Am I misreading this? I think Tony is referring to the identity of the maker of Betts 34-36, not the Sansom medal.

No where mentioned is the maker of the 1859 reissue. Presumably, it was James B. Longacre who made new dies based on original medal?

Yes, I agree as Joe and Kay point out that I have not identified the maker of the Sansom Restrike as the title stated! Just determined that the 1859 + restrike was not struck with the original Sansom dies as stated in Rulau/Fuld, and equally important that the originals are the only medals struck with original dies. Maybe a title like “Using ‘Artistic Style’ research method proves 1859 Sansom restrikes were not struck with original obverse die”?

I read with interest the discussion, in The E-Sylum of January 4, by Tony Lopez on the Presidency Relinquished medal. Unfortunately Mr. Lopez was unaware that the “restrike” dies of 1859 were in fact hubbed from the original dies. The dies prepared by John Reich were kept at the Mint by Adam Eckfeldt and then Franklin Peale; the latter wrote in 1854 that the “dies [are] rusted and destroyed but capable of restoration by hubbing.” In the hubbing process, however, the lettering is not copied and has to be redone on the replacement dies. The minor differences in the motifs can be ascribed to the dies being touched up in the engraving department.

As far as the 1859 dies being hubbed from the original dies, other than Peale’s conjecture that the dies are “capable of restoration by hubbing” 5 years earlier, are there any records specifically stating that this hubbing of designs from the originals actually took place in 1859? Also, was the reverse design (sans lettering) also hubbed from the original Sansom reverse? Ultimately, if evidence is provided, I would defer to Bob Julian as he did all of the incredible first person research at the US Mint for the opus magnum Medals of the United States Mint and has a plethora of knowledge about all of these medals far beyond my own.

It is difficult to know this connection though, as in the PR-1 Presidency Relinquished listing Julian states only that the 1859 dies (plural) were hubbed from the originals “according to Baker”, and does not mention his own knowledge of this connection between originals/restrikes in the reference, or that the designs (not lettering) were hubbed from the original Sansom dies which are described as viable by Peale in 1854.

In light of Baker’s important inaccuracies about these medals nearly a century earlier- such as the wrongful belief that Halliday preceded Sansom (which Julian points out in detail is incorrect); given the differences in the designs of the restrikes, relying alone on Baker about the hubbing from original dies is questionable.

Nothing in this statement is meant to take away from Bob Julian’s undertaking, which was monumental (and as Bob and Joe Levine both know was monumental personally in inspiring me to collect and research historical medals in the first place). Still, with the differences in the medals proving that the obverse is not original as stated in Rulau/Fuld, and the documented connection between the original and restrike dies still having a five year gap, I for one need to know the missing piece to make the connection. But it is possible now if you exclude the lettering. There are still many differences, as noted, and whether minor or not, they are certainly noteworthy.

One interesting aside I noticed in Peale’s statement. What we today commonly refer to as “restrikes” or “restrike dies”, Peale describes as a “restoration”. The word “restrike” (and restrikes, restriking, restruck) gets flagged by my word processing and e-mail programs as a misspelling! Maybe we should adopt Peale’s terminology “restoration” to keep our computers happy?