Patterns vs. Low Mintage Issues

cameron12x

At what mintage point does it become a philosophical discussion whether a coin is a pattern (practically speaking), rather than a coin intended for real circulation?

I suppose it varies by denomination and a host of other factors...

sinin1

if it is listed in redbook?

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>I suppose it varies by denomination and a host of other factors... >>


I suppose you suppose correctly.

TomB

I would imagine if the coin in question is no different in composition, finish, denomination or design from pieces of issued before or after it that this would argue the coin could not be a pattern.

MidLifeCrisis

If a Myddelton Token was struck in gold, would it be a pattern?

(Copper - approximately a dozen pieces known; silver - approximately two dozen pieces known. Breen called all Myddelton Tokens patterns. Still, he also listed a unique "uniface trial" in tin.)

MidLifeCrisis

Oh, and the original mintage of silver Myddeltons was 53 pieces.

Still a pattern?

jessecarlk

<< <i>At what mintage point does it become a philosophical discussion whether a coin is a pattern (practically speaking), rather than a coin intended for real circulation? >>



I don't think that mintage is an issue. Look at the 1856 Flying Eagle cent, 1500+ were minted, but it's still a pattern. Likewise, take the 1894-S Barber dime. Only 24 minted, but not a pattern.

savoyspecial

intent to circulate plays a role

speety

<< <i>intent to circulate plays a role >>

RWB

Technically, a pattern or experimental piece is not a coin. The design or alloy has not been approved for coinage and thus it is not legal tender.

cameron12x

<< <i>intent to circulate plays a role >>


I believe that's a key point here. Intention.

In the case of the 1894-S Barber Dime, why would you want to only circulate a couple dozen specimens? It just doesn't make sense.

SaorAlba

<< <i>

<< <i>intent to circulate plays a role >>


I believe that's a key point here. Intention.

In the case of the 1894-S Barber Dime, why would you want to only circulate a couple dozen specimens? It just doesn't make sense. >>



That was a case of someone having fun in the mint and less actual intent to circulate coins and more to create something interesting.

cameron12x

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>intent to circulate plays a role >>


I believe that's a key point here. Intention.

In the case of the 1894-S Barber Dime, why would you want to only circulate a couple dozen specimens? It just doesn't make sense. >>



That was a case of someone having fun in the mint and less actual intent to circulate coins and more to create something interesting. >>



Indeed. So why isn't it considered a pattern rather than a real coin intended for real circulation to be used by the real general public?

RWB

1894-S dimes are regular issue coins. Nothing differentiates them, or their contemporary handling, from any other coin. The assumption that striking 24 examples at the end of the fiscal year has some importance is ex post facto. Reality is that we do not know why they were struck, and we do not know why additional pieces were not struck.

As for patterns “intent” is meaningless. Only after the Secretary approved the design for coinage use, was there any official authorization of that design as legal tender.

cameron12x

<< <i>1894-S dimes are regular issue coins. Nothing differentiates them, or their contemporary handling, from any other coin. The assumption that striking 24 examples at the end of the fiscal year has some importance is ex post facto. Reality is that we do not know why they were struck, and we do not know why additional pieces were not struck.

As for patterns “intent” is meaningless. Only after the Secretary approved the design for coinage use, was there any official authorization of that design as legal tender. >>



Agreed. At the end of the day "intention" really is a function of the Secretary approval for official coinage.

I suppose that extremely low-mintage coins will forever remain a mystery... Which may probably be a good thing.