As discussed elsewhere in this site with regard to LFEs is that it is extremely close to impossible to distinguish between metallic compositions by solely examining the appearance of the surface of the coin. Consequently, there is a strong likelihood that some varieties, whose attributions are based upon metallic composition, do not exist. One such LFE appeared as Lot 1001 in New England Rare Coins’ November of 1980 auction, the description noting, “Unlisted in Judd. Similar to J-167 1855 1c, Nickel, MINT STATE-60, possibly unique in pure nickel.”
Similarly, due to the failure of catalogers of auctions and contemporary authors in the 1800s to accurately describe the wreath on the reverse of LFEs, collectors and researchers of LFEs continue to hunt for the elusive J-165.
The different reverse wreaths were not even mentioned until Robert Coulton Davis’ The Coin Collector’s Journal in 1885. Even then, he failed to note that there were multiple wreaths in both 1854 and 1855. He only distinguished between the wreath appearing on the reverse of 1855s as “Similar to [the 1854 LFE], but with bolder and larger leaves in wreath.”
The next “advance” in the description of the different reverses was catalogers’ describing wreaths as “small” or “large.” It wasn’t until the authors of the 6th Edition of the Judd book adopted the Two-, Three- and Four-Leaf distinctions in 1977 that a precise distinction was made.
Even today, the designations are not entirely satisfactory. Bronze pieces are known to exist on a continuum between 89% and 97% copper, yet they are all attributed as J-164 (for 1854s) or J-168 (for 1855s). Likewise, my research identified German silver specimens containing between 65% and 69% copper, and 16% and 20% nickel (the remainder being zinc), while Carmichael and Wilson’s research in the 1980s identified four pieces that contained 75% copper, 12% nickel and 13% zinc. Nevertheless, all of the pieces containing the different compositions in my study and those from the Carmichael/Wilson study are all assigned “J-171A.”
It is worth noting that one of the Carmichael/Wilson J-171As was labelled “J-174A” prior to testing. Similarly, none of the coins tested in either study (totaling close to 80 LFEs) confirmed the existence of either the J-170 (80% copper, 20% nickel) or the J-171 (60% copper, 40% nickel). Interestingly, in James Ross Snowden’s 1860 sylloge of the Mint cabinet’s holdings, the J-170 was included.
The list below consists of all Judd numbers of LFEs whether confirmed or not yet confirmed.
1854
J-163: This is a Two-Leaf 1854 struck in pure copper. This and the J-164 share their reverse dies with the 1854 Coronet Head cent patterns (J-160, J-161 and J-162) and the 1855 J-172 and J-173. The image below shows a Two-Leaf reverse, with two leaves directly under the “E” in STATES. NGC lists 2 full red specimens in their pop report, a PF64RD and a PF65RD. These could possibly be the same coin. NGC lists none. See the further discussion under J-164. Suffice it to say the J-163 is a super-rare specimen, and, if you’re looking for a full red one, forget it.
Generally, Star #1 will have little to no definition. The reverse will generally have an upside-down comma clash mark (from the Coronet Head’s ear) between “ONE” and “CENT.” It also may have a small clash mark northwest of the “O” in ONE from the chin of the Coronet Head, an eliptical clash mark (possibly with triangular marks) northeast of the “E” in ONE. The image below demonstrates these clash marks.
J-164: This is a Two-Leaf 1854 struck in bronze. Struck after the J-163, the die clashes will be less likely to be visible, except the upside-down comma. The coin is also likely to be found with die rust along the obverse rim between 3:30 and 4:30. This die rust can be seen in the image below.
The J-164 is often seen with a double-struck reverse. The image below shows an example of the type of doubling commonly seen on J-164s.
PCGS lists four J-164s as full red, three PR64RD specimens and one PR65RD. I believe that it is likely that two (or possibly all three) of the PR64RD specimens are, in actuality, the same coin as the one which resides in the PR65RD OGH. I also believe that it is more likely than not that the PR65RD is actually 100% copper, a J-163. NGC lists no full red J-164s. However, it is also possible that one or both of these is the PCGS PR65RD. So, if you want a full red J-163 or J-164, unless you know the owner, you’re probably out of luck.
J-165: This is a Four-Leaf 1854 Struck in copper or bronze. None is currently known to exist. The image below shows a Four-Leaf reverse, with four leaves directly under the “E” in STATES. A careful reading of George Eckfeldt’s journal tends to confirm that the Four-Leaf 1854 LFE does not exist. Eckfeldt wrote, “Flying eagle cent struck in Feb. 1855, the diameter 1 inch. The tail a little small in the wreath; other ways the same as those of 1854.” Examining the wreaths of each of the reverses reveals that the wreath of the Four-Leaf reverse has the smallest tail of the three reverses.
The 1st edition of the Judd book incorrectly stated that three specimens were known to exist, the Massachusetts Historical Society specimen, the Smithsonian specimen and a third specimen. This language clearly identifies the Three-Leaf J-165A and J-165B, not the J-165. This was corrected in the 6th edition, in which the authors identified the J-165 as the Four-Leaf reverse and the J-165B as the bronze Three-Leaf reverse. The image below shows a Three-Leaf reverse, with three leaves directly under the “E” in STATES.
J-165A: This is a Three-Leaf 1854 struck in 100% copper and may be the first LFE struck by the Mint. The authors of the Judd book’s 6th edition incorrectly stated that this was a copper Two-Leaf reverse. In the 7th edition, they changed it to a copper Two-Leaf reverse. In the 8th edition, this listing was eliminated and was omitted in both the 9th and 10th editions. The only currently confirmed specimen is the Massachusetts Historical Society specimen discussed under J-165. It is currently in a PCGS PR66RB holder. The Smithsonian specimen has been confirmed to be a Three-Leaf reverse and is pictured on page 25 of The History of the National Numismatic Collections, published in 1968 by the U.S. Government Printing Office. The caption reads, “PATTERN FLYING EAGLE CENT, 1854, in copper. One of three known surviving pieces.”
J-165B: This is a Three-Leaf 1854 struck in bronze. I am currently aware of at least three specimens.
1855
J-167: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 struck in 100% copper. One specimen tested out as 99% copper and 0.6% gold. It is currently in a PCGS PR65RB slab. Presumably, the gold was alloyed with the copper in an effort to reduce the size of the one cent piece and also to reduce its tendency to tarnish. In my study, seven of the 1855s were confirmed to be copper, whereas forty were confirmed to be bronze. If we can accurately extrapolate from these findings, there should be approximately seven J-168s for each J-167.
J-167A: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 purported to have been struck in pure nickel. The 7th edition of the Judd book listed J-167A as “pure nickel” and referred to Lot #1001 in the New England Rare Coins auction of November of 1980. Lot #1001 stated, “Unlisted in Judd. Similar to J-167 1855 1c, Nickel, MINT STATE-60, possibly unique in pure nickel. The strike is very weak and almost incomplete due to the hardness of nickel, and as such, the coin appears to be very good.” It is unlikely a pure nickel four-leaf 1855 LFE exists. This was most likely a J-171A.
J-168: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 struck in bronze (prototypically 95% copper, 4% tin and 1% zinc). This is the most common LFE. As of February 20, 2020, PCGS’ and NGC’s pop reports, combined, listed 284 J-168s. However, considering the common practice of cracking out and resubmitting coins without returning the old labels, this number likely overstates the true population.
J-169: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 struck in oroide. The Pollock book states: “194 Oroide. (gold or brass-colored alloy of copper and tin). Rarity-7. Davis-86, AW-196, Judd-169, Taxay-EP189.
Carmichael and Wilson’s study and my study each confirmed the existence of a J-169. Carmichael and Wilson stated, “Distinguishing between bronze and oroide was difficult at best. The tin to copper ratio in the numerous bronze specimens we examined varied significantly and seemed to fall into two ranges. Later analysis of 19th-century bronze coins showed similar variations. The fact that a distinctly yellow color marked the one coin that possessed 50-percent more tin than any of the bronze coins makes us believe that it alone is oroide and that the variation in content of the bronzes is caused by a combination of analytic variables and minor changes in mint practice.”
My study also identified an oroide piece that contained 15% tin (with 81% copper and 4% zinc). The other bronze pieces varied between 1.9% and 8.5% tin, confirming Carmichael and Wilson’s theory that, even with high variability in tin content, this piece was unique in its tin content. Do not purchase a J-169 without proof it has been confirmed by a reputable form of non-invasive metallic testing. Otherwise, you will run the risk of paying far to much for a coin that is likely not what it is represented to be.
The following four Judd numbers are the LFEs whose existence and populations are least well understood. Even the latest version of the Judd book (10th Edition) misstates the true compositions, incorrectly stating that the J-169 is 80% copper, 20% nickel, when it actually is struck in oroide, which is approximately 80% copper, 15% tin and 5% zinc. J-170 is actually 80% copper, 20% nickel. The 10th edition then states that J-170 is 90% copper, 10% nickel, which is actually the composition of the J-170A. If the experts can’t get it right, you can hardly expect the average coin dealer or collector to know better.
Consequently, please take great care in determining whether a particular specimen is truly worth your spending the amount of money you will have to spend to obtain it. If a coin’s label doesn’t have the actual composition printed on it, caveat emptor. The image below is what such a label would generally look like.
Coin dealers have several options when they come into possession of an untested specimen. In my opinion, the most ethical approach would be to test the coin and make sure the label showed the correct composition and attribution.
An approach I would have no problem with would be to note in the listing the fact that the label is purely speculative and that the composition could be one of any number of compositions, and as such, could be a more common coin than as represented on the label. The only problem with this, as I see it is that it puts the burden on the buyer to test the coin, and the buyer likely would have no clue as to where to start.
Putting any further burden on the buyer would, in my opinion, be too much. Nevertheless, oftentimes, dealers list untested coins and make representations such as, “This coin could be unique.” In my opinion, this is tantamounT to intentional misrepresentation.
J-170: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 struck in 80% copper and 20% nickel. This variety first appeared in Adams and Woodin (#195 or #198). Neither the Carmichael/Wilson study nor my study could confirm the existence of this variety.
J-170A: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 which, by definition was struck in 90% copper, 10% nickel. In reality, these patterns are known to exist on a continuum between 93% copper, 7% nickel and 86% copper, 14% nickel. U.S. Mint Melter and Refiner James Booth referred to this variety in a July 18, 1856 letter to Secretary of the Treasury James Guthrie, stating, “At your suggestion, I made, during leisure hours at the Mint, a large number of alloys, and obtained one with which I was satisfied, although it failed to please generally by its resemblance to silver. I subsequently made a large number of other alloys, on the same basis as the former, keeping one principle in view, viz: to make an alloy which shall retain the red tone of copper, lightened by the alloying metals, so that it would be distinct from brass, bronze, copper, gold, or silver, and yet would retain all other qualities of wear, boldness or impression, and beauty of color. Prior to the commencement of the Mint repairs, I had approached my aim so nearly that I felt confident of success as soon as I could recommence my experiments. I have therefore regretted that the law now before the House should have been urged so far before I had a good opportunity of obtaining my point. The alloy which I have now made meets the approbation of all the officers of the Mint, without exception… The samples which I made more than a year ago, nearly of the same composition as the one I now propose, have scarcely tarnished in that time.”
J-171: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 struck in 60% copper and 40% nickel. First appeared in Adams and Woodin (# 195 or #198). The 3rd edition of the Judd book stated, “This often [is struck] on defective planchets: very much whiter or grayer color than the regular 5c alloy. Looks like steel and is sometimes so catalogued.” As with J-170, this variety is yet to be confirmed via non-invasive testing.
J-171A: This is a Four-Leaf 1855 struck in German silver. Two distinct composition ranges have been found. All those tested by Carmichael and Wilson in the 1980s, all were found to be 75% copper, 12% nickel and 13% zinc. Although all of those tested in my study contained all three metals, there was a great variation in the range. Copper was found to compose anywhere between 64% and 69% of any particular J-171A. Nickel composed between 16% and 20%. Zinc accounted for between 13% and 18%. What is strange is that neither study had any crossover to the other range, which is highly improbable and makes a researcher wonder why that was the case. The image below demonstrates the typical look of a German silver LFE.
The strike on the J-171A is usually very weak due to the hardness of the planchet. The specimen pictured above is one of the sharpest strikes I’ve ever seen on a J-171A.
J-172: This is a Two-Leaf 1855 struck in pure copper. This and the J-173 share their reverse dies with the 1854 Coronet Head cent patterns (J-160, J-161 and J-162) and the 1854 J-163 and J-164. PCGS’ pop report lists one full red J-172, the only 1855 with such a designation. It resides in a PR65RD Old Green Holder (OGH). NGC lists no 1855 LFEs as full red.
J-173: This is a Two-Leaf 1855 struck in bronze. J-172s and J-173s are two of the rarer LFEs, with a total of 46 listed on the combined pop reports. Compare this with the J-167/J-168 pair’s total of 389 listed.
J-174: This is a Two-Leaf 1855 struck in oroide. The Pollock book states: “199 Oroide. (gold or brass-colored alloy of copper and tin). Rarity-7. Davis-86, Judd-174, Taxay-189. We have no records of any verified specimens.” My study has yet to identify a J-174.
On May 15, 1854, in describing oroide, Mint Melter and Refiner James Booth noted, “I believe you are aware of my objections to the Bronze coin, viz, that unless a large proportion of tin be introduced into it, the coin is subject to tarnish, that if more tin be employed, the metal has something of a golden color, and with still more tin, it becomes very light yellow, but hard and brittle.”
J-174A: This is a Two-Leaf 1855 struck in white metal or, according to Pollock, 90% copper, 10% nickel. This was first described in Abe Kosoff’s Summer 1958 Summer ANA auction catalogue in Lot #1499, stating, “AW201A. Weakly struck on a steel planchet, scarce.” It was later mentioned in the 6th edition of the Judd book, citing the Mickley (October of 1867) and Bushnell (1882) catalogues. The 7th edition also cites the Kosoff catalogue from June of 1979. This is listed under #200 in the Pollock book, which quotes Taxay as saying “It is possible that this variety could be confused with variety [199 (Oroide)]….” It is possible that this variety exists and is R8 or unique, most likely struck for a collector.
Undated LFE: I am aware of two references to an undated LFE. The first is Lot #339 from the March 27, 1879 sale of Scott & Company, which states, “[1855 Flying] Eagle. No date. Nickel proof. Rare.” (Emphasis in original.) The other is Lot #43 of State Rare Coin Auctions’ “The Meridian Sale” (October of 1981), which states, “Undated, BU-60, weakly struck between 10:00 and 12:00 o’clock. The only other undated Flying Eagle Cents we have ever seen are the 1856 patterns. Could this be the one?” There is no image of this coin, no mention of size, color or composition or number of leaves below the “E” in “STATES,” and it has not appeared since.