Looking for Any Info Regarding the "Sailor Head" Patterns of 1875, Particularly the $5 and $10

FlyingAl

The Whitman Judd book is scarce on info, and I am still currently going through auction listings. I would love to have any information regarding the designing of this pattern and Barber's reasoning, as it seems there were no plans to redesign the $5. There was also a 20c piece stuck with the same obverse design, but a different reverse. I'm hoping to be able to put together a research paper on these. Thanks!

Here are the coins:

pursuitofliberty

I do not have any info' to help you, but I will hope to see your paper (or findings) when complete.

Gorgeous designs that could have been regular issues that would have fit into our flow of designs. I am not a fan of the 20c reverse design for a US coin (although the coin itself is superlative), yet I find it interesting that the regular issue 20c piece uses the same eagle as the two gold examples.

MrEureka

The portrait was used for silver dollar patterns in 1876, a year in which there many other dollar patterns. Then again in 1877, a year in which there many half dollar patterns, for dime, quarter and half dollar patterns. So while I can’t back it up with a source, I think it’s reasonable to assume that Barber created the design for the twenty cent piece. Then, after it was rejected, and presumably because he liked the design so much, he tried everything he could to get it into use on another denomination.

FlyingAl

Comment lost upon edit.

I agree with MrEureka that the 20c was likely the first struck for internal review, then followed up with the gold coins as patterns for sale as was the common practice.

boiler78

When it comes to pattern coinage .....it's hard not to agree with MrEureka!!

MrEureka

@FlyingAl said:
Comment lost upon edit.

I agree with MrEureka that the 20c was likely the first struck for internal review, then followed up with the gold coins as patterns for sale as was the common practice.

While many patterns were certainly only struck for the purpose of making a sale to collectors, others were almost certainly struck for more legitimate purposes. For example, all of the 1875 20C pieces in aluminum were almost certainly struck for collectors, since the coins served no “legitimate” purpose, and because the cost of production was essentially zero, i.e., the cost of the planchets. On the other hand, the 1877 Sailor Head dimes, quarters and halves were almost certainly struck for purely legitimate purposes, since the cost of creating the new dies must have exceeded the proceeds of any sales to collectors. (All are excessively rare.) Again, I can’t back that up with documentation, but I’m sticking to that story until someone proves me wrong.

thefinn

Until 1886 Aluminum was almost as valuable as gold. So planchettes would not have been cheap.

MrEureka

@thefinn said:
Until 1886 Aluminum was almost as valuable as gold. So planchettes would not have been cheap.

Actually, the Deville process brought aluminum prices way down in the mid-1850’s, making the metal more like the value of silver than gold. That’s why you see aluminum being considered for use in Postage Currency dimes in 1863 and the Longacre five cent piece in 1867. It’s also probably why there is a unique 1855 Seated Half in aluminum. But yes, the 1880’s did bring further dramatic declines in the price of aluminum.

MrEureka

Let's also back up a few years. In 1872, Barber created the Amazonian patterns, running from the quarter to the double eagle. Then, in 1873, he tried a new portrait paired with the Amazonian reverse of 1872. (He didn't bother creating the entire set this time.) And then, in 1875, the Sailor Head $5 and $10. So I'm going to challenge my previous assertion that the Sailor Head was likely created for the 20 Cent piece and then utilized for the half eagles and eagles. It could also be that the Sailor Head was originally an extension of his ongoing attempts to redesign the gold coinage, and he only later used it on the 20 Cent piece. To figure out which scenario is correct, we would probably need to go the the US Mint archives. Where is @RWB when we need him???

Kliao

Don't know much about them but they are seriously beautiful designs.

FlyingAl

@MrEureka said:
Let's also back up a few years. In 1872, Barber created the Amazonian patterns, running from the quarter to the double eagle. Then, in 1873, he tried a new portrait paired with the Amazonian reverse of 1872. (He didn't bother creating the entire set this time.) And then, in 1875, the Sailor Head $5 and $10. So I'm going to challenge my previous assertion that the Sailor Head was likely created for the 20 Cent piece and then utilized for the half eagles and eagles. It could also be that the Sailor Head was originally an extension of his ongoing attempts to redesign the gold coinage, and he only later used it on the 20 Cent piece. To figure out which scenario is correct, we would probably need to go the the US Mint archives. Where is @RWB when we need him???

We could also assume that the gold patterns in their entirety were created for sale to collectors, which would fit both scenarios. It just seems so much more likely to me that Barber created the Sailor Heads exclusively to try and get them on the twenty cent piece, particularly because it was going into use that year. I'll ask it over there.

jonathanb

@FlyingAl if you turn up any info that might reference this piece, I'd love to hear.

I don't have any new leads since my original post 10 years ago. It might be an unlisted Sailor Head hub trial. If it's real, which is of course the sticking point. The condition is rough enough that it probably can't be authenticated. On the other hand, it probably can't be disproven either, so it remains a "huh!" for now.

FlyingAl

@jonathanb said:
@FlyingAl if you turn up any info that might reference this piece, I'd love to hear.

I don't have any new leads since my original post 10 years ago. It might be an unlisted Sailor Head hub trial. If it's real, which is of course the sticking point. The condition is rough enough that it probably can't be authenticated. On the other hand, it probably can't be disproven either, so it remains a "huh!" for now.

This looks very similar to what is listed as J-A1877-9 in the Whitman book. However, that is an 1877 hub trial with the date on the reverse, and this has some slight differences in design on the obverse. It could be possible that this is an earlier piece of that trail from 1877 as the reverse text, positioning and font match for what is shown and the 1877 shows more text. However, it is interesting that the date is on the obverse for a hub, where it should not exist but this is possible. It also looks to be canceled (?) by the mint. I am somewhat certain this is genuine due to the similarities to the 1877 piece. I'll have to do some more research, and I also need to read your thread.

Also, I am of the belief that only the patterns of 1875 are true "Sailor Heads". I made a statement about this in a separate post on the forums recently.

Edit: just read your thread, seems you knew about as much as me. If I turn up anything else in more searching, I'll let you know.

MrEureka

@FlyingAl said:

@MrEureka said:
Let's also back up a few years. In 1872, Barber created the Amazonian patterns, running from the quarter to the double eagle. Then, in 1873, he tried a new portrait paired with the Amazonian reverse of 1872. (He didn't bother creating the entire set this time.) And then, in 1875, the Sailor Head $5 and $10. So I'm going to challenge my previous assertion that the Sailor Head was likely created for the 20 Cent piece and then utilized for the half eagles and eagles. It could also be that the Sailor Head was originally an extension of his ongoing attempts to redesign the gold coinage, and he only later used it on the 20 Cent piece. To figure out which scenario is correct, we would probably need to go the the US Mint archives. Where is @RWB when we need him???

We could also assume that the gold patterns in their entirety were created for sale to collectors, which would fit both scenarios. It just seems so much more likely to me that Barber created the Sailor Heads exclusively to try and get them on the twenty cent piece, particularly because it was going into use that year. I'll ask it over there.

When you consider the time and expense required to design a new reverse and create two new dies, it seems unlikely that collectors of the day would have paid enough to make a purely commercial motive sufficient for the US Mint and/or its employees.

MrEureka

J-A1877-9 looks to me like a metallic scratch pad of sorts. A number of impressions of die elements, possibly made over a wide span of years, and clearly not intended to be laid out in the same way on any individual die. Jonathab’s piece seems to be of a similar nature.

FlyingAl

@MrEureka said:

@FlyingAl said:

@MrEureka said:
Let's also back up a few years. In 1872, Barber created the Amazonian patterns, running from the quarter to the double eagle. Then, in 1873, he tried a new portrait paired with the Amazonian reverse of 1872. (He didn't bother creating the entire set this time.) And then, in 1875, the Sailor Head $5 and $10. So I'm going to challenge my previous assertion that the Sailor Head was likely created for the 20 Cent piece and then utilized for the half eagles and eagles. It could also be that the Sailor Head was originally an extension of his ongoing attempts to redesign the gold coinage, and he only later used it on the 20 Cent piece. To figure out which scenario is correct, we would probably need to go the the US Mint archives. Where is @RWB when we need him???

We could also assume that the gold patterns in their entirety were created for sale to collectors, which would fit both scenarios. It just seems so much more likely to me that Barber created the Sailor Heads exclusively to try and get them on the twenty cent piece, particularly because it was going into use that year. I'll ask it over there.

When you consider the time and expense required to design a new reverse and create two new dies, it seems unlikely that collectors of the day would have paid enough to make a purely commercial motive sufficient for the US Mint and/or its employees.

See but that's just it - the gold designs were not entirely new. They just reused the obverse designs, and pulled a copy from the Trade dollar reverse. I think that then we're in profitable ranges. There are at least ten patterns struck and a few more for each design, which in theory could lead to a profit based on how much the mint sold them for.

CaptHenway

How do you feel about the 1876 dollars using a variation of this head without the collar ruff and various arrangements of stars or lettering?

https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/j1458ap1607.html

This is one of my favorite U.S. pattern designs. I just love the plain fields. Got to hold the first specimen when Dave Novoselsky owned it.

FlyingAl

@CaptHenway said:
How do you feel about the 1876 dollars using a variation of this head without the collar ruff and various arrangements of stars or lettering?

https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/j1458ap1607.html

This is one of my favorite U.S. pattern designs. I just love the plain fields. Got to hold the first specimen when Dave Novoselsky owned it.

I did a research essay of sorts on these and posted it here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1076311/come-sail-away-the-sailor-head-patterns-of-1875#latest

I will also copy-paste one of my points here that addresses your question.
Distinction:
To make a statement that is sure to make a few question what I am thinking:
As to the patterns of 1876 and 1877, some sources state that they are “Sailor Head” patterns as well, however there are distinct differences between those of the original twenty-cent patterns of 1875. The 10th Edition of United States Pattern Coins lists these coins as independent of those of 1875 and instead of calling them “Sailor Head” patterns, they are listed as “Barber’s Liberty Head”. The coronet, angle of the bust, and the drapery at the base of the bust are different, with the main differences being the ornamentation on the front of the coronet has been removed and replaced with beads lining the crown on those patterns of 1876. The drapery at the base of the bust had also been removed by 1876. The removal of the drapery is key, as it was the drapery that was so reminiscent of a sailor, and led to the creation of the nickname “Sailor Head”. It seems in the opinion of the author of this paper that only the original patterns of 1875 should be referred to as “Sailor Head” due to these distinctions.

CaptHenway

A valid argument, though it can just as validly be argued that they are variations of the same basic design. Remember that an 1837 Dime obverse and an 1840 Dollar obverse are both the “Seated Liberty” design.” (Or “Liberty Seated” as the club prefers. Both are valid.)

Some people even consider the 1858 Dime obverse and the 1862 Dime obverse to be variations of the same design. Likewise the reverse of a 1909 $5 and a 1909 $10. I cannot say that they are wrong, though I might politely disagree with them.

I do think that you should consider submitting a somewhat lengthier article to “The Numismatist.” Show the other variations and explain the differences and explain why you think that only the one with the collar qualifies as a Sailor Head!

Tom DeLorey

FlyingAl

@CaptHenway said:

I do think that you should consider submitting a somewhat lengthier article to “The Numismatist.” Show the other variations and explain the differences and explain why you think that only the one with the collar qualifies as a Sailor Head!

I have received multiple responses suggesting sending my article to The Numismatist with some additions, and I would love to, if not for one thing. I'm not totally positive that I am correct. Too much of it seems to be conjuncture, and adding to it with facts would be tricky since so much documentation is missing for patterns. So little is known and I'm not sure how I feel about publishing potentially incorrect information. Any thoughts on this as you have published quite a few articles?

I would love to add to the "Sailor Head" section, but again the description itself is sparse. I can't find the first use of the nickname, although I am still searching. This first use is rather critical as it would set the bar for which designs were labeled as such, although even if it was used for those patterns of 1876 and 1877 I would find myself disagreeing.

The Pollock book states that the patterns of 1875 were labeled as such due to the similarities of the drapery to that of a sailor's collar. I agree with this, as it is very reminiscent of a sailor's collar. It seems unlikely that the patterns of 1876 and 1877 would have ever been labeled "Sailor Heads" due to the similarities in design of the true "Sailor Heads" of 1875 if the coins of 1875 were never struck. The name would not have existed, as they would then have no connection whatsoever to a sailor. Without the patterns of 1875 and that drapery, the name "Sailor Head" does not exist.

I suppose I just created the basis for my addition to my article right there . I'll have to start writing it out. I would love to hear your thoughts on the publishing of the article I linked to you that is on the forums with this addition though.

lilolme

@FlyingAl
I have received multiple responses suggesting sending my article to The Numismatist with some additions, and I would love to, if not for one thing. I'm not totally positive that I am correct. Too much of it seems to be conjuncture, and adding to it with facts would be tricky since so much documentation is missing for patterns. So little is known and I'm not sure how I feel about publishing potentially incorrect information. Any thoughts on this as you have published quite a few articles?

I have read many times articles that let's say propose a theory. Sometimes things are not known but one can still write about it. Just a matter of presentation. This is what we/I know and this is what we/I believe could have happened type of thing. Just make clear the known and the proposed or possible.

CaptHenway

It is perfectly valid to present a theory or opinion properly labeled as what it is.

In the meantime, continue your research. Roger Burdette gave you some good suggestions ATS. I know that I am going to pick up a copy of that book about the girl on the dollar.

CaptHenway

@jonathanb said:
@FlyingAl if you turn up any info that might reference this piece, I'd love to hear.

I don't have any new leads since my original post 10 years ago. It might be an unlisted Sailor Head hub trial. If it's real, which is of course the sticking point. The condition is rough enough that it probably can't be authenticated. On the other hand, it probably can't be disproven either, so it remains a "huh!" for now.

Can we please get precise measurements of the size of the image across two reference points, say stars #3 and #11? There being no dollar-sized patterns with an unbroken arc of 13 stars, I wish to rule out the possibility that this was intended for a Sailor Head-ish $10 gold. Wm. Barber did do pattern Sailor Head $5's and $10's in 1875 with an unbroken arc of 13 stars.

A similar measurement across a common $10 Liberty for comparison would be handy also.

Anybody have measurements of the J-A1877-9 Sailor Head trial piece shown above by MrEureka? I realize that we can extrapolate from the half dollar ring on the reverse.
And would somebody please tell me where the date was supposed to go on that obverse? Or was it?

CaptHenway

Here's another thing to consider for your eventual work: Look at the plain style LIBERTY on the coronet of J-1459-1461, and compare it to the plain style LIBERTY on the 1875 Sailor Heads. Now look at the with-serif lettering on the larger heads found on J-1457-1458; J-1462-1463a; and J-1464-1466.

FlyingAl

@CaptHenway, measurements are found at the link here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/862659/judd-unlisted-pollock-unlisted-1876-sailor-head-pattern-hub-trial

I’ll take a look at the Liberty lettering. I’m not sure it would be relevant to my work though. I’m trying to keep the subject to the patterns of 1975 for now. Perhaps I’ll reconsider based on how much subject matter I have, but it would not make a ton so sense since I am trying to prove the patterns of 1876 are not sailor heads.

CaptHenway

@FlyingAl said:
@CaptHenway, measurements are found at the link here: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/862659/judd-unlisted-pollock-unlisted-1876-sailor-head-pattern-hub-trial

I’ll take a look at the Liberty lettering. I’m not sure it would be relevant to my work though. I’m trying to keep the subject to the patterns of 1975 for now. Perhaps I’ll reconsider based on how much subject matter I have, but it would not make a ton so sense since I am trying to prove the patterns of 1876 are not sailor heads.

Thanks. I printed out an image of the 1876 and measured across from the middle of star 3 to the middle of star 11. On the same image I then measured across from edge to edge through stars 3 and 11. Star to star was approx. 71.25% of edge to edge, and if the edge to edge measurement on the actual piece is 44.8 mm then the star to star measurement is approx. 31.9 mm. Add a bit of field and a nice denticled rim on both sides and you have a 38.1 mm silver dollar.

The 1877 hub trial, with the sailor neckerchief, is so similar I did not bother to do the measurements.

CaptHenway

Pardon the crappy pictures, but I was at ANA Headquarters a week ago while visiting with an old friend who was teaching a Summer Seminar course, and I popped into the Bass Exhibit for one last look before it all goes away. Saw these "Sailor Head" pieces in the exhibit and thought of this thread (which has much better pictures).
TD

CaptHenway

Back sides.

FlyingAl

@CaptHenway Thank you for posting those! I must have seen them when I went to the ANA last year, but there are so many patterns there that blow your mind you can't remember them all .