Only three regular issue U.S. coins are unique. The 1870-S half dime, the 1873-CC No Arrows dime, and the 1870-S three dollar gold piece are each known by a single example. Next in line is the 1861 Paquet double eagle from the Philadelphia Mint. Once considered a pattern, this coin is clearly a regular issue double eagle. Some might consider the 1866 No Motto quarter and half dollar to be regular issue coins as well, although others consider these coins to be patterns. Others might point to individual die varieties of early U.S. coins that are unique, but among regular dates within the U.S. coinage series, just three issues are unique, and the 1861 Paquet twenty is next. This important rarity is absolutely necessary for a complete set of Liberty double eagles.
Just two examples are known. One of these is a Superb Gem and the other is lightly flawed, but both pieces represent one of the most important issues in the entire scope of U.S. numismatic history. Although a third example of the 1861 Paquet double eagle has been rumored from time to time, only two have been positively identified during the 145 years since they were struck.
The obverse is identical to the design created by James Longacre for the Liberty Head double eagle, which was introduced to regular issue coinage in 1850. In fact, the obverse die is from the same coinage hub that was introduced in 1859, a slight modification of the original hub. Anthony C. Paquet prepared a modified reverse design in 1860. The Paquet reverse is essentially a copy of the Longacre design, made from new letter punches that provide a taller and more compact appearance, leaving more space between words. The rays are closer to the lettering, providing more room for the oval of stars. The actual die field is slightly larger in diameter, with a narrower rim, and this was the downfall of Paquet's design. Further die differences will be discussed below, along with some fascinating comparisons between the various issues.
In the Norweb catalog, Dave Bowers noted: "Late in 1860 this new Paquet reverse was adopted as the standard design for regular coinage. Dies dated 1861 were furnished to the branch mints at New Orleans and San Francisco, and examples were made up for internal use in Philadelphia." Dies were ready at least by November 1860, for it was then that the Paquet reverse dies for the San Francisco coinage were shipped to that Mint. A short time later, on December 10, 1860, dies for the New Orleans Mint Paquet double eagle were shipped to Louisiana. A note accompanying the dies sent to New Orleans was addressed to the coiner of that Mint: "The reverse of the double eagles is from a new original die, and will require a modification of the milling to suit the border."
An unknown quantity of pieces was coined at the Philadelphia Mint beginning on January 5, but coinage was soon stopped due to concerns that the larger field area on the reverse die would cause problems striking these coins due to unaligned stress points. At the same time, word was sent to the New Orleans and San Francisco mints to take the new dies out of service. In New Orleans, these instructions were received and complied with in a timely manner; however, the San Francisco Mint continued striking examples through the end of January. Mint Director James Ross Snowden sent further details to San Francisco: "In preparing the new dies for 1861, a slight deviation in the diameter of the double eagle was inadvertently made. As it is highly important that a proper uniformity of size should be maintained, I telegraphed you today to 'use the old reverse of the double eagle, and not the new one.' "
In A Guide Book of United States Double Eagles, Bowers discussed the aspects of striking this issue: "Although the Mint was fearful that the narrow rim would cause problems in striking, such problems are not evident in known specimens of this or of the San Francisco Mint version. Messrs. Hodder, Ford, and Rubin [Michael J. Hodder, John J. Ford, Jr. and P. Scott Rubin co-authored an article "The 1861 Paquet Double Eagles" for The American Numismatic Association Anthology] suggest that the circulation strikes made at Philadelphia in early January may have had problems and may have been melted, and that the two specimens under consideration in the present text may have been made later as numismatic delicacies, and that is why they have no evidence of striking problems."
In the same reference, Bowers made additional commentary about the "numismatic delicacy" theory posed by Hodder, Ford, and Rubin: "The authors discuss the title subject in detail, give much interesting Mint data, and suggest that the surviving 1861 Philadelphia Mint double eagles with the Paquet Reverse--two have been accounted for--may have been a special numismatic issue, rather than unmelted remainders from the January 1861 coinage. I consider them to have been regular issues. The cataloguers of the Dallas Bank Collection specimen sold by Stack's and Sotheby's in 2001 similarly presented the coin as a regular issue, not a pattern or numismatic delicacy."
The present cataloger also considers this to be a regular issue, as does David Akers. Walter Breen considered them to be regular issue coins, and Andrew Pollock, III also considers the Paquet double eagles to be regular issues and not pattern coins as they are unlisted in his reference. In A Guide Book of United States Coins, Editor Kenneth Bressett lists both the Philadelphia and San Francisco Mint Paquet coins among regular Liberty double eagles. All of the evidence points to these as regular issue coins.
In 100 Greatest U.S. Coins, Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth summed up the pattern versus regular issue debate: "At one time, this incredibly rare coin was considered a pattern or experimental issue. It has been shown, however, to be a regular issue United States coin struck for general circulation. In 1860, Anthony Paquet, an engraver at the Philadelphia Mint, modified the reverse design for the double eagle. The new design is very similar to the standard issue, but the reverse letters are much taller and slender in appearance. There are also several technical variations with regard to the positioning and size of the lettering. In late 1860, the Paquet reverse became the standard design that was adopted for the regular issue coinage of 1861 double eagles. Dies were shipped to the branch Mints of New Orleans and San Francisco. Actual coinage on high-speed presses began in January of 1861 in Philadelphia. It was feared that the wider fields and narrow rim would cause breakage of the dies, so the use of Paquet dies was discontinued. However, these dies that were used for coinage experienced no problems at all, proving their withdrawal was unnecessary."
Breen's 1954 Commentary
In Numisma, the house organ of the New Netherlands Coin Company, Walter Breen answered questions from readers on a variety of topics. In the first issue, a question was posed regarding the Paquet double eagles. Breen's response provided the state of knowledge at the time. Some of the following is not entirely accurate, but most of this information is relevant today. Reader D.K. of Chicago asked: "How rare is the 1861 'S' double eagle with the Paquet reverse, and why wasn't this coin also struck at Philadelphia?"
Breen answered, "The distinctive reverse with tall narrow letters, made by A.C. Paquet, actually was accepted for use in 1861 at all Mints. It is so spoken of by Curator DuBois in the manuscript volume Mint Cabinet Accounts & Memoranda 1857-1904; in describing the 1861 Paquet reverse proof in the Mint collection [we are unaware of such a coin today]. The latter is one of possibly two gold impressions of this date known from the Philadelphia Mint. The similar pieces dated 1859 and 1860 can only be called patterns. At the end of 1860, a hub was made from Paquet's original design, presumably under the supervision of Longacre, who had long been dissatisfied with his own first effort for a $20.00 reverse. Working dies were prepared, for use in 1861, and were sent out to the New Orleans and San Francisco branch Mints. The first proofs were struck in Philadelphia during the period Jan. 2-5. These two specimens are perfect, mainly because of the greater force of the hydraulic press used for proofs. When the Mint tried to strike regular examples on the double eagle press, it became evident that a serious error had occurred. The inner diameter of the reverse die was too great, the border too narrow, and the coins (1) would not stack, (2) would of necessity be beveled and have the obverse border misstruck, after the slightest giving way of the collar (normal in striking silver dollars and double eagles). One copper trial piece exists (A.W. 334a, ex Newcomer coll.) showing this beveled and imperfect periphery, and was undoubtedly the reason why the Mint director stopped any further action with the Paquet die at Philadelphia. On Jan. 5, 1861, he sent orders to the New Orleans and San Francisco branch Mints to 'use the old $20. reverse and not the new one.' The directive to New Orleans reached that branch in time to prevent any coinage of Paquet twenties. That to San Francisco, sent by Pony Express, was delayed en route and did not reach that branch until Feb. 2nd. The San Francisco Mint had reopened for coinage on Jan. 10th, and the superintendent had complained earlier to the director about trouble in hardening and adapting to the presses the new $20. reverse. There followed a letter of 2/9/1861: 'I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of your favor of the 5th ulto., overland which however did not come to hand until the 2nd inst. I was, therefore, unable to prevent the striking and issuing of a large number of double eagles coined with the new die. The amount coined was $385,000." It therefore appears, that of the Paquet reverse, there were struck (in the year of acceptance, 1861) probably two proofs at Philadelphia; 19,250 ordinary impressions at San Francisco. Of the latter, only two are now located; the Fecht specimen in the A.N.S., and one owned by the Numismatic Gallery. Both the Philadelphia and San Francisco coins constitute the rarest regularly issued double eagles, and are worth as much as any other great rarity in the U.S. series."
It was only a dozen years earlier that Congress authorized the $20 denomination. Legislation was a direct response to discoveries of gold in California. A Congressional Act was passed on March 3, 1849, authorizing the coinage of gold dollars and double eagles:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be, from time to time, struck and coined at the mint of the United States, and the branches thereof, conformably in all respects to law, (except that on the reverse of the gold dollar the figure of the eagle shall be omitted,) and conformably in all respects to the standard for gold coins now established by law, coins of gold of the following denominations and values, viz.: double eagles, each to be of the value of twenty dollars, or units, and gold dollars, each to be of the value of one dollar, or unit."
From this date forward, beginning with the initial coinage of 1850, the double eagle became the workhorse denomination for U.S. gold coinage, especially in San Francisco, where almost half of the total production of this denomination was coined. Clearly, production of a single gold coin valued at 20 dollars was less expensive than production of multiple pieces of smaller denominations totaling 20 dollars.
Bowers noted in his Double Eagle Guide Book: "In their day double eagles were the coins of choice for American commerce and international trade. From 1850 to 1933, far more gold bullion was converted into coins of this denomination than for all other denominations combined, even if you count earlier coins dating back to the first American gold ($5 and $10 pieces) of 1795." In fact, the total face value of all double eagles represented nearly 77% of the face value of all gold coinage ever produced by the U.S. Mint and its branches.
Today, double eagles and silver dollars, the two largest regular issue coins of the United States, are collected by more individuals than any other single denomination, regardless of metallic composition.
Anthony C. Paquet
Assistant Mint Engraver Anthony C. Paquet was born on December 5, 1814 in Hamburg, Germany and emigrated to the United States in October 1848. The cataloger for Sotheby's and Stack's said that "he is believed to be the son of one Tuissaint Francois Paquet." Paquet worked in Philadelphia and New York from 1850 to 1857, before joining the Mint staff on October 20, 1857. The nature of his earliest work in America is unknown. He remained in the Mint's service until 1864 and did additional contract work before and after his period of employment. He continued living in Philadelphia until his death in 1882. Paquet is most famous for the 1861 double eagles that are named for him. He also prepared a design modification for the 1859 half dime.
While at the Mint, Paquet created several patterns in addition to the 1861 double eagles that he is most famous for, although most of his work was engraving dies for numerous Mint medals. He prepared the dies for the first Congressional Medal of Honor as well as Indian Peace medals for Presidents Johnson and Grant.
In Numismatic Art in America, author Cornelius Vermeule discussed Paquet's work: "With the exception of several Mint medals, which prove his qualities as a master of incisive verism or of heroic sentiment in the early Victorian classical tradition, Paquet never had a chance to demonstrate his abilities as an official engraver. He soon left the government coining establishment for other, related work."
Paquet has not always been given appropriate credit for his talent. Donald Taxay wrote about Paquet in The U.S. Mint and Coinage: "Paquet possessed a very modest talent, and his dies, with but one brief exception, were never adopted on the coinage. A peculiar ugliness in portraiture, stiffness in anatomy, and tall, thin lettering distinguish the work of this artist."
Perhaps it was not entirely Paquet's fault that his work was a disappointment to some. Vermeule, whose work was published in 1971, seems to answer Taxay's complaint: "Paquet has been criticized for having been a mediocre engraver, but study of his coins and patterns reveals he never really had an opportunity to unleash his talents on the coinage because Longacre, the Chief Engraver, did all the work himself. Patterns have suggested Paquet's potential. Four medals can be singled out from among the limited number of existing examples that amply confirm his skill."
The catalogers of the Dallas Bank Collection took a positive stance regarding Paquet: "There can be little doubt, that the decision to pass the task of redesigning the double eagles to Paquet was related to his impressive medallic effort."
The Liberty design was created by James Longacre in 1849, and first used for double eagle coinage in 1850. With two minor reverse changes, this design continued in use until 1907, when the new Saint-Gaudens design was introduced. In 1866, the motto IN GOD WE TRUST was added to the reverse, in small letters among the oval of stars. The shield borders were also curved and stylized, an improvement over the straight vertical sides of the earlier version. In 1877, the denomination was revised to read TWENTY DOLLARS rather than TWENTY D. The three designs are known today as Type One, Type Two, and Type Three.
The central motif is a head of Liberty facing to the left, wearing a coronet inscribed LIBERTY, her hair tied in a bun behind her head. Around are 13 six-pointed stars with the date below the bust. The neck truncation contains the incuse initials JBL, for James Barton Longacre. Counting clockwise from the lower left, star 7 is at the 12 o'clock position, pointing to the second bead of the coronet.
The Paquet reverse design is modified with letters in a font different from the normal font. The central reverse motif is a heraldic style eagle with a shield covering its breast. Unlike later types, the sides of the shield are vertical. The eagle holds an olive branch in its left claw (to the viewer's right), and three arrows in its right claw. The motif is embellished by scrolls that contain the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM. Above the eagle is an oval constellation of 13 stars, surrounded by a glory of rays. Along the border from 8:30 to 3:30 is the statutory legend UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Below the eagle's tail is the denomination, TWENTY D.
Many individual modifications to the Longacre reverse are evident. The most obvious difference is the tall lettering, featuring heavier vertical elements including uprights and serifs. The scroll work is separated from the eagle's tail, and the constellation of stars is lower, almost entirely below the glory of rays. The eagle's wingtips point to different letters in the legend. The shield has a border consisting of two individual lines, rather than a single line. The border is much narrower, reportedly the downfall of this design, although that criticism appeared to be unfounded. The reverse dies for the Philadelphia and San Francisco Mint Paquet double eagles are not identical, as will be seen below.
As noted in the Dallas Bank Collection catalog, the changes incorporated by Paquet are more faithful to Longacre's original design than are his own reverse dies. The original drawing by Longacre was published in the Dallas Bank Collection catalog.
Conventional wisdom suggests that, by the 1860s, reverse dies were produced through use of a hub that contained the entire design. When the Paquet reverse design was produced, dies were made for Philadelphia, New Orleans, and San Francisco. While quite a number of examples survive from the mintage in San Francisco, and two exist from Philadelphia, none are known with the New Orleans mintmark.
It is highly unusual that the Philadelphia and San Francisco reverse dies are entirely different! While logic dictates that these dies, all produced in Philadelphia, should be identical due to the use of hubs, this is not the case. Apparently, two different hubs were produced by Paquet in 1860 or earlier, to create multiple dies for each of the three branch Mints that were then producing double eagles. Pattern double eagles from the San Francisco hub are known with an 1859 obverse. Judd-260 (Pollock-311) is known in copper with just one or two currently identified. It is not positively known if this was struck in 1859 or 1860. Pattern double eagles dated 1860 are known from both hubs. Judd-272a (Pollock-321) is a unique gold pattern made from the hub used for the San Francisco Mint reverse dies, and currently part of the Smithsonian Institution. Judd-273 (Pollock-322) is an extremely rare copper pattern made from the hub used for Philadelphia Mint dies.
As the San Francisco hub had been used for several different patterns, and the Philadelphia hub was only used for a single 1860-dated pattern, it seems logical that the slightly different Philadelphia hub was intended to be an improved version of the San Francisco reverse.
This situation was discussed at length by Hodder, Ford, and Rubin. As stated previously, their article, "The 1861 Paquet Double Eagles," appeared in The American Numismatic Association Anthology. In that article, the authors took an in-depth, highly detailed examination of the reverse dies and the surrounding history of these coins. It is highly recommended reading.
In a July 2006 phone conversation, Rubin explained to this cataloger his belief regarding the two hubs. The hub used for the San Francisco Mint dies was made first, and used in 1859 and 1860, or in 1860 with 1859 and 1860-dated obverse dies. This hub had a slight difference between the obverse and reverse field diameters and dies were produced and shipped to New Orleans and San Francisco. As Paquet continued to refine his design, a second hub was produced, and used to make dies for the Philadelphia Mint. This revised hub had a greater difference between obverse and reverse field diameters, and failed to function properly when the first coins were produced in 1861. This is when notice was sent to New Orleans and San Francisco. Since the Mint in California did not receive immediate word to suspend coinage, they continued with production, and after making appropriate press adjustments, they struck perfectly acceptable coins.
Comparative Die Study
Design Feature: (a) Longacre (b) 1861 Paquet (c) 1861-S Paquet
Lettering: (a) Short and wide (b) Tall and slender (c) Tall and slender
Left Wingtip: (a) Slightly left of center of E (b) Below upright of E (c) Below space between TE
Right Wingtip: (a) Below upright of E (b) Below right side of E (c) Below left tip of R
Stars: (a) Top six overlap rays (b) Top seven joined to rays (c) Top seven separated from rays
Shield Border: (a) Single thick line (b) Two thin lines (c) Two heavier lines
Shield Lines: (a) 14 horizontal lines (b) 16 horizontal lines (c) 16 horizontal lines
Lower Scroll Ends: (a) Lightly joined to tail (b) Separated from tail (c) Separated from tail
Upper Scroll Curls: (a) Lightly joined to wings (b) Separated from wings (c) Separated from wings
Leftmost Club Ray: (a) Closer to first S (b) Centered between D and S (c) Closer to D
Rightmost Club Ray: (a) Below inner right serif of A (b) Below space between AM (c) Below left upright of M
Number of Rays: (a) 56 (b) 72 (c) 73
About This Coin
MS61 PCGS. While the obverse of this example has a few noticeable marks, the all important reverse is highly attractive and desirable with no similar marks. The obverse fields are entirely covered with diagonal striae, slanting up to the right, as minted. Several medium and heavy abrasions are evident on Liberty's cheek and neck, with numerous smaller abrasions in the fields, and a few small rim nicks at 11 o'clock. The reverse is lightly abraded, but is free of any individually significant surface marks. Both sides are highly lustrous with brilliant yellow surfaces and hints of olive and honey coloration. Despite being described as "Choice About Uncirculated" in the Dallas Bank Collection sale, there is no immediately detectable evidence of wear. Both sides are sharply detailed with fully defined central motifs. The obverse stars have all of their centrils present with no sign of weakness. The reverse is similarly sharp with full eagle details. The stars in the constellation above the eagle's head are also well defined. Only the lettering in the statutory legend shows any sign of weakness, with the tops of the letters in TWENTY D. collapsing into the field. This may be more a trait of the distinctive Paquet lettering than an indication of the quality of strike.
Just two examples of the 1861 Paquet double eagle are known, and they differ remarkably in quality. In 1965, The Dallas Bank Collection specimen was rediscovered in Europe. It is assumed that this is the same coin that was offered in the Cohen and Cram collections 90 years earlier. This broken pedigree chain may also be the source of reports that a third example exists, and there is still the remote possibility that a third specimen may someday come to light, remaining untraced since 1877, but this seems highly unlikely after 129 years.
Much of the following is taken from the revised Census provided by Hodder, Ford, and Rubin in their Anthology article. This annotated Census provides notes about pedigree discrepancies. Prices listed for certain entries represent the selling price to the next entity. Our thanks are extended to Mr. Myron Xenos for providing information from certain early auction catalogs.
Dallas Bank Specimen (the coin offered here). MS61 PCGS.
Col. Mendes I. Cohen Collection (Edward Cogan, 10/1875), lot 131, $26, described as "Twenty dollar gold piece. The reverse on this piece, although similar in design to that of the regular issue, is larger in every respect and was withdrawn in consequence of the extreme narrow milling, which would cause much loss by abrasion, and all but two were remelted, this one and one in the possession of Mr. W.J. Jenks of Philadelphia. Extremely rare."
Cram Collection (W.H. Strobridge, 3/1877), lot 597, $22.25, described as "On small, thick planchet. Die rejected because too small. The piece believed to be unique. Uncirculated."
Unknown European intermediaries.
Assuming that this pedigree chain is correct, and that only two examples exist, the coin must have been spent in the late 19th century and then exported to Europe as nothing more than gold bullion. In the Norweb catalog, Dave Bowers noted: "The supposition would then be that the Cohen coin was spent at some later date--as indeed happened to numerous rare double eagles, including the majority of 19th century proofs, in an era in which the spending power of these coins exceeded their numismatic desirability. Collecting double eagles by varieties did not become popular until well into the present century."
Paul Wittlin (rediscovered in Paris, 1965) $7,500. Wittlin was the European buyer for Paramount.
Paramount International Coin Corporation. $12,500.
RARCOA (Ben Dreiske)
North Carolina Collection
Abe Kosoff and Mike Brownlee
H. Jeff Browning
Dallas Bank Collection (Sotheby's/Stack's, 10/2001), lot 30, $345,000. Today, this price seems to be an incredible bargain. At the time of the sale, rescheduled from a month earlier, the market was in a state of uncertainty due to the events of 9/11.
The Norweb Specimen. MS67.
Bache Collection, et al, (W. Elliot Woodward, 3/1865), lot 2818, $37, described as "Perfectly Uncirculated. Said to be unique."
This is the earliest known auction appearance of a Paquet double eagle, just four years after the coins were struck. It is the first notice of these coins on the numismatic scene.
George S. Seavey (privately, 1873). An auction of the Seavey coins was planned for 1873, but Lorin Parmelee stepped in and bought the entire collection intact.
Edward Cogan's catalog of the Col. Cohen sale, offering the other 1861 Paquet double eagle, noted that the Norweb specimen was in the possession of Mr. W.J. Jenks of Philadelphia. This detail may not be accurate, as the Cohen sale was held in October 1875. By this date, Lorin Parmelee had purchased the Seavey Collection intact, and was then the current owner of this specimen. The earliest sale of any coins from the Jenks sale was not until 1877, thus it is probably the case that Cogan was in error, or that Jenks had owned the coin earlier and sold it to Seavey.
Lorin G. Parmelee (New York Coin & Stamp Co., 6/1890), lot 1317, $44, described as: "Double Eagle: obv., same die as last. R. same type as last, but larger design and taller thin letters in legend: Paquet's designs: only two struck; very rare."
George D. Woodside Collection (New York Coin & Stamp Co., 4/1892), lot 115, $37.50.
M.A. Brown Collection (S.H. and H. Chapman, 4/1897), lot 53, $52.50, described as: "Obverse as the regular issue. R. Type of the regular issue but the letters taller and slimmer. Device wider and more open. Uncirculated. Mint luster. Gold. Excessively rare."
In the Anthology, page 7 of the Chapman Brothers' bidbook for the Brown sale was illustrated, clearly showing that this coin was purchased by Virgil M. Brand for $52.50. Earlier, in the Norweb Collection catalog, Ford provided a different pedigree for the early 20th century during a conversation with Q. David Bowers. Ford's earlier pedigree placed this coin in the following hands: William H. Woodin; Waldo C. Newcomer; B. Max Mehl; Wayte Raymond; and Col. E.H.R. Green, then to B.G. Johnson and F.C.C. Boyd.
Virgil M. Brand.
B.G. Johnson (on consignment from Armin Brand and later purchased from Brand on December 31, 1936 for $500).
In the Norweb catalog, Dave Bowers published a transcript of a phone conversation he had with Ford regarding the pedigree of the Paquet double eagles. Ford commented: "He [Boyd] obtained it from his friend Burdette G. Johnson somewhere between 1938 and 1941, paying $44 for it as a regular 1861 double eagle! Johnson, not an accomplished numismatist from a technical viewpoint, overlooked numerous rarities in material he handled for various estate clients."
This discussion is highly surprising on the part of John Ford. Three years later, in the Anthology article that he co-authored, an invoice was illustrated, showing that Johnson sold the Paquet double eagle to Boyd on October 15, 1943 for $650. This invoice was noted as held by the John J. Ford, Jr. Numismatic Research Library.
Abe Kosoff, $1,250.
Coin Associates (Abe Kosoff, Robert Friedberg, and Hans M.F. Schulman) $3,250. At the time, Abe Kosoff operated Numismatic Gallery with Abner Kreisberg. He also operated a separate entity known as Coin Associates with Friedberg and Schulman.
King Farouk (Sotheby's, 2/1954), lot 289, $1,170.30 where it was plated and described as: "Pattern twenty dollars 1861, with the Paquet reverse, edge milled (A.W. 334). In extremely fine state, believed to be the second known specimen, and is from the Parmalee [sic] collection."
David Spink (agent for the next), $1,362.93 including commission, surtax, and shipping. Ford had planned on attending the sale of the Farouk coins in Cairo early in 1954. At the last minute, a personal emergency came up, and he was unable to attend the sale. The principals of New Netherlands Coin Company quickly made arrangements for Spink to represent them at the sale.
New Netherlands Coin Co., $5,000. Charles Wormser operated this company in New York with Ford and Breen.
Ambassador and Mrs. R. Henry Norweb (Bowers and Merena, 11/1988), lot 3984, $660,000.
Manfra, Tordella and Brookes (1989).
Bowers, Q. David. The Norweb Collection, Part III. Wolfeboro: Bowers and Merena Galleries, November 14-15, 1988.
Bowers, Q. David. A Guide Book of Double Eagle Gold Coins, A Complete History and Price Guide. Atlanta: Whitman Publishing, L.L.C., 2004.
Breen, Walter. "The Question Forum." Numisma, Vol. 1, No. 1. New York: New Netherlands Coin Co., Inc., June 1954.
Garrett, Jeff and Ron Guth. 100 Greatest U.S. Coins. Atlanta: H.E. Harris & Co., 2003.
Hodder, Michael J., John J. Ford, Jr., P. Scott Rubin. "The 1861 Paquet Double Eagles." The American Numismatic Association Anthology. Colorado Springs, CO: The American Numismatic Association, 1991, pp. 99-126.
Pollock, Andrew W., III. United States Patterns and Related Issues. Wolfeboro, NH: Bowers and Merena Galleries, 1994.
Smith, Pete. American Numismatic Biographies. Rocky River, OH: Gold Leaf Press, 1992.
Sotheby's and Stack's. The "Dallas Bank" Collection. New York, October 29-30, 2001.
Taxay, Donald. The U.S. Mint and Coinage. New York: Arco Publishing, 1967.
Vermeule, Cornelius. Numismatic Art in America. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
© 2005 Heritage Galleries. Photograph by Jody Graver. Used with permission of Steve Ivy and Heritage Galleries.