Should the Judd Book be expanded to include Colonial and Pioneer Gold Patterns?

MrEureka · August 17, 2009 3:09AM

I'd vote for it because it might create some new interest in the various series. What do you think?

Coinosaurus · August 17, 2009 3:27AM

Well, they put colonial and territorial into the Redbook, so why not. The addition of color was a great enticement to acquire the tenth edition of Judd, maybe this could be the "hook" for the eleventh edition. I'm sure Messrs. Bowers, Teichman, et al have PLENTY of free time to work on all our Judd requests

RWB · August 17, 2009 6:16AM

I think Pollock should be revised and updated. Judd is too skimpy on detail and basic information to be anything more than a summary.

yellowkid · August 17, 2009 6:20AM

I can't answer your question because I have just ordered the Patterns book, my first copy. It seems that most of them are pretty pricey but I think I would like to add some at some point and wanted to get up to speed on them.

shorecoll · August 17, 2009 6:59AM

I'd say yes to colonial, no to Pioneer Gold. Why? Because I'm biased

ColonialCoinUnion · August 17, 2009 7:55AM

Is anyone sure which colonials are "patterns"?

firstmint · August 17, 2009 8:55AM

I believe that Don Kagin's forthcoming book will provide plenty of background information regarding Pioneer and Territorial Patterns.

Duplication tends to be redundant.

dcarr · August 17, 2009 9:05AM

<< I think Pollock should be revised and updated. Judd is too skimpy on detail and basic information to be anything more than a summary. >>

I would also like to see the Pollack book updated with colonial and pioneer patterns, along with other vintage and modern private-mint patterns (so long as they have some connection to the US Mint).

EagleEye · August 17, 2009 9:23AM

Confederation Patterns like the Nova Costellatio patterns should be in there. British made ones, like Myddelton tokens, should not.

Aegis3 · August 17, 2009 11:30AM

I'd say no. That'd be getting too tangential to the main topic.

Lakesammman · August 17, 2009 12:04PM

Territorial yes - not sure about colonial......

MidLifeCrisis · August 17, 2009 12:37PM

<< Confederation Patterns like the Nova Costellatio patterns should be in there. British made ones, like Myddelton tokens, should not. >>

northcoin · August 17, 2009 5:45PM

<< I'd say yes to colonial, no to Pioneer Gold. Why? Because I'm biased

>>

I'd say yes to Pioneer, no to colonial. Why? Because I'm biased.

novacaesarea · August 31, 2009 2:24PM

Hi CCU,

So............. the Novas, the Fugio 1-CC, the 1717 Rosas (I think the latter ones were mules and experimental pieces but not true patterns. Someone might argue that the 1727 and 1733 pieces were "Patterns", but again they seem like proposals historically). I don't think anyone knows for sure on the Continental Dollars even in Silver and Brass. The New York/Confederatio pieces are probably "proposal" pieces at best. I think Getz pieces were also proposals but not patterns. Perhaps the Virginia Shilling was a Pattern.

Well maybe it is too late and I am not thinking about some area, but there is my short list.

What are your or anyone else's thoughts. It is an interesting question.

Best,

novacaesarea

Ed62 · February 22, 2011 7:49AM

'Pioneer' patterns should be included for sure !!

Julian · February 22, 2011 7:56AM

What is there to lose? I am for it.

Lakesammman · February 22, 2011 8:05AM

Was going to reply, then realized I already did 1.5 years ago.

PerryHall · February 22, 2011 8:05AM

Great idea. We're putting you in charge of convincing the author to republish his book with these additions.

RWB · February 22, 2011 8:30AM

Still, "No."

Halfsense · February 22, 2011 10:29AM

I vote "no." IMO expanding the Judd book to include Colonials and Pioneer Gold would be like adding a section on Peruvian food to an Italian cookbook because both cuisines use tomatoes in some recipies.

-donn-

Sonorandesertrat · February 22, 2011 10:34AM

<< 

<< Confederation Patterns like the Nova Costellatio patterns should be in there. British made ones, like Myddelton tokens, should not. >>

>>

Oh, my. Some collections just don't get any respect.

Coinosaurus · February 22, 2011 10:57AM

<< Duplication tends to be redundant. >>

Not only that, but it is usually repetitive too.

ziggy29 · February 22, 2011 12:18PM

How often do we know which Colonials were "patterns" and which were intended to circulate? It's easier with U.S. Mint issues but even then in a few cases (i.e. Gobrecht Dollars) the line is somewhat blurred by the number made and the number that really did circulate. I can't imagine how we'd know that with most Colonials.