Should the 1866 No Motto "Patterns" be de-listed from Judd?
MrEureka
Posts: 24,309 ✭✭✭✭✭
The 1866 No Motto Quarter, Half and Silver Dollar have traditionally been categorized as patterns and listed in the pattern reference books, but they're not actually patterns, even in the broadest sense of the word. I think they should be de-listed as a matter of accuracy. And as a practical matter, there would be no harm done, because the only piece in private hands is already slabbed without a Judd number. Can anyone here think of a good reason NOT to de-list the coins?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Yes. Gobrecht Dollars next?
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All Of Us
ANA LM
LSCC
EAC
FUN
Andy, if these coins are not patterns, what are they? Thanks!
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
novodels?
That said folk lore and inclusion are as much a part of the hobby as academics. The better question would be why limit their inclusion from publications and listings. Legit and documented is a very high standard to selectively apply.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It would create an inconsistency, unless all other non-pattern coins are also delisted from Judd. So many of these have been listed in the book from the beginning that it would be easier and less disruptive to simply change the title of the book (e.g., "United States Pattern Coins and Fantasy Pieces" or "United States Pattern Coins and Other Issues"...).
For whatever reason I still gotta fill in the holes in book so no comment here, thanks
I would leave them in Judd, properly described, to keep them on the record for future generations, but take them out of the Redbook.
Should patterns such as the 1856 Flying Eagle Cent be delisted from the Red Book?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The CWT area seems to delist items regularly as new information is discovered. This tends to keep the catalogs up to date and understandable for new collectors.
Not sure about other areas.
Here's the TrueView for the Snowdon-Woodin-Boyd-Green-Newman-Farouk-duPont-Simpson specimen show in the OP:
I would just leave alone ... already noted as "not a Pattern" I like the idea above as to amending the title of the reference book ... Pollock already had name his book as "Patterns and Related Issues". Covers a wider range of pieces that could be included. As other noted above - what about all those other fantasy pieces / mules that are not really patterns. I.e. The J-253's and the sorts .. and then what about the entire suite of "IN GOD WE TRUST" pieces of the 1863. 1864 and 1865. Would that not be the same logic?
Andy - What a way to the start the New Year
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
Is the 1864 SM proof 2 Cent Piece a pattern?
How about the dime and half dime with the obverse of 1859 and the reverse of 1860?
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Many listed are fantasy pieces. Some are mules as well. Obviously these are not really patterns, and were intentionally created and taken out.
It would not be inaccurate to call them mint sports, or novodels, or unauthorized regular issues. On the other hand, it would be inaccurate to call them patterns. Now my turn to ask you a question. If the 1866 No Motto coins belong in Judd, why shouldn't the 1913 Liberty Nickel also be in there?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The 1836 (J-60) and 1839 (J-104) are regular issues, so I could see removing those. An argument for leaving some of the others in Judd is that they were intentional and unauthorized die pairings, a.k.a. "mules". Which could also be an argument for leaving the 1866's in Judd, but would then leave us wondering if things like the Lincoln Cent / Roosevelt Dime mules should be listed in Judd. It's a tricky issue and a slippery slope.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy- as you obviously know, the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel is a blatant, unauthorized, intentional and smuggled out fantasy piece. Just like the 3 leaf clover proof Ike Dollar that sold in HA for $105k.
What makes you think that the 1856 Flying Eagle is a pattern?
On the other hand, J-228 is a regular issue, not a pattern, and it's only listed in Judd.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Would you also remove the 1913 Liberty Nickel?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
All of those things were created to look like legitimate patterns of one sort or another, be they mules or back-dated transitionals. The 1866 No Mottos are something different.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy if you list the Cent/Dime mule in Judd, which is:
Unauthorized
Unofficial
A Fantasy
Smuggled out
Please be consistent and list the Ike Clover too😉
Or at least list the proof Ike Dollar in bronze and the proof Ike Dollar on the struck SF Mint bronze medal😉
The mint was still mass producing large cents as a regular production issue in 1857.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The bulk of the aluminum and copper off-metal strikes of the late 1800s aren’t patterns either.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I like the flow of this discussion. Thanks all.
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Agreed that they’re not patterns in a strict sense, but the word “pattern” has long been also used to describe a broader group of coins, including regular dies trial pieces and (intentional) off metal strikes. It’s not an ideal use of terminology, but it’s workable and not likely to change. But the 66 No Mottos (and 1913 Nickel) are something different. I think they belong in the Red Book because they’re from an adopted die pair and in the proper metal. But such things, unless experimental in some way, don’t qualify as patterns, even under the broadest definition of the word.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I have always been of the opinion that the 1864 Small Motto design was created as a pattern design that got rejected and replaced by the Large Motto design, but that they simply used up the existing SM dies in the interest of wartime economy, which made them regular issues.
If they are delisted then they would be categorized as intended for circulation by default.
Were they intended as a regular issue? They are not specimens because they have the same "as struck" characteristics as regular issue, no?
At least the coins in the OP are proofs, so not intended for circulation.
Gee I was just thinking --- This topic opens up another question for me ... who or what entity owns the rights to the Judd Reference Guide? Is it Whitman Publishing ?
If we chat about delisting or adding Judd Numbers - where and what mechanism would be used and who would be the final arbitrator - Saul, Q,David or the 50 or so names listed as contributors in the 10th edition?
Just curious?
OMG ... My Mother was Right about Everything!
I wake up with a Good Attitude Every Day. Then … Idiots Happen!
Whitman owns Judd. The ultimate decision on de-listing anything would go to whoever ends up revising the next edition. And even if something is de-listed or reclassified as something other than a pattern, the Judd number will still have to be referenced in some way, if for no other reason than that we would not want the number to get reassigned to a new discovery. For example, if we de-listed the 1866 NM $1, which is J-540, and a copper example of the same coin turned up one day, we wouldn't want the copper one (which would rightfully be listed in Judd) to become J-540. It should be J-540a.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Yes, and if it's still in the Red Book, should also be removed from it. I consider it a fantasy strike.
Weren't the No Motto coins specifically requested by some collector of the time? The Mint was up to all sorts of shenanigans at the time, like the 1868 Large Cent.
I think the coins could still be listed as patterns simply because they were not regular issues, were not intended to be regular issues, and the die combination exists like a pattern as a trial strike.
If the population of the No Motto and With Mottos were reversed and the Mint stuck with the No Motto design, the With Motto modification would surely be labeled a pattern.
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
Another example of a novodel. Struck in the late 1860s, this was not a government authorized pattern. Listed as Judd-301.
1863 w/L proof in bronze.
That's a good way of putting it. Judd has always included such pieces (those that are not technically patterns, but not regular issues, either) - as did Adams & Woodin before Judd, and Robert Coulton Davis before them.
A primary consideration in writing/editing a book has to be making information available in a way that is accessible - in this case, putting the information where the reader expects to find it. People expect the information to be located where it has traditionally been located. Even more so, they also expect like things to be grouped together. The title of the book is more or less a misnomer - more than just a book about patterns, it is and always has been a book about rare coins that are not regular issues (and consequently coins that are not typically covered in books about regular issues). That is why I suggest changing the title of the book to more accurately reflect this reality. As it stands today, there are already inconsistencies in Judd; these could be addressed by including coins that have been left out of the book in the past. Removing coins here and there in a piecemeal fashion would only make the problem worse and add to the confusion. It would be like editing a book on trees and keeping the listing on white oaks, but putting red oaks in a completely different book based on an arbitrary criterion.
“Should the 1866 No Motto "Patterns" be de-listed from Judd?”
No, but they should be described/listed for what they actually are. And the title of the book should encompass such unauthorized novodels/fantasy pieces - whatever you wish to label them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.