Continuing research on this highly collectable Barber issue reveals several inconsistencies regarding the number and pedigree of extant specimens.
Since the inception of the U.S. Mint 200 years ago, hundreds of individual rarities have been produced. The majority of these are restrikes, overdates, patterns or unauthorized strikes. Falling within these groups are such notables as the 1913 Liberty Head nickel, the 1804 dollar and the $4 Stella.
Very few rarities have "regular-issue" status. Of these, one of the rarest and most sought-after is the 1894-S dime, with a mintage of only 24 coins.
When discussing this fascinating issue, collectors usually refer to Jim Johnson's 1972 research, published in Coin World, or Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Proof Coins, 1722-1979 (which relied heavily on Johnson's research). Also, Stack's auction house has provided a running list of the dimes through their various sale catalogs, and David Lawrence lists them in his 1991 book The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes.
All four sources basically offer lists of pedigrees, including very little information about why these dimes were produced and the people involved in their production. When referring to known specimens, there has been a problem with specifics; most writers estimate that "about a dozen" examples exist.
Actually, there are only nine known pieces, all in private hands. No examples are housed in the collections of the Smithsonian, the American Numismatic Association or the American Numismatic Society. Seven of the nine pieces have changed ownership at least once in the past 5 years, either through auction or private sale, giving the impression they are frequently available. Helping to create this recent activity has been the influx of capital into the rare coin market since the early 1980s; the advent of third-party grading; and the entry of investors into numismatics.
However, the 1894-S dimes are truly rare and are once again being placed in the hands of collectors, where some are destined to remain for decades. There will be fewer opportunities to obtain one in the future.
According to the Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Director of the Mint for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1894, 24 dimes were coined at the San Francisco Mint between January 1 and June 30, 1894. The reason for the extremely low mintage is not known, but two theories have been presented.
One theory was put forth in 1928 by Farran Zerbe, who reported in the April issue of The Numismatist that the 24 dimes were minted to balance a bullion account at the end of the fiscal year. Zerbe stated this information was received from the San Francisco Mint in 1905.
This explanation has no basis in fact. No evidence at any Mint prior to or after this incident substantiates such a practice. From January through June 1894, the Mint at San Francisco produced an average of 36,000 silver coins per day and more than 4,000 gold coins per day. The Mint also refined millions of ounces of silver and gold, including old coins for eventual use in the minting of new ones. The Mint operation was substantial; it would not produce 24 dimes just to balance an account.
A second theory was presented in 1973 by Jim Johnson. He recounted a story reportedly told by Hallie Daggett in 1950 when she sold two coins to Earl Parker (Hallie was the daughter of John Daggett, superintendent of the Mint when the dimes were produced):
In 1894, a banker friend of Daggett's found there would be no dimes struck that year. So he asked Daggett to make some special for a small group of friends. There were 24 struck and each of eight people got three, including Daggett.
Daggett gave his three to his daughter, Hallie, who was around, and told her to put them away until she was as old as he was and then she could sell them for a good price. On the way home she spent one for a dish of ice cream; but the other two she put away until she sold them to Earl Parker.
Because it is such a cute story, it has received much attention and is often repeated. After all, we can visualize this little girl going into an ice cream parlor, ordering a dish of ice cream and paying for it with a dime potentially worth a small fortune. One of the two known circulated pieces has even been referred to as the "ice cream" specimen.
To take this story literally would mean Hallie was at the Mint with her dad, received the three coins and went home alone. Was Hallie old enough to walk home alone, but too young to understand the importance of the dimes? Did she immediately disobey her father by spending one and then obey him by holding onto the other two for 56 years?
This story is probably part fact and part fiction. She did in fact sell two of the dimes in 1950, and her father probably did originally retain three pieces - one for each of his three children.
The rest of the story - about seven banker friends each receiving three pieces - is fictional. Someone using elementary math simply figured if the dimes were evenly distributed, eight people - Hallie and seven others - received three coins each.
Did Daggett realize prior to June that no dimes were to be made for the year? This is doubtful. We know the Mint originally intended to produce dimes, as dies were made in Philadelphia and shipped to San Francisco. I am not so certain the Director of the Mint would have decided prior to June that no dimes were to be produced in San Francisco in 1894.
As of June, no silver dollars had been produced; however, in the second half of the calendar year, the San Francisco Mint produced 1,260,000 pieces. Also, no $5 gold pieces were minted during the first half of the year, but during the second half, 55,900 pieces were struck. Daggett did not strike a few specimens of each of these other denominations for himself and his friends, as he is suspected of doing with the dime.
It is quite possible that Daggett simply held a reception or party and produced the dimes as demonstration pieces or souvenirs. He may have had dignitaries in from Washington, local supporters, or relatives visiting from the East. Perhaps he held a gathering commemorating his nomination to the office a year earlier. At the time, he most likely believed a regular production of dimes would be run in the second half of the year.
There is no record of any plan or action on the part of Daggett or any other Mint employee to purposely produce rarities through low mintages, branch mint proofs, errors or any other means. Until someone can produce Mint records that detail day-to-day operations at San Francisco, we can only surmise what took place. However, looking at the facts on hand, we can be certain John Daggett was not attempting to deceive anyone or gain monetarily from his actions.
John Daggett was born in Newark, New York, May 9, 1833, to John Daggett and Eliza Cooper Daggett. He spent his childhood in Newark attending school and working at his father's foundry and machine shop. After seeing gold nuggets brought back from California by former townsmen, John decided to head west. He and his brother David left New York on the steamer Illinois and arrived in California on June 30, 1852. David went on to Marysville, where he opened a foundry. A year later, however, he became ill and decided to return home. He died en route and was buried at sea.
John worked various mines in Eldorado and Calavaras Counties with very little success. He later ventured north to Guillion's Bar and Sawyer's Bar (towns, not taverns), at one point traveling 125 miles on foot. He joined with several partners to build the first stampmill in White's Gulch, but the venture was not a big success.
Daggett became the first postmaster at Sawyer's Bar in 1857; his home served as the post office. In January 1859 he ventured into politics and was nominated to represent his district at the state legislature meeting in Sacramento.
In 1860 Daggett went to Aurora, Nevada, to work as superintendent of a silver mine. He remained there until 1865, when he returned to his home in Sawyer's Bar and, with two other men, bought out the interest in the Black Bear Mine. The venture was a success, and John and his partners made a substantial profit. They ran the mine until 1872, when they sold it to a San Francisco company; in 1895 John repurchased it.
Upon the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, Daggett returned to Newark to bring his mother and three sisters to California. His father had died in July 1868, and he felt a responsibility to care for his family.
In December 1870 Daggett married 21-year-old Alice Foree at Black Bear. They had six children; three died young, but the remaining survived to adulthood: Ben Foree Daggett (October 18, 1874 - March 12, 1939), Hallie Morse Dagget (December 19, 1878 - October 19, 1964) and Leslie Wells Daggett (January 7, 1884 - January 14, 1971).
Daggett remained active in mining and politics for many years. He was a member of 11 legislative sessions and became well known in the political arena. In 1882 he was elected lieutenant governor of California and served in this capacity until 1888.
During his tenure as lieutenant governor, he lived in Los Angeles and was involved in silver mining in San Bernardino County. The Southern Pacific Railroad, building a branch line through this area, named a station for him. Seeing a need to supply the area mines, he erected the first house and plotted the future town of Daggett. For almost 40 years the town was the hub of activity in the Mojave Desert, serving as the outfitting point for mines in Death Valley, the Calicos, Vanderbilt and other areas. More 20-mule teams of borax discharged their loads in Daggett for processing than in any other town. When silver was depreciated, Daggett abandoned the silver mines and returned to ownership of the Black Bear Mine, which he retained for the remainder of his life.
In 1891 John was chosen to represent California at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Along with six other commissioners, he traveled to Chicago to pick a site for the California building and to familiarize himself with the theme of the exposition. For two years he was very involved with the particulars of the fair, including procuring exhibits from individuals and companies in his adopted state.
John presented several exhibits of his own, displaying specimens of gold quartz from Black Bear and other mines as well as a large collection of Indian artifacts, including money, bows and arrows, baskets, fish nets and utensils.
On May 18, 1893, John Daggett was nominated by President Grover Cleveland as superintendent of the United States Mint in San Francisco. Daggett accepted the position, tendering his resignation to Columbian Exposition officials. He took the oath of office and officially assumed command of the Mint from General W.H. Dimond on July 31, 1893. The Senate confirmed his nomination on October 3, 1893.
Why Daggett was chosen from a number of applicants for the position is a matter of conjecture. Politically, he seemed to be an excellent choice. A lifelong Democrat and a party man first and foremost, he was well liked by most of his fellow Democrats. He was a spokesman for the people of California over the concerns of big business. He opposed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, as did President Cleveland. Daggett was a family man with a clean record - a California pioneer.
Daggett's time at the Mint was uneventful, other than the controversial 1894-S dime. He served as superintendent until July 31, 1897. Returning to his home in Northern California, he resumed operations at the Black Bear Mine and pursued his interests in writing, photography, Indian artifacts and native lore. Many items in his collection were donated to the California Pioneer Society, museums in Stanford and Oakland, the Fort Jones museum and the Siskiyou County museum.
John Daggett died on August 30, 1919, at the age of 86. He was buried with masonic rites in the Etna cemetery in Etna, California.
The other personality associated with the 1894-S dimes, his daughter Hallie Morse Daggett, was raised, along with her brother and sister, in the remote surroundings of the Black Bear Mine and in the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Hallie's education was well-rounded - in the country she learned to hunt, ride, fish and shoot; in the city she attended girls' schools in Alameda and San Francisco.
In 1913 Hallie obtained a position as "Forest Guard" (fire lookout) and was placed in charge of Eddy's Gulch lookout station. As the first woman in California to be stationed at a lookout, she became somewhat of a champion of women's independence. She was the subject of many newspaper articles, including the Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and San Francisco Call.
Hallie "manned" her forest post from June to October every year for 15 years. In 1927 she retired to her homestead near Eddy's Gulch and in later years moved to Etna to be with her sister, Leslie.
| Specimen | Grade | Distinguishing Marks | Auction (A) & Fixed Price List (FPL) Appearances |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 Johnson 2, Breen 1 (Revised 1), Lawrence 1, Stack's 1 | Proof-60 | Obv.: spot on cheek | Numismatic Gallery (A) 1945, $2,350
B. Max Mehl (A) 1947, $2,325 A. Kosoff, Inc. (A) 1961, $13,000 Paramount (A) 1965, $12,250 Rarcoa (A) 1980, $145,000 Pacific Coast Auction (A) 1986, $91,300 |
| B2 Johnson 3, Breen 2 (Revised 2), Lawrence 2, Stack's 2 | Unknown | Unknowm | None |
| B3 Johnson 6 & 8, Breen 3 & 4 (Revised 3 & 4), Lawrence 3, Stack's 3 | Proof-66 (PCGS) | - | Stack's (A) 1947, $2,150
Stack's (A) 1990, $275,000 |
| B4 Johnson 9, Breen 6 (Revised 6), Lawrence 5, Stack's 5 | Proof-64 (PCGS) | Obv.: depression below D of UNITED; lint mark between last S of STATES and O of OF. | Bowers & Ruddy (FPL) 1974, $97,500
Superior (A) 1992, $165,000 |
| B5 Johnson 12, Breen 10 (Revised 7), Lawrence 6, Stack's 6 | Proof-60 | Obv.: slight depression below E in AMERICA, lint mark between last S of STATES and 0 of OF.
Rev.: rub marks on center of coin; scratch from mintmark to right. | Stack's (A) 1953, $2,100
Kagin (A) 1973, $52,000 Superior (A) 1985, $50,600 Superior (A)-1988, $70,400 |
| B6 Johnson 4, Breen 7 (Revised 8), Lawrence 7, Stack's 7 | Proof-62 (NGC) | Obv.: scratch on cheek.
Rev.: lower right leaf of left branch weakly struck. | Stack's (A)-1957, $4,750
Bowers & Merena (A) 1987, $77,000 Stack's (A) 1990, $93,500 |
| B7 Johnson 1, Breen 9 (Revised 10), Lawrence 8, Stack's 9 | Mint State (Bowers) | Rev.: slight roughness within wreath. | Bowers & Ruddy (FPL) 1958, approximately $6,000 |
| B8 Johnson 7, Breen 10 (Revised 11), Lawrence 9, Stack's 10 | Good-4 (ANACS) | Rev.: scratch through ONE DIME veering left to top of left half of wreath. | New Netherlands (A) 1958, $3,200
Harmer Rooke (A) 1969, $7,400 Steve Ivy (A) 1980, $31,000 Bowers & Ruddy (A)-1981, $25,500 Bowers & Merena (A)-1989, $33,000 |
| B9 Johnson 10, Breen 12 (Revised 12), Lawrence 10, Stack's 11 | Obv.: circular cut in center. | About Good-3 (NGC) | None |
The first record of this specimen places it in the hands of B. Max Mehl in 1933. He sold it that year to Waldo Newcomer, a banker from Baltimore, for $1,000. After Newcomer's death the following year, his impressive collection of coins was sold piecemeal to Mehl, Wayte Raymond, F.C.C. Boyd and others.
Boyd purchased this 1894-S dime specimen and in 1945 sold it in Abe Kosoff's "World's Greatest Collection of United States Coins." Describing the dime in the auction catalog, Kosoff wrote, "24 were coined but it is impossible to trace more than 5 pieces." Estimated at $2,500, the coin sold for $2,350 to Will W. Neil. Two years later, Neil sold the dime in the "B. Max Mehl Mail Bid Sale" of June 17, 1947.
Mehl devoted a full page of his catalog to this piece, stating, "This is only the second specimen that has passed through my hands in more than 45 years ... the only other specimen is the one in the Newcomer Collection which I handled in private sale in 1933" and, importantly, "I have reason to believe that the specimen here offered is the identical coin." Of course, he was correct.
Edwin Hydeman purchased this specimen for $2,325 and placed it in his collection alongside his 1804 dollar and 1913 Liberty Head nickel. Hydeman's collection was auctioned by Abe Kosoff in March 1961. His 1894-S dime went to the Empire Coin Company (Q. David Bowers) for $13,000, then to A. Buol Hineman. Later it appeared in Paramount's 1965 "Century Sale."
Leo Young purchased the coin from Paramount for $12,500 and held it until 1980, when it sold in Rarcoa's "Auction 80" for $145,000 to Ron Gillio. He sold it to a private collector and subsequently repurchased it. Gillio held it in his own collection until 1986, when he placed it in the Northern California Numismatic Association Auction, at which a private collector bought it for $93,100.
In August 1991 this dime was displayed at the ANA convention in Chicago. It was mentioned in a Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) press release describing the search for the "still missing pieces of this low mintage coin." PNG's efforts created new interest in coins in general. However, no new specimens of 1894-S dimes have surfaced.
John H. Clapp of Washington, D.C., owned two 1894-S dimes, part of an extensive collection of U.S. and Latin-American coins. After his death, his collection was sold in 1942 to Stack's in New York for $100,000. Stack's then sold the collection intact to Louis Eliasberg for more than $100,000. The collection set a price record for a single numismatic transaction.
An avid collector of U.S. coins, Eliasberg owned an example of nearly every issue, including the 1913 Liberty Head nickel and 1804 dollar. Today, Specimen B2 remains in the Eliasberg family collection.
Eliasberg returned Specimen B3 to Stack's for auction in 1947. Auctioned under the name of the "H.R. Lee Sale," the dime was purchased for $2,150 by James A. Stack of New York City (no relation to the auction-house family).
James Stack died four short years later. Specimen B3 remained in his estate until 1990, when Stack's sold the "James A. Stack Sr. Collection" at auction. The coin sold for $250,000 (plus 10-percent buyer's fee) to a group of five investors. Graded Proof-66 by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), it is considered the finest known specimen.
These 1894-S dimes originally were owned by John Daggett and passed to Hallie Daggett, who sold them to Earl Parker in 1950. Parker, in turn, sold Specimen B4 to W.R. Johnson. It then went to Abner Kreisberg, World Wide Coin, and Bowers and Ruddy Galleries.
Bowers and Ruddy listed the piece in the August 1974 issue of Rare Coin Review and shortly thereafter sold it to John Deland of Chicago. (Deland walked into Bowers and Ruddy Galleries looking for one of the three great rarities he had heard about since his childhood - the 1804 dollar, 1913 Liberty Head nickel and 1894-S dime. After looking at an 1804 dollar and an 1894-S dime in stock at the time, he decided to buy the dime, paying $97,500. Deland never purchased another coin.) He sold his dime in Superior Galleries' "Orlando Sale" in 1992, where it was purchased by Spectrum Numismatics of California for $165,000.
Specimen B5 appeared in Stack's auction of the F.S. Guggenheimer Collection in January 1953, where it sold for $2,100. Stack's listed the coin's pedigree as "Relative" of Mintmaster (during 1894) to Earl Parker to James Kelly to M. Chell-Frost to Guggenheimer.
Specimen B5 next showed up in Kagin's 1973 MANA Auction Sale, where it sold for $52,000. It was purchased by Michelle Johnson for Robert Beaumont for $50,600 in Superior's January 1985 "Jerry Buss" Auction. In 1988 it again was auctioned by Superior in the "Blevins/Bodway" Sale and realized $70,400.
Because of a defect that obscures part of the mintmark, for years many doubted the authenticity of this specimen. Breen lists it in his Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Proof Coins as #10 and shows its pedigree as "Kagin Sale of 70s." Breen comments, "Earl Parker had another one, offered in the Guggenheimer Sale in 1953; doubted as mintmark is oddly shaped and obscured by some kind of defect; dies entirely different from any of foregoing." Breen apparently did not realize this was the same coin and, in fact, genuine. In his 1988 Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, Breen combines the two and lists it as #7. He shows a more complete pedigree with no mention of a "doubted" piece.
Jim Johnson did not include this specimen in his original listing, but did remark, "Two specimens of 1894-S Dime which were thought at one time to have been genuine. They are now believed to be fakes." In his 1987 article in Rare Coin Review, Johnson states, "Stack's wrote me about that Guggenheimer piece. They said it was withdrawn from the sale as a fake (altered mintmark) and returned to Jim Kelly (Parker wasn't mentioned)."
The catalog for Stack's 1957 "Empire Collection" Auction mentions the 1953 sale of the Guggenheimer specimen. It seems odd the coin is listed, if in fact it was returned as altered or fake.
As for the origin of Specimen B5, Stack's states in its Guggenheimer auction catalog, "This specimen was discovered several years ago when a relative of the Mintmaster (during 1894) offered this coin to Earl Parker of San Francisco for sale. He in turn purchased same and eventually offered it on the open market for sale."
I must assume this to be true. If uncertain of the facts, Stack's would not so explicitly mention Parker's purchase. Parker bought only two coins from Hallie Daggett - this specimen and B4. Therefore Johnson #5, Breen #5, Lawrence #4 and Stack's #4 do not exist.
The first owner of record of this specimen is Charles Anderson Cass. In November 1957 he sold his collection at Stack's "Empire Collection" Auction. It was purchased by James F. Ruddy, as agent for Q. David Bowers, for $4,750. This dime was the subject of numerous newspaper and magazine articles as well as a segment on NBC's Today show. In 1958 Bowers sold the coin to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Norweb for $6,000.
On October 12, 1987, Specimen B6 was sold by Bowers and Merena in Part 1 of the "Norweb Collection" Auction to a private collector for $77,000. In 1990 it again was auctioned, this time by Stack's in its "55th Anniversary Sale" for $93,500 to Rarcoa of Chicago. Rarcoa sold it in November 1990 to Charles Litman of Coin Exchange of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who placed it in his personal collection. It remains there today.
According to Johnson and Breen, this piece went from Rappaport to Kagin to Reuter to Abner Kreisberg, then in 1958 to Q. David Bowers, who sold it to a private eastern collector. In 1992 Bowers told me his customer had since died and to his knowledge the coin was still part of the estate.
Bowers received a lot of publicity when he purchased Specimen B6 in November 1957 and made a handsome profit when he sold it to the Norwebs. So when this piece was offered for sale by Kreisberg in 1958, Bowers jumped at the opportunity to handle a second 1894-S dime.
He featured it on the first page of his Empire Topics newsletter of July/August/September 1958. The article refers to this piece as the "Clapp - James Stack" specimen. We know now this is incorrect. In addition, upon close examination, the illustration in the article obviously is the Norweb specimen, not the coin offered for sale. Bowers no doubt used an available photograph of the Norweb specimen. In fact, it is the same illustration used in the "Empire Collection" Auction catalog.
Robert Friedberg bought this 1894-S dime over the counter at the stamp and coin department of Gimbels department store in New York in 1957. It went to Kagin, then was placed in a New Netherlands Coin Company auction in June 1958 and returned to Kagin. It seemed to have difficulty finding a home. Perhaps collectors felt it was too expensive for such a worn example of a rare date.
This specimen next appeared in November 1969 when Harmer Rooke auctioned it for $7,400. James G. Johnson, a writer for Coin World, purchased it for his personal collection. He was the first to assemble a complete set of circulated Barber dimes. In September 1972 Johnson published the first extensive list of 1894-S dimes and their pedigrees.
In 1973 he sold his specimen to Old Roman, which submitted it to the American Numismatic Association Certification Service (ANACS) on January 8, 1974. It was certified as genuine (Certificate #5408) and returned to Old Roman in March. In January 1975 it was resubmitted to ANACS to record a change in ownership - from Old Roman to Numismatic Funding Corporation.
The next record of this specimen is when Robert L. Hughes sold it to an eastern collector and repurchased it in the late 1970s. In August 1980 it was sold for $31,000 as Lot #1804 in Steve Ivy's ANA Auction. It next appeared in Bowers and Ruddy Galleries' "William R. Sieck Collection" Auction in August 1981, where it sold for $25,500. In March 1989 it was auctioned by Bowers and Merena in the "Four Landmark Collections" Sale held in conjunction with the Metropolitan New York Numismatic Convention in New York City. It was purchased for $33,000 by a private collector.
The pedigree of this specimen is fisted as Romito (1911); Montesano; "Eastern Dealer"; Hughes; and then Lauri Sperber, who purchased it in April 1990 for a customer. According to Sperber, the coin changed hands for about $50,000. There are no records of this coin at auction and no published photographs. It reportedly was consigned to Stack's in 1942 and withdrawn by the consignor for personal reasons.
Having the lowest grade of all known specimens, it was graded About Good-3 by the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC). It carries a circular cut in the center of the obverse. This "corkscrew" impression is fairly common on early U.S. coinage, resulting from screw-top banks. The last coin to be placed in the bank was marked when the screw was tightened. Regardless of the damage, this specimen remains extremely rare and very desirable.
Two specimens do not exist. The first is cataloged as Johnson #5, Breen #5, Lawrence #4 and Stack's #4. Its pedigree is given by Johnson and copied by the other catalogers as "Daggett; Hallie Daggett; Earl Parker; Dan Brown; Stack's; Chicago private collector."
Stack's 1957 "Empire Collection" Auction catalog describes the piece:
The 1894-S Dime of which 7 or 8 are known, Stack's has had the pleasure of handling 5. At private sale we sold the Clapp specimen to Louis Eliasberg, another to James Stack. At auction we sold the H.R. Lee specimen, the Guggenheimer coin in 1953 and now we proudly offer this the fifth specimen.
It is a difficult problem to determine the value of this piece because as we mentioned earlier this is the first specimen to be auctioned in nearly five years, and we do not know of any private sale records.
We now know the H.R. Lee and James Stack specimens to be one and the same. Therefore, Stack's actually handled only four different specimens. The point here, however, is that Stack's did not mention a specimen from Dan Brown to Stack's to "Chicago private collector," but did state "we do not know of any private sale records."
When Johnson first compiled his list in 1972, it made sense to show this coin as a genuine piece and to describe Guggenheimer's as a fake. Now that we know the Guggenheimer piece is authentic, Johnson's separate specimen falls into line.
The second "nonexistent" specimen is cataloged as Johnson #11, Breen #8 (Breen Revised #9), and Stack's #8. It is attributed as "J.C. Mitchelson; Connecticut State Library." Mitchelson had written The Numismatist that he discovered an 1894-S dime while on a business trip to San Francisco in 1900. Earlier researchers assumed that "discovered" meant "acquired" and the dime was in his collection. In 1913 Mitchelson's collection was given to the Connecticut State Library and it was assumed the dime was part of the donation.
While conducting research for David Lawrence's book The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes, Phil Carrigan found that the Mitchelson specimen did not exist. According to the Library, there is no entry regarding this dime in Mitchelson's papers, nor is it on the inventory taken when the Library acquired his collection.
The assay commission, created in 1792 under the same Act that established the U.S. Mint and a national coinage, was to be made up of citizens appointed annually by the President of the United States. Members of the Commission were to verify the count, weight and fineness of coins minted on an annual basis. Any discrepancies were to be reported directly to the President.
Monthly, the Coiner gave samples of each denomination minted to the Superintendent of the Mint. The Superintendent forwarded the samples to the Director of the Mint in Philadelphia, who furnished the coins to the Commission when it met the following February. The Commission was to count the coins received and verify that number against transcripts provided the Director by the Superintendents.
In February 1895 the Director of the Mint submitted to the Assay Commission 3,981 silver coins with a face value of $1,973.85, received during the year from the San Francisco Mint. After verifying the count, the Commission selected 123 silver coins at random and weighed 111 of them en masse. In addition, 13 silver coins were individually weighed and tested for fineness. The face value of the coins indicates that at least one 1894-S dime was included in the count. (Any combination of silver coins that totals 85 cents must include at least one dime.) The specimen likely was tested and melted.
Also, the Bureau of the Mint at Philadelphia maintained an "in house" assay laboratory and tested coins forwarded monthly from the branch mints. In 1894 the San Francisco Mint submitted 268 silver coins, at least one of which quite probably was a dime.
In his 1972 article, Johnson refers to two obverse varieties as well as to an "authority" who examined five specimens and concluded there were two obverse varieties. In his 1977 reference, Breen lists two obverse varieties. (No doubt Johnson was referring to Breen.) Bowers also refers to the same two varieties in his 1981 ANA Auction catalog.
All three describe the varieties as follows: 1) 4 close to bust, left tip of serif of 1 well to right of neckline; 2) 4 away from bust, left tip of serif of 1 nearly in line with back of neckline.
David Lawrence writes that he believes only one obverse die was used. He also says Breen told him he was no longer certain two dies were used. Close examination of available coins and photographs leads me to conclude that only one obverse die was used. And as everyone agrees, only one reverse die was employed.
Ever since H.O. Granberg displayed his 1894-S dime at the 1911 ANA convention and at the American Numismatic Society in 1914, this issue has fascinated collectors. Fans of the inscrutable 1894-S dime likely will continue their search for new specimens and data.
Breen, Walter. Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins. New York: Doubleday, 1988.
______. Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Proof Coins 1722-1977. Albertson, NY: F.C.I., 1978.
______. Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Proof Coins 1722-1989, 2nd ed. Wolfeboro, NH: Bowers and Merena Galleries, 1989.
California State Library, California Section, Information File. Sacramento, CA.
Doggett, Samuel Bradlee. A History of the Doggett-Daggett Family. Boston, 1894. Reprint.
Easterbrooks, Russell. Journal of the Barber Coin Collectors Society, Spring 1992.
Hendryx, Luecke and Rock. John Daggett and Salmon River Mining. Unpublished research paper, 1987.
Holsinger, Rosemary. "A Novel Experiment: Hallie Comes to Eddy's Gulch." Women in Forestry, 1983, pp. 21-25.
Hyde, Leslie Daggett. "John Daggett." Siskiyou Pioneer, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 1-7.
______. "The Black Bear Mine." Siskiyou Pioneer, Vol. 11, No. 10, pp. 23 -26.
Johnson, James G. "Recounts History of Rare 1894-S Dime." Coin World, "Collectors' Clearinghouse," Sept. 13, 1972.
______. "Is 1860-O Dime as Rare as Legendary 1894-S?" Coin World, "Collectors' Clearinghouse," June 27, 1973.
______. "Researching the 1894-S Dime." Rare Coin Review, Spring 1987.
LaMarre, Tom. Journal of the Barber Coin Collectors Society, Summer 1990.
Lawrence, David. The Complete Guide to Barber Dimes. Virginia Beach, VA: DLRC Press, 1991.
______. Journal of the Barber Coin Collectors Society, Winter 1990.
Report of the World's Fair Commission. California, 1895.
Thompson, Walter. "The 1894-S Dimes." Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, February 1958, p. 438.
Annual Report of the Director of the Mint. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1893 and 1984.
"Two Extreme Rarities in Recent U.S. Coinage." The Numismatist, April 1928, pp. 236-37.