Old custom holder for unique pattern

Zoins

I like pattern coins and old custom holders so I thought this was neat. I try to imagine what collecting was like when people were ordering custom holders for everything.

This was made for the unique pattern coin J-1043 / AW-1205, certified by PCGS with the TrueView added below.

This one is made by Berger Plastic Products. I used to think Capital made all of these types of holders.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Berger-Plastic-Coin-Holder-United-States-Pattern-Two-Cents-1871-Copper-Die-Trial/382780166473

thisistheshow

That's a great holder.

1630Boston

Interesting, thanks

Zoins

USPatterns.com says the following about J-1043 which seems to be unique.

An example in copper of J1043 which was delisted by Pollock does exist. The coin has been analyzed by Alan Meghrig and was found to be 99.7% copper, 0.164% aluminum and 0.152% nickel and weighs 92 grains.

• https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/j1044p1178.html

AW-1205 on the holder is the Adams and Woodin reference number. Does anyone use this anymore? Here's some info from a Kolbe & Fanning Numismatic Booksellers LLC (numislit.com) listing:

Adams, Edgar H., and William H. Woodin. UNITED STATES PATTERN, TRIAL, AND EXPERIMENTAL PIECES. Dayton, 1959 reprint. 8vo, original blue cloth, gilt. (8), 196 pages; text illustrations. Near fine. Based on Woodin’s extensive holdings, the Adams-Woodin compilation was a quantum leap over what little had previously been published on patterns. For half a century it remained the standard reference on these fascinating pieces.

• http://www.icollector.com/Adams-Woodin-on-U-S-Patterns_i22833799
• https://archive.org/stream/unitedstatespatt1946colj/unitedstatespatt1946colj_djvu.txt

Zoins

Here's the unique pattern that used to be in this holder with a new style TrueView. PCGS lists this as last sold by Heritage at 1997 FUN lot 7074 for $1,207.00 though the auction is so old it doesn't seem to be in the Heritage online archives. It's graded PCGS PR66RB.

• https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/item/1871-2c-j-1043-bn/61302/1026183029134342811
• https://www.pcgs.com/cert/28917214

From CoinFacts, it looks like this was PR66 in 1997 and then upgraded to PR66RB at some point when the TrueView was taken. CoinFacts lists the 1997 auction as PR66BN. It's not CAC.

It doesn't appear in any pattern Registry Set here, including Simpson and Hansen: https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/composite/1124

It would be great for the coin and holder to be reunited, even if the coin stayed in its PCGS slab.

ricko

Now that is a holder I have not seen... even when I was going to shows all the time... Cheers, RickO

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MrEureka

Interesting to consider the circumstances under which such a piece might have been produced. The aluminum pieces made sense. Collectors would have bought them because they are dramatically different in appearance from the regular bronze pieces. But the difference in appearance between copper and bronze seems too subtle to be interesting. Why make them?

CaptHenway

I have seen custom holders used in ANA Exhibits. Makes setup and breakdown easier.

RogerB

There are multiple letters referring to both "copper" and "bronze" examples of the same pattern design. The Philadelphia Mint Medal Department appears to have used copper for medals and then "bronzed" them before sale. The situation is further complicated because copper required for alloy had to be of higher purity than copper recovered by melting the old one-cent coins - but nothing was said about copper for medals. There are also orders for plate copper (versus bar copper) intended for the Medal Department's use.

The overall impression to me is that copper and bronze were used indiscriminately in common mint language unless referring to a specific coin or coin alloy where legal requirements entered into matters.

RogerB

@CaptHenway said:
I have seen custom holders used in ANA Exhibits. Makes setup and breakdown easier.

They also allow use of anti-theft devices without harming the exhibit.

CaptHenway

@RogerB said:
There are multiple letters referring to both "copper" and "bronze" examples of the same pattern design. The Philadelphia Mint Medal Department appears to have used copper for medals and then "bronzed" them before sale. The situation is further complicated because copper required for alloy had to be of higher purity than copper recovered by melting the old one-cent coins - but nothing was said about copper for medals. There are also orders for plate copper (versus bar copper) intended for the Medal Department's use.

The overall impression to me is that copper and bronze were used indiscriminately in common mint language unless referring to a specific coin or coin alloy where legal requirements entered into matters.

I think you are correct.

RogerB

The Melter & Refiner insisted on high quality "Lake Superior" (or similar) copper for his alloy work and would not use melted large cent copper. His explanations cover at least 50+ pages, although he seemed to have to repeat them every time there was a change in Mint Director.

291fifth

Berger holders, when in rectangular format, usually have gently rounded corners while Capital Plastics holders have sharp corners. I am not sure just what years Berger was in operation. Does anyone know?

RogerB

The "Big Mac" Berger Holders were popular for a while --- until the sauce started leaking....

davewesen

I suspect Berger -> Capital -> Jaco and not sure if buy-outs or mergers....

Timbuk3

Wow, very interesting, never saw one before !!!

coinsarefun

Pretty neat holder but that 2 cent piece is gorgeous. I don’t collect them
nor have an example for my type set but that would work.

johnny9434

cool holder, I like