The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-10-17


 come at last"-and anon turning up in
 a sort of meridian blaze by the sale of
 a Mint officials cabinet. Just now
 comes a detailed account of a woman
 shopping In Racine, Wis, who paid a
 clerk, by newspaper report, one of these
 priceless coins for a yard of cotton, or
 perhaps a spool of thread The good
 lady who passed it did not know it's
 value, of course; indeed from it's con-
 dition, worn by circulation for nearly
 century with mo one to love, none
 to caress" it in all that period CD she
 had some doubt as the reporters tell us, whether it was even worth dime.
 But the wise clerk saw his opportunity, pooketed it and turned in good silver dollar to his employer; and we are told he has since been offered $1 300 for it by Chicago coin dealer. For some req son, which does not appear in the print ed account in The Transcript" he did not sell, and now his employer puts in sort of double headed claim to the wanderer. It either belongs to the store or the woman. The clerk replies it is not the property of the storekeeper, for had it chanced to be bad the loss would have fallen on the receiver and its poor rule," etc. Whether the lady has made a claim does not appear, but the article from which we clip the story says that "both clerk and employer have employed attorneys and lawsuit seems inevitable; yet it is doubtful if the dollar ever sells for enough to pay for the litigation and leave a profit for l it's owner, even if the incident actually occurred as described.
 ALTERING COINS OF OTHER
 ORIGIN.
 | It is pity that when the question of ownership comes to legal decision we as to the legitimacy of the pedigree of 1 these dollars. For many years our esteemed correspondent, MT. Nexsen, of Brooklyn, N. r., has made careful and exhaustive study of them, and some years ago he gave our readers a list of all that had a respectable pedigree; he has, we believe, carefully traced the history of the various pieces which have since appeared and shown them to be al terations, or Spanish, or Mexicans, fre- quently British (Bank of England five shilling or dollar piece)-anythting ex- cept what they pretended to be. Whether he has investigated this latest revival of the ancient myth we cannot say; few weeks since one was sent to the Boston editor of "The Journal for an opinion; 1t proved at sight to be an altered coin. It seemed not worth while to trouble our friend with this, but we were told it was bought by some one who was willing to risk it for $500"
 As to the value of 1894 dollars" there ir, ln o1I rnr1, i, rnrth what 1t will bring; and so long as there are people who sincerely believe that there is such thing as a genuine dol lar of that date unaltered pieces with a pedigree which can be traced to the Mint will bring large amounts; but if the buyer really thinks he is purchasing a genuine issue of the United States Mint struck in 1894 we have no doubt that he is mistaken. In The Journal' for July, 1887, MT. NeXsen shows pre- vious to 1S42 the mintage of such a dolv lar was problematical; nothting can be proved by the Mint records; that it existed in 1S42 depends on the evidence of an engraving. first published in that year by Eekfeldt and Du Bois in their Manual" presumably from one in the Mint. MT. Nexsens illustration in the same number of The Journal shows by the style of the edge millings as clearly as anything can that the dies for those 1894 dollars which can be traced directly to the United States Mint and which have unatered dates must have been cut between 1886 and 1S42. Neither dollar die nor dollar dated | 1894 with the earlier style of milling Is | known. The late MT. Stickney, of sa- lem, Mass who had been collecting coins for many years tsince 1s17) and 1 constantly on the watch for it's appear ance, did not obtain his dollar of this date until May g, 1s43, when 1t was handed him at the Mint, he tells us, by | one of it's officers. It had the beaded | edge with raised rim, as used in 1926 | and later, not the radical lines in use | up to 1903; moreover. it was proof Can it be doubted that it was a trial impression of recent dies? This we believe to be the earliest re- | liable account of one that can be cer- tainly traced to the Mint.
 The question how it chanced to be there in 1S43 and the origin of the dies from which some years after, few i'm pressions were surreptiously struck the lettered edge, to be pain fully gathered in again little later ter-Mr. Nexsen does not discuss. We suspect that these dies were the ex- perimental work of some Mint engraver In 1885 or little later A study of our National coinage clearly shows that at that time new influences came in. This is evident to the most superficial ob- server, for the genius of Gobrecht is manifest in the treatment of their de- vices After thirty years of adherence to the earlier types we have a new de- parture. It may be that return to of the freedom of the head if 1795 was contemplated; at any rate he buxom matron who had held her place so long was discarded. Changes were made in the head on the cents of S35; others are found in the remodel ed Liberty Cap on the half-dollars of S36, in Liberty seated" on the half Hines and dimes of 1887, the quarters If 1888 and the Gobrecht dollars of 1886 md their succsors We are therefore strongly inclined to believe that at some ! point during this period of decided ,hange, which was shortly before Eek eldt's Manual appeared, Is to be ! placed the true date when these dies