Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Should this coin be considered a pattern?

MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,738 ✭✭✭✭✭
Flying Eagle cents were struck for circulation in a composition of 88% copper, 12% nickel.

A large number of experimental compositions were tested for cents between 1850 and 1857.

The coin below is 88.2% copper, 10.5% nickel, 0.8% zinc and 0.4% Iron. Despite being so close to the adopted copper-nickel composition, this coin looks far more like bronze.

Judd doesn't list this composition, but Judd is hardly comprehensive when things like this are concerned.

Is something like this worthy of inclusion in the Judd book? Is it a legitimate pattern or an inconsequential aberration?

image
image
Andy Lustig

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.

Comments

  • Options
    tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,636 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Doesn't seem like much of a difference. What are the trace elements from a handful of regular issue coins?
  • Options
    RKKayRKKay Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭
    Interesting question. 0.8% and 0.4% seem hardly an accident. Nevertheless, if that's a pattern, I've recently discovered about 15 new Judd #s for 1855 FEs.image
  • Options
    IGWTIGWT Posts: 4,975
    -- "Is it a legitimate pattern or an inconsequential aberration?" --

    Split the difference and call it an inconsequential pattern. image

    Rick -- when are you going to publish the results of your study?
  • Options
    RKKayRKKay Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭


    << <i>-- "Is it a legitimate pattern or an inconsequential aberration?" --

    Split the difference and call it an inconsequential pattern. image

    Rick -- when are you going to publish the results of your study? >>



    I'm sending off another 30 or so in a few weeks, so, at the VERY soonest, I'll release some info in a few months.
  • Options
    flaminioflaminio Posts: 5,664 ✭✭✭
    First, a question of curiousity: how do you determine the composition to such accuracy?

    I'm about as far from an authority as one can be, but I guess that doesn't prevent me from tossing out an opinion image. The composition seems such that it could be just a particularly impure mix. I think it really comes down to intention. If the Mint purposely put together the mix of metals described in the first post in those quantities, then I'd say it's a bona fide pattern. If it's just a matter of metals not being as pure as the specs dictated (this was way back in 1857, after all), then I'd say it's an interesting curiosity, but not a pattern. The proof would be in the documentation, and not necessarily the coin itself.
  • Options
    I had the same question as Flaminio. Do you run your coins through a reflection spectroscopic analysis? Thats a good way to get that accuracy without destroying the coin.
    Successful transactions with: DCarr, Meltdown, Notwilight, Loki, MMR, Musky1011, cohodk, claychaser, cheezhed, guitarwes, Hayden, USMoneyLover

    Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
  • Options
    MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,738 ✭✭✭✭✭
    For an additional fee, NGC and PCGS will send coins out for non-destructive SEM-EDX testing.

    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • Options
    elwoodelwood Posts: 2,414


    Wow look at those die polish lines or are they hair lines on the reverse?

    Please visit my website prehistoricamerica.com www.visitiowa.org/pinecreekcabins
  • Options
    JulianJulian Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭
    CN cents when stored with bronze cents often take on the bronze color.

    The stated percentages are way to close to this coins actual results.

    IMHO, there is no way that this coin is a pattern or a trial.
    PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows.
    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
  • Options
    PLEPLE Posts: 193 ✭✭
    No. I don't think that coin is a pattern. The percentages of Zinc and Iron are just too small!

    Also, how do you know that the Zinc and Iron didn't show up on the surface, after the coin was minted? The presence of Zinc and Iron might indicate that some coin doctor once tried to tone the coin or clean the coin, possibly with electrolysis. That process could explain the coin's bronze-like appearance, also. I don't think that such a tiny percentage of Zinc or Iron would cause the coin's appearance to look significantly different after 150 years.

    I just don't think it's a pattern. Sorry, but I think that coin might have been doctored.
  • Options
    MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,738 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think that such a tiny percentage of Zinc or Iron would cause the coin's appearance to look significantly different after 150 years.

    I'd like to hear a chemist's opinion. For all I know, Zinc and Iron may have an immediate effect on the alloy's color. Perhaps they were added to this coin for that purpose. Remember, it was not that much later that a decision was made to bring back the copper color for the cent. Perhaps this was an early experiment to show how nickel could still be used in the cent without sacrificing the traditional red/brown color scheme...
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • Options
    MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,738 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Wow look at those die polish lines or are they hair lines on the reverse?

    They're die polish lines.
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file