? Are most of them ex-Farouck and thus subjected to his abrasive cleanings?

TheCoinHound

Martin had a few, the best being a stunning 66RD IIRC. He sold them to another dealer who was hoarding them, A LONG TIME AGO. That other dealer may actually still own them all. If I had to guess, that's 5-6 pieces right there. So my best guess is that the number extant is more like 10. Anyway, yes, they're great coins.

As for JA and CAC, I have not noticed any bias against patterns. Not on my submissions, and not on what I see in the marketplace. Take a look at the Simpson patterns in the Heritage archives if you don't believe me.

CACfan

TheCoinHound said:

Martin had a few, the best being a stunning 66RD IIRC. He sold them to another dealer who was hoarding them, A LONG TIME AGO. That other dealer may actually still own them all. If I had to guess, that's 5-6 pieces right there. So my best guess is that the number extant is more like 10. Anyway, yes, they're great coins.

As for JA and CAC, I have not noticed any bias against patterns. Not on my submissions, and not on what I see in the marketplace. Take a look at the Simpson patterns in the Heritage archives if you don't believe me.

Two were auctioned in 2020 alone. But I doubt that more than six UNIQUE coins exist. Compare photos for evidence thereof.

JA may not have bias against patterns per se, but fewer than one percent of those certified by PCGS and NGC have CAC beans (see CAC's pop report). I suspect that the real culprit is the 19th Century collectors' habit of harshly cleaning their coins. And the abrasive treatment to hundreds of specimens perpetrated by King Farouk's "coin conserver".

MarkFeld

CACfan said:

TheCoinHound said:

Martin had a few, the best being a stunning 66RD IIRC. He sold them to another dealer who was hoarding them, A LONG TIME AGO. That other dealer may actually still own them all. If I had to guess, that's 5-6 pieces right there. So my best guess is that the number extant is more like 10. Anyway, yes, they're great coins.

As for JA and CAC, I have not noticed any bias against patterns. Not on my submissions, and not on what I see in the marketplace. Take a look at the Simpson patterns in the Heritage archives if you don't believe me.

Two were auctioned in 2020 alone. But I doubt that more than six UNIQUE coins exist. Compare photos for evidence thereof.

JA may not have bias against patterns per se, but fewer than one percent of those certified by PCGS and NGC have CAC beans (see CAC's pop report). I suspect that the real culprit is the 19th Century collectors' habit of harshly cleaning their coins. And the abrasive treatment to hundreds of specimens perpetrated by King Farouk's "coin conserver".

Perhaps the low percentage of the population of PCGS/NGC patterns stickered by CAC is due to a low rate of submissions to CAC.
As a result of my work, I see a lot of patterns and I don’t think CAC is tougher on them than on other types of coins.

Legend

These are just so cool. They deserve to be worth more

john

Why do I think that translates into legend, in the near future, having more patterns...and possibly even the one discussed by the OP.....being available from Legend? I think that would be nice, and support such availability, but paraphrasing Patton, "this was on my mind".

CACfan

john said:

Why do I think that translates into legend, in the near future, having more patterns...and possibly even the one discussed by the OP.....being available from Legend? I think that would be nice, and support such availability, but paraphrasing Patton, "this was on my mind".

Legend did that record-smashing $30 million pattern deal in 2005 or so. In Legend's auctions, the ultra-talented LS uses mouth-watering descriptions to entice bidders to pay the price. I have always thought that the best sales pitch is enthusiasm. Yet, Great Collections is now number three in dollar volume despite including NO descriptions. Huh? This certainly is a crazily counterintuitive business.

john

The 30 mil deal was on my mind, and I was looking for a little love for an old man, from Ms. Sperber, since when I made the post, I had bought within 5 minutes of the post, the 1870 CAC Proof 65 1/2D.

Not germane but sort of germane, I saw the GC Toned Morgan auction results last night for 1884 O, 1885 0,1887 and 1888, and all CAC and all Ex Legend, so....sompin hoppen dere.

TheCoinHound

CACfan said:

Martin had a few, the best being a stunning 66RD IIRC. He sold them to another dealer who was hoarding them, A LONG TIME AGO. That other dealer may actually still own them all. If I had to guess, that's 5-6 pieces right there. So my best guess is that the number extant is more like 10. Anyway, yes, they're great coins. As for JA and CAC, I have not noticed any bias against patterns. Not on my submissions, and not on what I see in the marketplace. Take a look at the Simpson patterns in the Heritage archives if you don't believe me.

Two were auctioned in 2020 alone. But I doubt that more than six UNIQUE coins exist. Compare photos for evidence thereof. JA may not have bias against patterns per se, but fewer than one percent of those certified by PCGS and NGC have CAC beans (see CAC's pop report). I suspect that the real culprit is the 19th Century collectors' habit of harshly cleaning their coins. And the abrasive treatment to hundreds of specimens perpetrated by King Farouk's "coin conserver".

I checked the CAC pop report. They’ve beaned about 3200 patterns so far. About what I would have guessed. Are you suggesting that P and N have certified more than 320,000 patterns? 😮

TheCoinHound

For more info, including a list of documented specimens, check this out;

https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/j611p676.html

CACfan

TheCoinHound said:

CACfan said:

TheCoinHound said:

Martin had a few, the best being a stunning 66RD IIRC. He sold them to another dealer who was hoarding them, A LONG TIME AGO. That other dealer may actually still own them all. If I had to guess, that's 5-6 pieces right there. So my best guess is that the number extant is more like 10. Anyway, yes, they're great coins.

As for JA and CAC, I have not noticed any bias against patterns. Not on my submissions, and not on what I see in the marketplace. Take a look at the Simpson patterns in the Heritage archives if you don't believe me.

Two were auctioned in 2020 alone. But I doubt that more than six UNIQUE coins exist. Compare photos for evidence thereof.

JA may not have bias against patterns per se, but fewer than one percent of those certified by PCGS and NGC have CAC beans (see CAC's pop report). I suspect that the real culprit is the 19th Century collectors' habit of harshly cleaning their coins. And the abrasive treatment to hundreds of specimens perpetrated by King Farouk's "coin conserver".

I checked the CAC pop report. They’ve beaned about 3200 patterns so far. About what I would have guessed. Are you suggesting that P and N have certified more than 320,000 patterns? 😮

My mistake. I just look at the circ strikes, not the proofs.

retirednow

I did pick the J610 Simpson example. While I would have like the copper version, the J610 Nickel composition may have only 7 know examples per USpattern.com.

Maybe not enough appeal to the true copper enthusiast but I do enjoy owning this piece. Thanks to Bob Simpson and Heritage.

As a side note ... I appreciated Bowers narrative for a J-610 found on Page 64 of Bowers and Ruddy Aug 3, 1998 Rarity Sale catalog for Lot 2004

“ … Although the 1868 large cent seems to the writer to be a post-dated numismatic rarity, not a pattern in any way, shape, or form, for many years it has been primarily listed in pattern references only, with scarcely a mention in standard texts. Whether or not something should be collected, whether or not it should be included on a “want list,” has often been dictated as to whether a piece is listed in that arbiter of numismatic fashions, A Guide Book of United States Coins. For a number of years we have advanced the “cause” of the 1868 large cent in this regard, feeling that it is deserving of listing. Today[in 1998], it receives a note (page 92 of that reference), although it seems that a full listing is desired. We have known and admired Ken Bressett, editor of the Guide Book, for many years, and have often prodded him on the 1868 large cent listing, to the point at which it has become an object of humor between us. Recently, after writing a serious tribute to Ken and his wife Bert for inclusion in the July issue of The Numismatist, the writer inserted a humorous (?) advertisement as a tribute to Ken, but could not resist illustrating it with the object of interchange between us, an 1868 large cent!
We have always liked the 1868 large cent, believing that it has an interesting story and also numismatic significance. When¬ ever we have had a chance to buy an example on the market we have done so. Perhaps it is a good thing it is not listed along with the 1884 and 1885 trade dollar, 1913 Liberty Head nickel, and other after-the-regular-series-has-ended pieces, or we would not be able to afford an 1868 large cent….”

The ad that Bowers reference which was a bit before my time in having interest in patterns ... I think this was a funny:

Legend

Martin always felt these were not patterns and were regular issued coins. Yeah, these were among his favorites

MarkFeld

Legend said:

Martin always felt these were not patterns and were regular issued coins. Yeah, these were among his favorites

How and why would they be regular issues?

Insider3

Legend said:

Martin always felt these were not patterns and were regular issued coins. Yeah, these were among his favorites

Anyone who believes that the Mint would issue a large size cent when its small size replacement was approaching a decade of circulation...

It is a Pattern of nothing coming along in the future either.

IMO, these coins are either "moonlight" concoctions OR something issued OFFICIALLY to commemorate, celebrate, ? , or something in the past.

Anything happen in 1768, 1818, 0r 1868? Anything going on in Longacre or Gobrecht's life in 1868 or an anniversary?

TheCoinHound

Insider3 said:

Legend said:

Martin always felt these were not patterns and were regular issued coins. Yeah, these were among his favorites

Anyone who believes that the Mint would issue a large size cent when its small size replacement was approaching a decade of circulation...

It is a Pattern of nothing coming along in the future either.

IMO, these coins are either "moonlight" concoctions OR something issued OFFICIALLY to commemorate, celebrate, ? , or something in the past.

Anything happen in 1768, 1818, 0r 1868? Anything going on in Longacre or Gobrecht's life in 1868 or an anniversary?

The Mint was considering issuing a ten cent piece in nickel in 1868, which would logically be twice the size of a nickel five cent piece. To create a trial piece, a simple reverse die was created and paired with a Large Cent obverse with the current date. I don't know that any contemporary documentation has been found to prove it, but I've long assumed that there was no intention to used these dies for actual production. It was simply the easiest way to produce the trial piece. Anyway, here's a pic of the actual pattern ten cent piece. And given all of the shenanigans taking place at the US Mint at that time, it's not hard to imagine how one thing led to another, and the one cent pieces in copper and nickel were produced using the newly created obverse die. Bottom line is that I consider the ten cent piece the true pattern, and the one cent pieces semi-illegitimate concoctions.

TheCoinHound

BTW, some of you may read my previous post and realize that a Large Cent is more than twice the size of a nickel five cent piece. But the Mint was apparently also considering increasing the size of the five cent piece.

TheCoinHound

TheCoinHound

CACfan

TheCoinHound said:

Insider3 said:

Legend said:

Martin always felt these were not patterns and were regular issued coins. Yeah, these were among his favorites

Anyone who believes that the Mint would issue a large size cent when its small size replacement was approaching a decade of circulation...

It is a Pattern of nothing coming along in the future either.

IMO, these coins are either "moonlight" concoctions OR something issued OFFICIALLY to commemorate, celebrate, ? , or something in the past.

Anything happen in 1768, 1818, 0r 1868? Anything going on in Longacre or Gobrecht's life in 1868 or an anniversary?

The Mint was considering issuing a ten cent piece in nickel in 1868, which would logically be twice the size of a nickel five cent piece. To create a trial piece, a simple reverse die was created and paired with a Large Cent obverse with the current date. I don't know that any contemporary documentation has been found to prove it, but I've long assumed that there was no intention to used these dies for actual production. It was simply the easiest way to produce the trial piece. Anyway, here's a pic of the actual pattern ten cent piece. And given all of the shenanigans taking place at the US Mint at that time, it's not hard to imagine how one thing led to another, and the one cent pieces in copper and nickel were produced using the newly created obverse die. Bottom line is that I consider the ten cent piece the true pattern, and the one cent pieces semi-illegitimate concoctions.

One of my dealer friends is still trying to hoard J-611's (how can you hoard merely five to 10 coins, most of which are in firm hands?). He wants one J-610 for each J-611 to have matched sets (ironically, the J-610 is actually rarer). But the J-611 is the only real thing, just like the $4 Stellas versus their off-metals (gilt or not), as proven by the gold Stella's APR's versus their mere copper, aluminum, or WM APR's.

Insider3

Thanks, that's the answer. Why not make a 1868 Large cent for the heck of it to go with the patterns. It's lucky I was not around to make things back then!