Treasures among Treasure Novodel 1863 “L” on Ribbon Indian Cent

by: Dr. Ron Brown   |   Friday, August 27, 2021   |   1 Comments

At the World’s Fair of Money show in Chicago Illinois, I was introduced by a friend in person to an amazing coin, the 1863 “L” on Ribbon Indian Head Cent. Before this time, over the phone, I recall a conversation with a coin collector who stated that he found such a coin in circulated condition.This  would be a true “Treasure among Treasure” find. He said that he sent it to Rick Snow. Given that I lost everything in the fire of Sept 2020 in northern California, I cannot retrieve or recall this person identity. If as stated, I bet Rick will know.

Any regular reference book on coins such as the “Red Book,” does not show an 1863 L on ribbon Indian cent. It first appears on regular issued coins in 1864. Back on November 8^th of 1903, this coin was noticed by a Mr. Wm Hidden who communicated to the ANA about it. The knowledge of an 1863 L on ribbon centbeing mentioned in any numismatic publication seems first to surface in the December of 1903 issue of the ANA’s “The Numismatist, page 375.” (see below) I hear reports of an even earlier published date for an auction, but I could not locate that.

The 1863 L Indian Cent coin I examined in person was attributed as a pattern Judd-301, once certified by PCGS as 25696095 – resubmitted later and assigned number 36090258 for Gold Shield. The PCGS holder was marked with their identification, grade, and Judd number. for, J. Hewitt Judd, M.D. author of United States Pattern, Experimental and Trial Pieces catalogued pattern, etc. coins.

Used with permission of Owner.

At First, the term pattern seems very much in keeping with conventional thought. Patterns wereper Andrew W. Pollock III, “an experimental piece which either illustrates a proposed coinage design, or which embodies a proposed innovation of composition, size, or shapehowever, the numismatic community have traditionally employed a much broader definition of the wordto include experimental pieces, die trials, unofficial pieces and the often more infamousrestrikes or “pieces de caprice i.e. whim” made primarily for collectorsalso have fallen under this heading - unfortunately so I think.”Judd 299 (J-299), certification 33282503 is the actual pattern, struck to illustrate the coins to be introduced in 1864. Both obverse and reverse dies were the designs used on regular-issue coinage in 1863. Struck in bronze, with a medal turn, and a plain edge. It is a pattern, plain and simple. It does not have an L on ribbon and its production is contemporary with the date on the coin.  This issue was the Mint's first experiment with the bronze alloy used in cent coinage after 1864.

(J-299), certification 33282503 is the actual pattern for 1863- note, NO L on ribbon -used with permission

But what is a coin, made by the Mint later, different than that which appears on it for regular release called? Is it official or unofficial given that the Mint made it?It is a Novodel.Per Steve D'Ippolito, A novodel is a Russian numismatics term meaning, novo (ново) equaling, new and del' (дель) equaling, made or done) so “Made New at a later date.”It seems that the Russian were famous for making lots of such coins, I assume for financial reasons. 

Patterns and experimental pieces form one of the most interesting categoriesof numismatics. These pieces exist because it was customary for the mint to provide samples of any proposed change in coinage such as a different design, denomination, metal or weight for approval or rejection.

 

Patterns are defined as pieces prepared officially by the mint or by the authorized agent of a coin-issuing authority which represent a new design, motto or denomination proposed for adoption as a regular issue, struck in the specific metal, and which were not adopted, at least in that same year. Those struck from these dies in other metals are pattern trial pieces.

Experimental pieces include those struck with any convenient die to try out a new metal or a new denomination. Those struck in the proper metal, where it is specified, are the experimental pieces and those struck in order metals are experimental trial pieces.

A regular die trial piece is struck from a regular die in a metal or metals other than those intended for regular issue. These are usually in soft base metals such as copper.

Die strikes or die trials are impressions, usually uniface, of an unfinished or even a completed die in a soft metal to try the die.

A piece de caprice is an unauthorized piece struck for some reason other than as a pattern, experimental or trial piece. They apparently are struck solely to satisfy the whim of some collector or mint employee.Reference: ANA, Introduction to Numismatics, 1967; ANA, the Dictionary of Numismatic Terms, 1970

Both Snow and the website uspatterns.com state that Judd-304 is a fantasy piece struck later than the date on the coin; I include J-301 through J-303 as well, expressly produced for distribution to the then current collectors at the time of its minting. The reverse is the same as that the Mint used to coin regular issues Proof Indian cents from 1868 through early 1870 (Snow’s reverse 1868A)

This was a time during Henry R Linderman’s first term as Mint director, an era that saw the creation of MANY back-dated patterns, restrikes, off-metal strikes and other oddities that now rank among the rarest of U.S. coins. Indeed, the Mint also produced 1863 L on ribbon coins in Bronze (Judd-301) and copper/nickel (Judd-302) and oroide (Judd-303).It is believed that same die was used in 1869 and 1870, and possibly 1868 and 1871. This is interesting history given that in 1866 the then Mint Director, James Pollock issued these orders:

 

Circular from the Director of the Mint James Pollock dated July 1, 1866, regarding pattern and experimental coins:

 

The ensuing rules are in plain terms, and hardly require a statement of reasons. It may be said, however, in regard to the rule against striking a coin or pattern after its proper date, that while it seemed desirable that some patterns of former years, which are very scarce or curious should be repeated, yet we could not issue them impartially, without giving out an indefinite number. And if some kinds are thus struck, there would be a call for other kinds; there would be no knowing where to begin or end.

 

1. No coins, nor pattern pieces, shall be struck after the year of their date; and to insure this, the dies shall be rendered unfit for that use.

 

2. No coins, nor patterns, are to be issued in any but their proper metal.

 

3. Any experimental or pattern piece can be obtained at the Mint, within the year of its date, but not after. Standing orders for such pieces will be registered and attended to. Any patterns that remain on hand, at the end of the year, must be defaced: It is not desirable to make them as common as proofs of regular coinage. If any sets of regular proofs remain over, they may be sold in the next year, but not later.

…

 

I hear that Rick Snow and John Dannreuther have verified the later production as well. I am told that Mr. Dannreuther is writing a book about the Proof dies used during that period and has done extensive research. It is saidunder the leadership of Mint Director Henry R Linderman it was not unusual for the Mint to run a few coins when they needed them for regular Proof orders, then put the dies back up on the shelf until sometime when they needed to run some more. This restriking activity from 1871 era is well known to the advance collector. Coins that fall into this category are the Proof Dollars of 1801 – 1803, 1804 is a novodelrestrike but not from this time frame (Ty I-1834, Ty II-1858, Ty III-1875). This documented historical minting practice is why there are so many die combinations on dates within the Indian Cents series with extremely low mintages. They did not strike all the coins at once, but just a few at a time when they had orders to fill.  So, it was easy for Mint employees to grab one of the current reverses dies off the shelf. Snow and Dannreuther believe the fantasy pieces like J-301 were struck around 1870-71, but possibly 1869 or a little later than 1871, using a reverse die off the shelf.

So,some might askare there well-known United State coin/s that fits the Novodel definition? For sure the 1804 Silver dollar meets that definition being minted first in 1834 and then later as mentioned above. Using the broader definition of a Novodel, the 1913 liberty nickel issue is more accurately called an illicit coin, as it was from Mint dies, just struck inconcealment, like the 1884 and 1885 Trade dollars, however lumped into the modern numismatic use of the Novodelterm. It is obvious and make note, that none of these famous coins are listed as a pattern or porotype and were not (emphasis added)given a Judd number. I have below includedexamples and certification numbers here of a fewfor yourverification.Examples:1913 Liberty Nickel PCGC’s cert. #2823063, labeled as a PR 66 coin; NGC’s cert. Class I 1804 Dollar #3128352-001, labeled as PR 62;Class III 1804 Dollar PCGC’s cert. #38997237 labeled as PR 55 restrike and 1885 Trade Dollar PCGS’s cert. #36982251, labeled as PR 65+ CAM. Note,there is NO JUDD identification on these or other coins of the like, with all of these being producedlater than indicated on each coin or illicitly minted.

This brings us to the Coin in question in this article that I examined;an 1863 Indian Cent with “L” on ribbon, certified by PCGS a Judd-301, with Cert. #36090258. As noted in Breen’s Encyclopedia of United States & Colonial Proof Coins 1722-1977, pg. 120, He identifies these 1863 L on Ribbon coins as “piece de caprice.” By definition that is to say, A piece de caprice is an unauthorized piece struck for some reason other than as a pattern, experimental or trial piece.SO why are Judd numbers associated with it and others like it?

PCGS cert photo before slabbinginGold Shield Holder used with permission of owner

Note that J-299 has a rounded bust where the 1863 with L on ribbon is pointed. There are other die variants that help in identifying the coins production year but to that a bit later.According to the PCGS Certification Database, the requested certification number (36090258) is defined as the following:

(1) Comments

JR on Monday, June 19, 2023 10:46 AM		Reply
Great article! There are now a total of 8 specimens known with 2 of them being in the CT State Library collection (one possibly oride). Karpeles (Historical Scholar Collection) had a PF65RB and PF64BN in his collection.