1884 Proof Trade Dollar
The 1884 proof trade dollar from the Legend Collection of Proof Trade Dollars. This coin is graded NGC PF66 and has a population of one with only one finer. This coin is pedigreed to the Eliasberg Collection.
Mintage
At least 10 Proofs
Coinage Context
Redemption proposed: In 1883 and continuing in 1884, there were many debates and discussions concerning the redemption of trade dollars by the government. Questions arose, such as: What should be done with chopmarked trade dollars; should they be rejected as damaged coins? Would the redemption of trade dollars give the government so much silver that purchases of newly-mined silver under the 1878 Bland-Allison Act would be halted for a time? (The Western mining interests wanted no such thing to happen, of course.) Would the announcement that trade dollars were being redeemed for face value result in a huge and unwanted influx of non-chopmarked trade dollars from the Orient?
As time went on, it became the general feeling that the government would not want chopmarked pieces. Thus, many of the coins which had been imported since the late 1870s were now shipped out to the Orient. Government accounts show that 225,500 trade dollars were exported in the fiscal year ending in 1884, 1,073,150 in the fiscal year ending in 1885, and 354,288 in 1886, or a total of 1,652,938—which represents about 80% of the amount which had been returned to the United States during the years 1879 to 1882. Presumably, many of these had chopmarks.
Under terms of the Bland-Allison Act no amount of re-imported silver could lessen the Treasury’s obligation to buy domestic silver for Morgan dollars. Clever politicians, these congressmen!
About the 1884 trade dollar: So far as the government records are concerned, there is no such thing as an 1884 trade dollar, either in business strike or Proof form (although there is an official record of dies having been made for the issue). None is listed in Mint records, and no specimen was given to the Mint Collection; these two procedures were usually followed in the production of normal Proof issues.
From time to time there have been claims that 252 (or 264) 1884 trade dollars were struck, but this is based on Mint production records for fiscal year 1884 (July 1, 1883 to June 30, 1884), totaling 252 trade dollars. These 252 were all coined between July 1, 1883 and December 31, 1883, and therefore bore the 1883 date; see monthly figures quoted above under 1883. The 264 figure adds the 12 delivered June 1883 to the 252 of July-December 1883.
Numismatic Information
The rare 1884: The trade dollars of 1884 and 1885 furnish a separate situation apart from Mint-authorized trade dollar issues.
For many years reference books, catalogs, and articles have claimed that just 10 specimens were struck dated 1884 and just five dated 1885. These are believed to have been produced secretly at the Mint and were not included in any of the official reports. In fact, the very existence of these coins was not publicized to numismatists until 1908 when Capt. John W. Haseltine (in partnership with Stephen K. Nagy), a Philadelphia coin dealer with close connections to the Mint, startled the hobby by announcing they had been found among coins in 1884 and 1885 Proof sets owned by his father-in-law, William Idler. However, in 1907, the year before, Haseltine’s partner, Nagy, had sold one to Virgil M. Brand in an unannounced transaction.
Farran Zerbe, editor of The Numismatist, wrote an article on the subject of 1884 trade dollars and noted that seven of the 10 known pieces had been sold within a few months by a single dealer at prices ranging from $150 to $400. It was not revealed by Zerbe, if indeed he knew it, that Virgil Brand was the main buyer.
No one can be sure exactly how many 1884 and 1885 trade dollars were struck, absent official records. What we can be sure of is that only 10 1884s and only 5 1885s are now known. The clandestine coiners had a good thing going; why would they have made so few? Obviously, to minimize chances of detection and exposure under the current director, who was less ready to play such games than Linderman and the Snowdens had been.
Stephen K. Nagy, the Philadelphia dealer who was once closely associated with certain officials at the Mint, told me years ago that in some future day the "true story" of the Mint-made rarities such as the 1801-1804 dollars, 1884 and 1885 trade dollars, and 1877 $50 gold pieces would come to light. However, he died without making such information available.
Ed. Frossard defends the Mint: In 1884 the Philadelphia Mint was at a low ebb with its ethics, a situation built upon at least 26 years of private profiteering and deceit by Mint officials, culminating in the worst way with the machinations of Mint director and numismatist Dr. Henry Richard Linderman (who served as director until December 1878). Often, what Mint officials said about quantities coined, dates of mintage, or destruction of dies, was greeted with suspicion and disbelief; Linderman in particular had destroyed even his successors’ credibility.
Writing in the March 1884 issue of Numisma, dealer Ed. (Édouard) Frossard took issue with the anti-Mint sentiment:
Our critic of the Sandham sale recently, almost openly, insinuated that trade dollars have been quietly manufactured at the Mint during the present year; in other words, that notwithstanding the positive assertions of the Mint authorities to the contrary, a trade dollar with the date 1884 does exist.
We hold that the plain but positive statement of the Mint officers on the point should be considered conclusive evidence, and they say that no trade dollars have been issued in the Philadelphia Mint, nor in any mint of the United States during the present year.
But as doubts on this point may exist in the minds of those who heard the report, we are authorized to make the following offers: $100 cash each for any number of United States trade dollars of 1884, coined at the Philadelphia or any other United States mint; $25 cash down to anyone who will show us such a dollar.
It is time that absurd and untruthful if not slanderous statements about so-called "deals" at the National Mint should cease. The present management has proved itself most honorable, impartial and just, and no one has unusual facilities to obtain pattern pieces and Proof sets, all collectors in this respect being treated alike, i.e., what is obtainable by one at the Mint is obtainable by all.
It is true that certain dealers and collectors have lobbying friends in Washington, men who hang about the Coinage and Finance Committee rooms, also the Treasury department. These men are at times enabled to secure pieces not issued to collectors at the Mint, but with this the Mint officers have nothing to do. They are required by law to furnish the Coinage Committee of Congress a certain number of specimens of the pattern pieces, essays, and regular coinage of each year; what Congressmen do with these is none of their concern. They are no more responsible for the action of these men than for the laws they frame.
A careful study of the subject led us long ago to the belief that all trumped up charges of favoritism in the distribution of pattern pieces made against the present Mint officers, were either purely malicious, or arose from a total ignorance of the duties of those officers and of the rights and privileges enjoyed by the legislative bodies at Washington.
Certain Mint officials must have howled with laughter when they read what Frossard wrote!
Among his contemporary colleagues, Frossard’s expertise was a laughing stock because of his advocacy of the NOVUM BELGIUM as a genuine 1623 product (it was actually a fantasy "colonial coin" made about 1858 by the teenaged C. Wyllys Betts). His credibility—already laughable because of his defense of the Mint quoted above—vanished after exposure of his role in the sale of forged documents, including the production of a catalogue entirely devoted to describing as authentic, fabrications of relics said to have been associated with John Trumbull, early American artist (1756-1843), painter of The Declaration of Independence.
From Woodward’s catalogues: Dealer and auctioneer W. Elliot Woodward, no fan of the Mint and its questionable practices, apparently had heard that 1884 trade dollars had been struck, for in his catalogue of the Twining Collection, April 27, 1886, Lot 1053, he noted this:
1884 Brilliant Proof Set. Trade Dollar, neglected. None yet issued to favorite collectors, and none yet offered by the regular mint peddlers.
More on the subject appeared in the catalogue for his 94th Sale, August 16-19, 1887, Lot 1123:
1884 Splendid Proof Set. Standard Dollar. No Trade yet issued, or at present known. Will probably come out at the convenience of the mint authorities.
Farran Zerbe writes: The Numismatist, November 1909, carried an article which told of the existence of the 1884 trade dollar struck in silver. Earlier, collectors were aware that copper die trials of this date existed, but did not know about the silver pieces. According to an account by Farran Zerbe, seven of the known 10 trade dollars dated 1884 were sold by one dealer at prices ranging from $150 to $400. Years later it was revealed that Virgil Brand was the purchaser of five or six of these.
Although Zerbe cited no specific Mint records, he related the following:
Of the 10 specimens recorded as struck, two of them have not been located; of the other eight specimens, Mr. A.M. Smith has selfishly guarded one for many years; another collector, unnamed, did likewise, and six were the property of one man [presumably, William Idler was intended; however, it is thought that Idler had all 10 coins]. Not many months ago these six came into possession of Captain John W. Haseltine, and then, for the first time, it was a published fact, with the coin in evidence, that 1884 trade dollars existed.
Haseltine offered the first piece to a dealer for $40, but the offer was declined. None was sold until later, at which time the price was $150. Toward the end of the disposal of the group of six, a price of $400 was realized. An example of the 1884 Trade dollar appeared in one of Ben G. Green’s sales and fetched $280. The seven specimens sold by Captain Haseltine were distributed among three collectors.
Zerbe’s articles in The Numismatist at the time—and he wrote many items for publication—were typically a mixture of numismatic enthusiasm, guesswork, gossip and information obtained from others and not checked, and promotion. He was not a serious student of numismatics in the research sense, although he appreciated the thousands of varied items he had in his Money of the World exhibit.
Virgil M. Brand: Information of a more factual nature comes to us from the meticulous records kept by Virgil M. Brand. This well-known Chicago collector owned five specimens, purchased as listed below. These are given provisional designations A through E, with the hope that someday they can be reconciled with the 10 specific specimens given later under the registry of extant 1884 trade dollars:
•Brand Specimen A: $50 from Stephen K. Nagy (partner with Capt. John W. Haseltine in various numismatic deals) on July 1, 1907. This was before the existence of the 1884 trade dollars was made publicly known. Surely, Brand would have bought more had he been given the opportunity. I can only surmise that he was allowed to buy just one coin at the time, and at a price which surely represented a bargain.
•Brand Specimen B: $150 from Capt. John W. Haseltine on September 17, 1908.
One can speculate that out of idle curiosity Brand might have consigned this coin, with no intention of selling it, to Ben G. Green’s 44th Sale, which took place on November 27, 1908. This is the coin mentioned by Zerbe in the article quoted above.
This conjecture has some logic to it, for Green was located in Chicago and was a close acquaintance of Brand. As all other specimens were being marketed out of Philadelphia at the time, why would Haseltine or Nagy have sent one to Chicago, when they could have more easily consigned a coin locally to S.H. Chapman or Henry Chapman? Green’s catalogue description follows:
"TRADE DOLLAR 1884 Brilliant Proof. Of excessive rarity, and its existence appears to have been entirely unknown to collectors until quite recently. From the best obtainable information there were not over 10 specimens struck, and 5 of these are said to have been destroyed. If this is correct, there are only 5 left and hence of greater rarity than the 1804 dollar. The Mint Cabinet does not contain one of these pieces, and it has never been offered before at auction."
The preceding coin is said to have sold for $280.
It is also possible that Haseltine and Nagy consigned an 1884 trade dollar to Green with the expectation that it would bring a high price, possibly to a reserve bid, thus impressing their Chicago customer, Brand, and confirming that the ones he bought the month before for $150 were indeed bargains. As incredible as it may seem to the present-day reader, it was about this time that certain dealers in Europe are believed to have created "auction sales" specifically to attract bids from Brand, who was far and away the world’s largest coin buyer.
•Brand Specimen C: $150 from Capt. John W. Haseltine on October 12, 1908. This or the following (Specimen D) was Brand’s inventory No. 44965 and was given to Virgil’s brother Armin in the split of Virgil’s estate. By September 6, 1938 the coin had been sold through Burdette G. Johnson as agent. (Information concerning the specific date of sale and the buyer may be in the Brand papers in the American Numismatic Society.)
•Brand Specimen D: $150 from Capt. John W. Haseltine on October 12, 1908 (yes, a second specimen on the same day!).
•Brand Specimen E: $260 from B. Max Mehl’s sale of the Henry O. Granberg Collection, July 16, 1919. This coin was described by Mehl as follows: "The Exceedingly Rare 1884 Trade Dollar: 1884 Beautiful brilliant Proof, perfect in every respect. Only ten specimens coined! Exceedingly rare. One of the rarest of all U.S. coins. Outside of my sales I believe that only one other specimen has been offered at auction in the past twelve years. The specimen in my sale of the [B.W.] Smith Collection in 1915 brought $525.00."
How each of these five pieces fits into the registry of 1884 trade dollars given below is not known at present. Brand was very secretive during his lifetime, and he did not reveal how many specimens he had of a given rarity. A hoarder par excellence, each of these 1884 trade dollars was kept by Brand until his death in 1926, after which his estate was disposed of over a long period of years, with Burdette G. Johnson and Henry Chapman selling many items in the 1930s, followed by other disposals by beneficiaries through the 1980s.
B. Max Mehl: Mehl’s offering of the Granberg 1884 trade dollar in 1919 saw Brand as the buyer, as noted above. This leaves offerings by Mehl in 1913 and 1915. P. Scott Rubin, consultant to the present volume, believes these are one and the same coin as both illustrations show the same coin. The July 14, 1913 sale of the Henry O. Granberg Collection offered trade dollars of 1884 and 1885. The 1884 is said to have sold for $765, but it may have been unsold and simply recycled into the 1915 sale. The 1913 description follows:
"Lot 391. 1884 Trade dollar. Perfect brilliant Proof. Exceedingly rare. Only ten specimens reported to have been coined. This is, I believe, the second specimen of this great rarity ever offered at auction. See plate."
The same coin reappeared in Mehl’s 35th Sale, the B.W. Smith Collection, sold to mail bids on May 25, 1915. The description follows:
"Lot 749. The Exceedingly Rare 1884 Trade Dollar. 1884 magnificent brilliant Proof, sharp and perfect in every respect. Exceedingly rare. Only ten specimens coined. In point of number coined it is as rare as the dollar of 1804. From the Granberg Sale. See Plate IV." The coin sold for $525.
Granberg liked 1884 and 1885 trade dollars and had multiple specimens, including one of each exhibited at the 1916 convention of the American Numismatic Association. It is likely that he had at least two 1884s, the one appearing in Mehl’s 1913 and 1915 sales, and the other (different, as shown by the catalogue illustration) being that sold to Brand in 1919.
Granberg sold several collections over a period of time. He was a prime customer of Stephen K. Nagy and John W. Haseltine, according to conversations I had with Nagy in the 1950s. Nagy and Haseltine had a nice supply of rare 1836, 1838, and 1839 Gobrecht dollar restrike mulings in silver and copper, and a dozen or more of these were sold to Granberg.
Jack Collins comments: Writing in the Gobrecht Journal, July 1977, Jack Collins traced the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars to the machinations of Mint Superintendent Col. Archibald Loudon Snowden. From there they were apparently sold to William Idler and were said to have been included in Proof sets of the years indicated, all of which were broken up to sell the pieces individually.
If 1884 trade dollars were included in Proof sets of the year 1884, Idler put them there himself, for no Proof sets sold by the Mint to collectors contained this denomination. It was popular at the time to invent all sorts of fancy stories and pedigrees to explain away the clandestine productions of the Mint (the book, The Fantastic 1804 Dollar, by Eric P. Newman and Kenneth E. Bressett, vividly delineates how this was done for the 1804 silver dollar, for example; Don Taxay has also written extensively on the subject, see Bibliography).
Legality of the 1884 trade dollar: The 1884 trade dollar is not an illegal issue. No law was passed after 1883 which prohibited the production of Proof 1884 trade dollars (or for that matter, those dated 1885) for collectors. The Mint could have struck one coin, 10 coins, 100, or 1,000. Had the Mint announced that Proofs were available, undoubtedly several hundred or more would have been sold, in keeping with other contemporary sales figures for silver Proof coins. While not illegal to own, the 1884 trade dollar was made under immoral circumstances, because Mint officials falsely claimed than none was coined.
Mint records examined by R.W. Julian reveal that one pair of dies for the 1884-dated Proof trade dollar was furnished to the coiner on January 3, 1884. From these dies an unknown quantity of copper and silver impressions was made. It has been popularly suggested that the silver mintage amounted to 10 coins, but this is hearsay and is based upon the number which surfaced on the market in 1907-1908, and on the number now known. The die destruction list of January 2, 1885 stated that the 1884-dated trade dollar dies were unused; specifically, the notation "None struck" appeared. However, as 1884 trade dollars in copper were openly made, the statement that the dies were unused is patently false.
A 1992 brochure issued by the U.S. Mint and the Treasury Department, offering for sale Mint sets, illustrated an 1875 trade dollar and noted that coins of this design were struck for a 13-year period, thus implicitly acknowledging official Mint parentage of the 1884 and 1885 (the 13-year period beginning with 1873, the first year trade dollars were issued, ends with 1885).
Carl Carlson on the 1884 Trade Dollar
The following commentary by Carl W.A. Carlson appeared in connection with the sale of an 1884 trade dollar in Stack’s sale of the Frank Sprinkle Collection, June 1988:
One of the classic rarities in American numismatics, the 1884 Trade Dollar has also long been regarded as one of the great mysteries as well. Aside from the copper strikes no specimens were known in numismatic channels until 1908, when Haseltine began dispersing the collection of his father-in-law, William Idler. That collection is variously reported to have had 4 or 6 specimens of this issue, as well as most of the 1885 trade dollars. The general opinion is that these pieces were clandestinely struck at some later date, from dies "nocturnally" prepared using hubs and punches available in the die cutters’ work room. Even the accepted figure of 10 specimens struck of 1884, and 5 of the 1885, have been regarded only as "reasonable estimates." Breen was unable to find any trace of their production in Mint records, nor could he find any evidence of the manufacturer of the dies in 1884.
New evidence has come into our hands recently, shedding considerable light on this problem. We believe it is now possible to reconstruct events in 1884 with reasonable accuracy.
In the estate of Charles Barber there are many letters and other documents of various sorts connected with Mint operations as well as other projects of Barber himself (such as his preparation of huge numbers of dies early in this century for many foreign governments). Of immediate relevance is a small leather bound notebook, hand written throughout, the "Die Record Book" of A.W. Straub, foreman of the Die Makers’ Room, covering the years 1880-1886. The volume is a day-by-day record of dies received from the Engraving Department and released to the coining room. Most of the volume is concerned with the "business strike" dies, the record distinguishing between obverse and reverse dies within each denomination.
From 1881 on the actual dies are numbered, and we find in 1883, for example, that 507 obverse dies and 367 reverse ones were issued for the 5-cent nickel coinage alone. In the back of the book are separate pages, by year, listing the Proof dies provided, again distinguishing obverses from reverses. As an example of this part of the book, we note that in 1881 one pair of Proof dies per denomination was provided between January 10 and January 15; on January 27 a second set for the Morgan dollar was provided; March 17 saw a new die pair for the 5 cent nickel Proofs; and on August 31 a new Proof obverse only for the $3 was put into service for the last proof striking of that denomination during the year. Interestingly, no Proof dies were provided for the 1 cent, 3 cent nickel or dime in 1881, so presumably regular working dies were "shined up" in the Coining Room and used instead for the "Proof" strikes.
The list of Proof Dies provided in 1884 begins on January 3 with a major delivery of dies from the Engraving Department. In the order listed this delivery included one obverse and one reverse Proof die for each of the following: trade dollar, standard dollar, half dollar, quarter dollar, dime, double eagle, eagle, half eagle, quarter eagle, three dollar, gold one dollar, five cent nickel. (It was common in this period for Proof dies for the 1 cent and 3 cent to be delivered late in the year if at all; in 1884 they did not arrive until December 19. Working dies were polished in the Coining Room used to strike the "Proofs" in the sets.)
In our opinion, the Coining Room, under orders from [Col. A. Loudon] Snowden as Superintendent of the Mint, began striking Proof coins in early January 1884, in preparation for the release of the Proof sets of the year. At that time (and, indeed, since 1879), the trade dollars did not form a part of the Proof set of the year itself, but was offered separately at $1.25. As there had been no change in instructions, the sets were expected to contain all denominations except the trade dollar, but those would have been available at extra cost to anyone desiring them. Apparently a significant number of Proofs of each denomination were actually struck in January, consistent with normal Mint practice. In addition a couple of complete sets in copper were struck, including the trade dollar. At least one of these sets was presented by Snowden to A.M. Smith, the collector who also wrote most of the Mint’s "visitor’s manuals" during that period, and who had also received complete copper sets of 1882 and 1883.
At this point, probably some time in mid-January, the Treasury Department apparently sent instructions to the Mint that trade dollars were not going to be offered for sale in Proof when the regular silver/minor Proof sets and the gold Proof sets were made available to the public. The copper sets which had been produced did not pose any problem under the new ruling since copper for such purposes was never receipted for. The silver trade dollar Proofs, however, were another matter entirely since the silver used to strike them had to be accounted for. Snowden either had to order the remelting of these coins or else replace the bullion directly in order to balance the account. Apparently he compromised, saving about 10 specimens (whose bullion value he would have replaced) while having the unknown remaining quantity melted. With the bullion journals balanced there would have been no record of the trade dollar coinage remaining.
The Straub die record book, in Barber’s possession since before 1900, shows that the trade dollar dies were properly prepared and properly receipted for. That the dies were properly destroyed is shown by the January 2, 1885 die destruction record of the coiner, listing a pair of 1884 trade Dollar dies having been melted on that date (along with the other dies of 1884), according to R.W. Julian who has seen the die destruction records. The coins themselves were properly struck under proper authority as part of the Mint’s regular business in preparing Proof coins of the year. They were legally owned by Snowden (and any other involved) once the bullion had been replaced, since it was standard policy for Mint employees and friends to be able to acquire current coins of the year by exchanging the proper amount of bullion for them. This still remained the policy into the late 1930s. They thus formed a legitimate issue directly comparable to the Proof trade dollars of the 1879-1883 period.
Of the preceding, this part seems to be conjecture: Proof trade dollars were prepared in significant numbers in anticipation of their normal sale to collectors. Before any were sold, the order came from Col. A. Loudon Snowden, superintendent of the Mint, stating that Proof trade dollars were not to be issued that year. All pieces struck were destroyed, except for 10 saved by Snowden, who satisfied the silver bullion account by personally substituting an equivalent amount of silver as a replacement for the 10 coins.
Should scholars accept the Carlson theory, the 1884 dollar could be, as he concluded in his remarks, "a legitimate issue directly comparable to the Proof trade dollars of the 1879-1883 period." If this is the case, then the 1884 may have a different status, philosophically, than the 1885.
Status of the 1884 trade dollar today: Today the 1884 and 1885 trade dollars are recognized as prime rarities. The appearance of a single specimen on the market is a cause for excited publicity. Whether or not the 1884 (and 1885) trade dollars are legitimate issues hasn’t made the slightest difference in the coins’ market prices; offerings on the auction market have been met with great enthusiasm. Seemingly, if a rarity has an aspect of mystery to it or, even better, a nuance of "naughtiness," its value and desirability are enhanced; witness two of the most famous and valuable United States rarities: the 1913 Liberty Head nickel (of which five are known) and the 1804 dollar (of which 15 are known).
Varieties:
OBVERSE TYPE II, RIBBON ENDS POINT DOWN, 1876-1885
REVERSE TYPE II: NO BERRY BELOW CLAW, 1875-1885
Proofs:
1. Normal issue: Breen-5830. All were struck from one pair of dies. Plain (not crosslet) 4 in date. Struck on normal trade dollar planchets of about 420 grains weight.
1884 TRADE DOLLAR: CATALOGUE VALUES
Values as given in A Guide Book of U.S. Coins 1945 (1946 prices) to date. Actual auction records are a better indication of value, but catalogue listings are of interest. The 1965, 1970, 1975, and 1980 prices are copies of auction records listed in the Guide Book.
Year |
Proof |
1945 |
800 |
1950 |
800 |
1955 |
800 |
1960 |
2500 |
1965 |
8750 |
1970 |
8750 |
1975 |
30000 |
1980 |
39000 |
1985 |
45000 |
Year |
P-63 |
1986 |
|
1987 |
|
1988 |
|
1989 |
|
1990 |
|
1991 |
|
1992 |
SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS
1884
PROOFS:
Enabling legislation: Act of February 12, 1873
Business strike mintage: None
Designer: William Barber
Weight: 420 grains
Composition: .900 silver, .100 copper
Melt-down (silver value) in year minted: $0.8765
Dies prepared: Obverse: 1; Reverse: 1
Proof mintage: At least 10
Characteristics of striking: Usually well struck.
Approximate population Proof-64 or better: 4 known (URS-2)
Approximate population Proof-60 to 63: 6 known (URS-3)
COMMENTARY: Made in limited quantities by Mint personnel and filtered into the collecting community via William Idler, Philadelphia coin dealer. Date(s) when the coins were made unknown. Although such pieces were rumored to exist as early as 1884 (the date on the coins), they were generally unknown to the collecting fraternity until 1908, although a specimen was sold to Virgil M. Brand in 1907.