1792 P1C One Cent, Judd-2, Pollock-2, Low R.7, VF30 PCGS....
Bid InformationFor your convenience, the bid information on this page automatically refreshes with the most up to date data so you don't have to refresh/reload this page.
Minimum Next BidBid increments determine the lowest amount you may bid on a particular lot. Normally, bids must be at least one bidding increment over the Current Bid. However, podium, fax, phone and mail bidders submit bids at various times without knowing the current bid and must be on-increment or at a half increment (called a Cut Bid). Any podium, fax, phone, or mail bids that do not conform to a full or half increment will be rounded up or down to the nearest full or half increment.
Internet bids are required only to bid the increment past the Current Bid, or more. Internet bids greater than one increment over the Current Bid can be any whole dollar amount.
It is possible under several circumstances for winning bids to be between increments. It is also possible for an existing bid to be outbid by less than a full increment, sometimes by only $1. This usually happens when two bidders feel that a lot is worth about the same amount, but one places an off-increment bid. Generally when this happens, the Current Bid was much lower than the high secret maximum bid when the off-increment bidder placed his bid.
For example: On Tuesday, you bid $1500 against Bidder A's Maximum Bid of $1000, raising Current Bid to $1100. Then on Thursday, Bidder B, seeing a Current Bid of $1100, guesses the final price and decides to bid $1501, outbidding your Maximum Bid by $1. You would now have to bid $1600 through Heritage Internet bidding or $1550 on Heritage Live (if available for the auction) to possibly win that lot. Next time, maybe you'll bid $1502 and outbid Bidder B by $1!
Number of BiddersThis number represents the number of individual bidders prior to the close of Internet bidding on each lot. An individual who bids more than once is still counted only once. During the live session, only the winning bidder is included in this number, although detailed records are kept of all forms of bids.
Reserve (If Any) Not Posted Yet:
Although many lots will not get reserves, this signifies that we have not yet posted any reserves to this entire auction. Reserves are usually posted approximately 3 days prior to the closing for Internet-only auctions, and approximately 7 days prior to the live session for Signature auctions. At that point, any unmet Reserve will become both the price shown (with an asterisk) and the Minimum Next Bid, regardless of any previous bids.
Consignor Has Not Yet Submitted a Reserve:
Although the consignor's agreement allows a reserve on this lot, the deadline for submitting such a reserve has elapsed. If consignor submits a reserve post-deadline and the item fails to meet that reserve, we may charge the consignor a higher reserve fee.
This lot is being sold without a consignor reserve. (Note: By law, consignors may still bid under certain conditions, but they are responsible for paying the full Buyer's Premium and Seller's Commission if they do.)
Reserve Not Met:
A reserve has been posted on this lot, but no bids have met the reserve. The current bid has been set to the reserve amount, and the next bid will meet the reserve.
Reserves have been posted for this auction, and there is a reserve on this lot that has already been met.
Lots bearing estimates and without Consignor Reserve shall open at Auctioneer's discretion (usually 25% to 60% of the low estimate).
What's This?The owner of this item has indicated that they would sell this item at the amount, although their acceptance of your offer is required before the item can be purchased.
BP - Buyer's Premium per LotA Buyer's Premium will be added to each successful bid. For this sale: 15% of the successful bid (minimum $9) per lot. Please see #2 in our Terms & Conditions.
Not SoldThis indicates an item that did not sell at auction because it did not receive bids equal to or greater than the reserve (minimum bid) amount set by the consignor, or the opening bid.
Opening Bid:Lots bearing estimates and without Consignor Reserve shall open at Auctioneer's discretion (usually 25% to 60% of the low estimate).
Extended Payment Plan
Available on select items as noted on the item page in the bidding area.
- Minimum invoice total is $2,500.
- You may take up to four (4) months to pay the balance (monthly payments of at least 1/4th of invoice total).
- Minimum down payment is 25% within two weeks of the sale date. All down payments made beyond this 2 week window will require a 35% down payment, and the term will be shortened to 3 months.
- Subject to a refundable 3% set-up fee, which will be paid as part of your 1st monthly installment. This fee will be refundable upon completion of the plan if the following conditions are satisfied:
- There is no penalty for paying off early.
- Non-dealers only
- With pre-approved credit application
- Get pre-approved by filling out a credit application.
- Bid normally and win some lots.
- Heritage will maintain possession of all the lots until paid in full. Therefore, you must notify us of your intent to use our Extended Payment Plan on or before the day of the auction. All pre-shipped material must be returned to Heritage in order for the plan to be in effect.
- When you get your electronic invoice, select "other" from the payment options.
- Send an e-mail to EPPGroup@HA.com indicating the invoice number and your intention to use the Extended Payment Plan.
Note: This offer may not be available on some items.
Terms and Conditions
Extended Payment Plan for Heritage Owned Inventory Items(excludes Virtual Bourse, Comic Market and Virtual Sports Show)
- Minimum invoice total is $2,000.
- You may take up to 6 months to pay the balance (monthly payments of at least 1/6th of invoice total).
- Minimum down payment is 20%.
- Payments (including the down payment) must be made on-time per your specific EPP schedule (there will be a brief grace period).
- Payments must be made using one or a combination of the following payment methods: cash, check, cashier's check, eCheck, money order, bank draft, bank wire or PayPal.
- There is no penalty for paying off early.
- Non-dealers only
SMS Alerts- Receive a text message approximately 35 lots ahead of your item being up for bidding at auction, with a link to bid in Heritage Live in the text message. Haven't registered? Visit MyProfile to sign-up for free by entering your mobile number. The green icon indicates Live Bidding Text Alerts are on for that lot. Live Bidding Text Alerts are only available for lots in live sessions.
Note: The extra increment won't be placed until the item is up for live bidding, so it is possible that you could be outbid by a bid placed prior to live bidding, such as another proxy bid, live proxy bid, mail bid, etc., which could result in your losing the lot by that one increment. For the same reason, it is also possible that a currently losing bid with bid protection placed could potentially win the lot once the lot is subject to live bidding and the Bid Protection increment(s) is placed.
|Sold for:||Sign-in or Join (free & quick)|
|Claim Item:||Sign-in or Join (free & quick)|
|Auction Ended On:||Jan 10, 2008|
10 Internet/mail/phone bidders
6,217 page views
Orange County Convention Center
High Condition Census
The Mint Act of April 2, 1792, quickly laid the foundation for the nation's coinage. Employees were hired and a building was erected, commencing July 31, 1792. But before the building was completed, the first patterns, half dismes, were produced. These tiny pieces were struck at John Harper's workshop at the corner of Sixth and Cherry streets in Philadelphia from silver deposited by George Washington, according to an essay by Michael Berkman as found on uspatterns.com. By the end of September, the facility was completed and rudimentary minting equipment installed. Shortly thereafter, the disme patterns were struck, this time within the recently erected walls of the new Mint. Next came at least three different cent patterns, details of which, to this day, are not completely understood. Fortunately a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to George Washington on December 18, 1792, exists to provide some basic yet succinct information regarding the nation's first cent patterns:
"Th. Jefferson has the honor to send the President two cents made on Voigt's plan by putting a silver plug worth ¾ of a cent into a copper worth ¼ cent. Mr. Rittenhouse is about to make a few by mixing the same plug by fusion with the same quantity of copper. He will then make of copper alone of the same size, and lastly he will make the real cent as ordered by Congress, four times as big."
Jefferson's letter is important in that it delineates the various proposals from which one format would be selected as the basis of the official one cent piece. The first three patterns mentioned in the letter are the Silver Center cent (Judd-1), the Fusion Alloy cent (Judd-2), and the Copper cent (also Judd-2), all to be struck from the same set of dies and from planchets of the same diameter and thickness. Jefferson's careful wording regarding the methodology of the experiment is significant. Tying Jefferson's letter to an entry dated December 17 in Henry Voigt's second account book, which states, "struck off a few pieces of copper coins," it can be reasonably assumed that these "few pieces" were the Silver Center cent patterns, two of which were sent to President Washington by Jefferson, the Secretary of State.
Although not previously conjectured in past or current research documentation, one can easily conclude that the Fusion Alloy and the Copper patterns were sacrificial pieces that were used to sell the Congressional Committee on Voigt's Silver Center cent idea. Obviously, the Copper pattern was struck for the sole purpose of illustrating that the Fusion Alloy pieces, a 3:1 mixture of copper to silver called billon, could be easily counterfeited. Neither the members of Congress or merchants would not have had the ability to distinguish between the Fusion Alloy cents and bogus copper pieces; the color and weight would have been too similar. Since the Mint Act of 1792 required that the nation's first coinage have intrinsic value, the Copper pattern would have been far too light at approximately 65 grains (based on weights sampled from a few Judd-2 survivors). The Act of 1792 mandated that the new cents contain 264 grains of copper, an unreasonably large size considering that the cents were to be the workhorse of the nation's fledgling monetary system. The fourth option mentioned by Jefferson, the "real cent" pattern, was probably never produced. Various researchers in recent times have stated that these patterns were the Birch cents, but it is now accepted that those patterns were actually struck before the completion of the Mint. The Mint Act of January 14, 1793, which stated that "every cent shall contain two hundred and eight grains of copper" would have eliminated the need for Rittenhouse to make the fourth pattern for the Congressional Committee's review and no record of its production exists.
If the Fusion Alloy and Copper pattern pieces were indeed decoy pieces to make the Silver Center cent patterns more appealing to the members of the committee, that would partially explain the poor quality of the handful of known survivors. The finest known Judd-2 is the specimen in the National Collection at the Smithsonian Institution, which displays smooth, lightly circulated surfaces that are free of defects. The few other survivors all display varying degrees of surface roughness, weak strikes, and other problems. To the contrary, the Silver Center examples are typically well struck on better planchets and are of relatively high grade. One possible explanation is that Chief Coiner Voigt made the Silver Center pieces and Mint Director Rittenhouse was responsible for the Fusion Alloy and Copper patterns. In reality, considering that Voigt reported directly to Rittenhouse in this small, newly formed government facility, the two men more than likely worked together on all of the pattern cents. Such is the ongoing mystery surrounding these artifacts of the earliest hours of our nation's first Mint. To add to the confusion, the few references on the subject of the first pattern coins of the United States blatantly contradict each other. The fact is that we may never know specific details, such as who engraved the dies for any of these early patterns. Names such as Eckfeldt, Wright, Voigt, and Birch are juggled about as possible engravers for the various issues, but conclusive evidence to support any claims has not yet surfaced. Other conflicting opinions exist regarding the reason why the Silver Center cent idea was rejected. Most researchers suggest that the idea was overly time-consuming and costly, yet a contemporary newspaper account directly opposes that reasoning. From the January 8, 1793, edition of Argus (Boston, Massachusetts):
"It is proposed by some person connected with the Mint of the United States, in order to make the real value of the copper coinage equal to the nominal, and, at the same time, reduce the piece to a convenient size, to introduce a Silver Stud of a certain size in the coin, though a hole in its centre, and after this operation, to coin it so that the silver shall bear part of the impression. The idea is certainly ingenious, and the improvement, it is said, is not difficult of execution, nor does it increase [sic] the labour in any material degree. One objection to this mode of coining strikes at first view: ---Whether it might not be a temptation to counterfeit, by coining with studs of base white metal.--- Perhaps, however, the silver saved in this way may not be equal to the expense [sic] of coining, and then the objection falls to the ground."
The many opinions regarding the particulars of the 1792 pattern coins will not rise above the status of theory unless some form of contemporary documentation, or other evidence, surfaces to support any such assertion. But the resulting mystique is partially what makes these early patterns so appealing to such a broad audience.
The relatively new discovery coin offered in this lot represents the third finest known examples of Judd-2. The cataloger of the Norweb Collection, Michael Hodder, identified the known examples of Judd-2 at that time. The following list is a modification of Hodder's census:
1. National Collection, Smithsonian Institution
2. Norweb; Ex: Parmelee, Brand, Mehl
3. Madison Collection; Ex: Wolcott family, Goldberg (now PCGS VF30)
4. Garrett; Ex: Seavey, Maris
5. ANR (8/2006); Ex: Lauder, Linett, Henderson, B&M (ex-PCGS VG10, now NGC Fine 15)
6. ANA Museum; Ex: Paramount, Bowers and Ruddy, Robins, Pine Tree
8. Lohr; Ex: Bowers and Ruddy, Stack's
9. Appleton-MHS; Ex: Crosby
The census in the November 1988 Norweb sale listed eight examples of Judd-2. Since that time, a new piece has been discovered, this coin. Two others now have questionable status: The Lohr specimen is possibly a counterfeit, having been returned to Stack's for that reason, and the location of the Appleton-MHS coin is unknown. With the addition of the current coin to the census, and excluding the two disputed coins, the total number of extant Judd-2 pattern cents is now believed to be seven pieces. Coinfacts.com suggests that "approximately 10 (are) known" to exist, with the inclusion of the ANS and Adams-Woodin specimens. Therefore, we can conservatively state that fewer than 10 examples of Judd-2 are known in all grades. However, the classification of the survivors into either the Fusion Alloy or Copper cent categories is unknown, with the exception of the Harmer-Rooke piece.
Whether the composition of the pattern in this lot is billon or plain copper is also unknown, although the weight suggests a mixture of copper and silver. Before encapsulation by PCGS in August 2004, this specimen weighed 69.21 grains. The second finest Judd-2, the Norweb piece, weighs 62.2 grains, and number four in the Condition Census, the Garrett specimen, weighs 63.1 grains. Interestingly, the ANA Judd-2 weighs 70.2 grains. Now consider the weights of the known Judd-1 Silver Center cents: The Garrett example weighs 70.5 grains while the Norweb-Hain piece is documented at 69.9 grains. Until now, only one example of a Fusion Alloy Judd-2 pattern has been authenticated by metallurgical testing--the Harmer-Rooke piece.
The remaining few Judd-2 survivors have been considered to be of copper only, for reasons unknown. It is highly likely that at least a few of the extant Judd-2 patterns are actually of the Fusible Alloy version, including this piece and the ANA specimen. Having a more balanced distribution of billon and copper Judd-2 patterns is more logical than the current consensus opinion of researchers that all but one piece was struck in copper. Perhaps one day the eminent numismatic researchers of our day will measure all known Judd-2 survivors under controlled conditions and another piece of the puzzle will be solved.
As it stands, everyone must agree that the pattern cents of 1792 are historic, enchanting, and exceedingly rare. Few relics have such a tangible link to the earliest days of our first Mint, and the foundation of our nation's coinage. The successful bidder of this lot will inherit custodianship of one of the most significant pieces of Americana known to the numismatic community, thereby becoming an integral part of its history. Listed on page 85 of the 2008 Guide Book. Population: 1 in 30, 0 finer (12/07).
Ex: Wolcott family; Anthony Terranova (Ira & Larry Goldberg, 5/05), lot 806; Donna Levin and Denis Loring; The Madison Collection.
From The Madison Collection. (PCGS# 11004)
Service and Handling Description: Coins & Currency (view shipping information)