Should a submission to a design competition be called a "Pattern"--see Stack's Lot #1058 (
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I was taking a look at the new Stack's Norweb catalog, which is spectacular. I am glad to see that it still has the ANR feel to it. In Lot #1058, which I cut and pasted below, Stack's is offering a rendering of a reverse design submitted by Anthony DeFrancisci for the 1938 Jefferson Nickel competition. For those who are experts in Patterns, would something like this truly fit into the traditional definition of a "pattern". I am not sure if I am splitting hairs here (or if it really matters), but I am not sure if there is a standard defintion of "pattern" and if these sorts of pieces usually fall within that definition.
*******************************
Undated (1938) Jefferson nickel reverse pattern by Anthony DeFrancisci. Electrotrial. J-C1938-1. MS-62 (PCGS).
A unique and highly important coin-sized rendering of the reverse design submitted by Anthony DeFrancisci, the designer of the Peace dollar, to the 1938 Jefferson nickel design competition. Even medium brown with glossy surfaces. A uniface piece, produced by the electrotype method and termed an "electrotrial" today, this piece was made by creating a thin copper shell from a larger sculptural plaster then backing it with lead for durability. The term electrotrial, according to Dick Johnson, former historian of Medallic Art Company, is a modern creation by Breen and notes that these pieces are simply called galvanos in the die-producing trade. A raised spot is seen among the rays near the right side of the "obverse," a few hairlines, generally a very nice state of preservation.
This nickel-sized pattern displays a design that met the requirements of the 1938 design competition to replace the Buffalo nickel. In order to compete for the $1,000 prize, the designs submitted by the artists had to show "a representation of Monticello, Jefferson's historic home near Charlottesville. In addition to the words required by law to appear on the coin, the coin may contain the inscription "MONTICELLO," in order to identify the architecture ... none of the legends are to be abbreviated and should be in capital letters." Though rendered in capitals, the font used by DeFrancisci resembles that used on his Peace dollar design, including apparent "V"s substituted for "U"s and the use of "oF" in the legend. Monticello is rendered with a view from the West Front, the more decorative side though not the "front door" used by Jefferson or his guests. The view is realistic, backed by 22 radiant lines and framed with 13 stars. Though the significance of the 13 stars, like Jefferson's conception of truth, is self-evident, the number of rays may be simply a function of the design. The design is unsigned, though it precisely matches DeFrancisci's original plaster which was donated to the Smithsonian by his widow. Were it not for the survival of that plaster, the author of this important pattern might remain unknown.
Some 390 different designs were submitted to the design competition, though few of those designs survived to the present day. A 1938 Time Magazine article noted that the entries "showed Jefferson standing, sitting, amused, grim, spindly, fat, and Monticello from all angles, in one case with an eagle perched on the roof." Felix Schlag's original design remains well-known despite the fact that it was not used on the nickel. A few plasters from unsuccessful designs survive though we have not seen any other design in this format. Other examples of this galvanic technology, though, may be seen in our January 2006 sale where two such pieces by James Earle Fraser were offered, both created as a lead-up to the 1913 introduction of the Buffalo nickel. Those pieces realized very strong prices: $34,500 and $25,300 each. This fascinating specimen is of similar historic and artistic value, created by the talented artist of one of America's most beloved designs. Jefferson nickels are endlessly popular with collectors, and this pattern that relates to the history of their creation would be the centerpiece of an advanced collection.
PCGS Population: 1; none finer.
*******************************
Undated (1938) Jefferson nickel reverse pattern by Anthony DeFrancisci. Electrotrial. J-C1938-1. MS-62 (PCGS).
A unique and highly important coin-sized rendering of the reverse design submitted by Anthony DeFrancisci, the designer of the Peace dollar, to the 1938 Jefferson nickel design competition. Even medium brown with glossy surfaces. A uniface piece, produced by the electrotype method and termed an "electrotrial" today, this piece was made by creating a thin copper shell from a larger sculptural plaster then backing it with lead for durability. The term electrotrial, according to Dick Johnson, former historian of Medallic Art Company, is a modern creation by Breen and notes that these pieces are simply called galvanos in the die-producing trade. A raised spot is seen among the rays near the right side of the "obverse," a few hairlines, generally a very nice state of preservation.
This nickel-sized pattern displays a design that met the requirements of the 1938 design competition to replace the Buffalo nickel. In order to compete for the $1,000 prize, the designs submitted by the artists had to show "a representation of Monticello, Jefferson's historic home near Charlottesville. In addition to the words required by law to appear on the coin, the coin may contain the inscription "MONTICELLO," in order to identify the architecture ... none of the legends are to be abbreviated and should be in capital letters." Though rendered in capitals, the font used by DeFrancisci resembles that used on his Peace dollar design, including apparent "V"s substituted for "U"s and the use of "oF" in the legend. Monticello is rendered with a view from the West Front, the more decorative side though not the "front door" used by Jefferson or his guests. The view is realistic, backed by 22 radiant lines and framed with 13 stars. Though the significance of the 13 stars, like Jefferson's conception of truth, is self-evident, the number of rays may be simply a function of the design. The design is unsigned, though it precisely matches DeFrancisci's original plaster which was donated to the Smithsonian by his widow. Were it not for the survival of that plaster, the author of this important pattern might remain unknown.
Some 390 different designs were submitted to the design competition, though few of those designs survived to the present day. A 1938 Time Magazine article noted that the entries "showed Jefferson standing, sitting, amused, grim, spindly, fat, and Monticello from all angles, in one case with an eagle perched on the roof." Felix Schlag's original design remains well-known despite the fact that it was not used on the nickel. A few plasters from unsuccessful designs survive though we have not seen any other design in this format. Other examples of this galvanic technology, though, may be seen in our January 2006 sale where two such pieces by James Earle Fraser were offered, both created as a lead-up to the 1913 introduction of the Buffalo nickel. Those pieces realized very strong prices: $34,500 and $25,300 each. This fascinating specimen is of similar historic and artistic value, created by the talented artist of one of America's most beloved designs. Jefferson nickels are endlessly popular with collectors, and this pattern that relates to the history of their creation would be the centerpiece of an advanced collection.
PCGS Population: 1; none finer.
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
thanks for sharing!
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
IMHO, a pattern has to be struck in coin form, and the size of the proposed design.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i> this piece was made by creating a thin copper shell from a larger sculptural plaster then backing it with lead for durability. >>
If it was made from a large scuptural plaster then it would be large not coin sized. In order to make this coin sized version they would have made a backed copper shell like they described and then used an reducing lather to create a coin sided hub with which they could make the plaster negative of the design and then created the plated copper shell and done the lead backing. It seems odd to me that they would have gone to all the trouble to create the coin sized hub and etectrotrial when they could just have submitted the original plaster model or the galvano.
De Francisci produced a design for the 1938 Jefferson nickel and submitted the model to the Treasury for consideration. (This is discussed in an article I wrote for Coin World a couple of years ago, along with identification of the models in the Smithsonian. The item illustrated was initially attributed to Felix Schlag and encapsulated as such.) His designs were not among the final ones considered and there is no evidence he was ever invited to submit electrotypes or anything else. Given there was no mint use for deFrancisci’s designs, the term “pattern” seems optimistic.
The item appears to be a foundry electro – possibly just one of many actual-size samples sculptors used to show prospective clients. DeFrancisci, Flanagan, MacNeil, Fraser and others had display boards of uniface samples they took on sales calls. Photos of some of these promotional display boards are among the Peter A Juley & Son collection in the Smithsonian. More than 100 of deFrancisic's samples are available for viewing in the Luce Center of the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, DC. (At the Gallary Place Metro station.)
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>It is a shame they didn't go with this design as it is certainly much more asthetically pleasing than the blocky reverse of the Jefferson nickel. >>
Thats a common sentiment expressed about many pattern isues, though I suspect that if this was the regular issue, and the blocky regular issue was the pattern, people would be pining for that.
I guess its the numismatic corollary of the 'grass is always greener' axiom.
<< <i>Didn't I once see that piece in the custody of MrEureka? >>
Mike Byers.
IMHO, if it serves the purpose of a pattern (a prototype for a design or other significant change), it should fit within the broad definition of what we consider patterns, IF (as Julian said) it approximates the appropriate size. Keep in mind that fantasy pieces, pieces not of mint origin and "regular dies" pieces are all considered patterns. If such pieces weren't considered patterns, the Judd book would be a booklet.
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<