Letter: "Half eagles of 1887 won't become rare." 0

[RWB]

This little letter was posted ATS and seems to have generated minor confusion there.

The letter was a reply to Superintendent Fox of the Philadelphia Mint, who requested permission to strike some 1887-date half eagles for circulation. Fox felt this would prevent the coins from becoming "rare" and the object of collector hoarding. Up to that point in 1887 only proof half eagles had been struck - no coins for circulation. Mint Director Kimball approved Fox' idea then commented that 1887 half eagles would no become rare since a large quantity had been struck at the San Francisco Mint. What this demonstrates is the Director Kimball did not understand the to a coin collector and 1887-S half eagle and an 1887 proof or 1887 from Philadelphia were not interchangeable -- they were three different things. This was part of Kimball's misunderstanding that helped create very low circulation mintages for otherwise ordinary denominations during the 1880s.

Some ATS also asked when proof half eagles and double eagles were made in 1887, and if the Annual Assay Commission examined any of the proofs. The following table shows dates proof coins were delivered in 1887 and also the proof pieces of these denominations reported among the Assay Commission's minutes. (The Commission met in mid-February 1888.) This should clear up any confusion here or elsewhere.

Edited February 25, 2021 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

But my understanding is it wasn't until John Clapp began collecting and focusing on mint marks in the 1890's that they started to become more popular and collectors began to understand and focus on mintmarks.  Bowers notes that a publication dedicated to mint marks had 2 dozen subscribers and this was after 1900.

So I kind of think Kimball got it right -- mint marks didn't matter when he typed this letter.  If collecting ANY gold eagles was expensive, then the focus on collecting different mint marks would not have been a primary focus, right ? 

Edited February 26, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

But my understanding is it wasn't until John Clapp began collecting and focusing on mint marks in the 1890's that they started to become more popular and collectors began to understand and focus on mintmarks.  Bowers notes that a publication dedicated to mint marks had 2 dozen subscribers and this was after 1900.

So I kind of think Kimball got it right -- mint marks didn't matter when he typed this letter.  If collecting ANY gold eagles was expensive, then the focus on collecting different mint marks would not have been a primary focus, right ? 

I think you are referring to “A Treatise on the Coinage of the United States Branch Mints” by Augustus G. Heaton, May, 1893.

There were definitely collectors of US coin by date/mintmark decades before the traditional claim. Bowers and others refer to the first publication devoted to mintmarks as if it were a great revelation - it was not. Only the publication was new, not the collector awareness. The publication certainly stimulated interest in mintmarks and helped create a slightly broader base.

I understand you comment and agree it's likely as good as the other position - we'll probably never know for sure.

Edited February 26, 2021 by RWB

[RWB]

Side note: Heaton's booklet contains about 50 pages of text and 83 blank pages. These were evidently intended for notes, although they also might have been put there to help justify the $1 price.