Options
Are there any J-2069 known to exist?
Dennis88
Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭
The 1942 1 Cent pattern in glass...does it exist?
The December 1975 ANA Magazine article by William G. Anderson mentions that none are known to exist...is this true up to this day?
I know various pieces in plastic (red, brown, tan) and Bakelite are known next to Zinc and Bronze. But any others?
Dennis
The December 1975 ANA Magazine article by William G. Anderson mentions that none are known to exist...is this true up to this day?
I know various pieces in plastic (red, brown, tan) and Bakelite are known next to Zinc and Bronze. But any others?
Dennis
0
Comments
-Paul
<< <i>Oreville is very knowledgeable on this date set, as well. Do a search and his thread will pop up on the subject matter. >>
I saw that, but none of the threads that have been around here recently mentioned a J-2069, unfortunately.
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
J-2069...glass
J-2068...hard rubber
J-2067...Bakelite
J-2066...red fiber
J-2065...transparent amber plastic
J-2064...light yellow plastic
J-2063...tan plastic
J-2062...red plastic
J-2061...gray plastic
J-2060...brown plastic
J-2059...black plastic
J-2058...lead <---That would have been safe for kids
J-2057...aluminum
J-2056...white metal
J-2055...manganese
J-2054...zinc-coated steel <---Maybe we had a winner here
J-2053...zinc
J-2052...brass
J-2051...Bronze
That listed, my book only shows that J-2062 and J-2054 have traded at auction but the rarity scale for most of them, including the J-2069, is 7-12 pieces.
How could they leave out chocolate?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i><< Wow, they tried everything in 1942 didn't they? >>
How could they leave out chocolate?
and/or twinkies
<< <i>...I have seen a glass Walker. >>
That would be cool.
Don't think I'd pay much for it because I'd be afraid I'd drop it and shatter it...but it would be cool.
<< <i>I haven't seen or heard of the location of the "cent", but I have seen a glass Walker. >>
Any idea how it was produce?
Struck in a semi-molten state?
<< <i>This is a 1964 Kennedy half dollar made by Corning Glass Company for AT&T and is made of clear photochromic glass. This was made as a possible replacement to silver.
Only one is confirmed ex Bowers and Merena's 6/89 sale.
Photo courtesy of Bowers and Merena. >>
By the way, if this was made for AT&T and not the US Mint, is this incorrectly classified as a "pattern" on USPatterns.com? Is P-5395 more correctly classified as a "private pattern?"
Any idea how it was produce?
No. We'll need to ask RWB...
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Here's information on the 1964 Corning Glass JFK Half (P5395):
<< <i>This is a 1964 Kennedy half dollar made by Corning Glass Company for AT&T and is made of clear photochromic glass. This was made as a possible replacement to silver.
Only one is confirmed ex Bowers and Merena's 6/89 sale.
Photo courtesy of Bowers and Merena. >>
By the way, if this was made for AT&T and not the US Mint, is this incorrectly classified as a "pattern" on USPatterns.com? Is P-5395 more correctly classified as a "private pattern?" >>
Private patterns are listed in a separate section of the Pollock reference, private patterns, which in fact it is. They have every right to be mentioned as they are directly related to our circulating coinage and in this case, they even had the US Mint involved in them.
The definition of what a private pattern is can be considered to be vague at best. As an example, Judd calls the plastic 1942 pattern cents "regular" patterns, and lists them as any other pattern. Pollock placed them in the private pattern section, I believe from the top of my head .
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
Judd 2079:
Judd 2081:
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's information on the 1964 Corning Glass JFK Half (P5395):
<< <i>This is a 1964 Kennedy half dollar made by Corning Glass Company for AT&T and is made of clear photochromic glass. This was made as a possible replacement to silver.
Only one is confirmed ex Bowers and Merena's 6/89 sale.
Photo courtesy of Bowers and Merena. >>
By the way, if this was made for AT&T and not the US Mint, is this incorrectly classified as a "pattern" on USPatterns.com? Is P-5395 more correctly classified as a "private pattern?" >>
Private patterns are listed in a separate section of the Pollock reference, private patterns, which in fact it is. They have every right to be mentioned as they are directly related to our circulating coinage and in this case, they even had the US Mint involved in them.
The definition of what a private pattern is can be considered to be vague at best. As an example, Judd calls the plastic 1942 pattern cents "regular" patterns, and lists them as any other pattern. Pollock placed them in the private pattern section, I believe from the top of my head .
Dennis >>
Dennis, are you saying that P-5395 had the US Mint involved, J-2069, or both?
Regarding private patterns, my understanding was that USPatterns.com did not cover private patterns. If I'm mistaken, I'm pleasantly surprised as I agree that they should be mentioned, even if the US Mint was not involved.
Franklin-Lover's Forum
The above is a very good statement and something the pattern folks probably should clean up. To me, an experimental or pattern piece has to be directly associated with the US. Mint or Treasury Dept. – one of them has to be part of the experiment or design proposal. Thus, things like Fraser’s electrotypes for the Buffalo nickel would be legitimate patterns for proposed coin designs because they were officially reviewed and in some cases solicited by the Secretary of the Treasury. Privately made items claiming to be “patterns” are just tokens and practically worthless.
The 1942 plastic and other composition pieces struck from token dies prepared for this purpose by the US Mint, would be valid experimental pieces, but not patterns for a new design. All of the other 1941-1944 “odd” pieces are either valid experimental pieces or wrong planchet errors.
Like many other numismatic "facts," what we have at present are layers of speculation, guesswork and misattribution with a few hard facts whipped in.
Presently, I know of about 75 experimental pieces in many compositions, plus one true pattern design from official dies.
<< <i>
<< <i> The definition of what a private pattern is can be considered to be vague at best. As an example, Judd calls the plastic 1942 pattern cents "regular" patterns, and lists them as any other pattern. Pollock placed them in the private pattern section, I believe from the top of my head . >>
The above is a very good statement and something the pattern folks probably should clean up. >>
I agree. I was surprised the Corning piece was on the USPatterns.com website.
<< <i>Privately made items claiming to be “patterns” are just tokens >>
I consider them to be medals as they are not designed to be used to transact commerce, even between private parties.
<< <i>and practically worthless. >>
Worthless from a historical perspective or a financial perspective? Some of the pieces have interesting, numismatic people and stories behind them and it would be a shame not to document them IMO. As for financial worth, that is for collectors to determine. Some are selling quite well. Also, don't forget, SCDs were not worth much financially for about 100 years, however does that make them "worthless?"
<< <i>I haven't seen or heard of the location of the "cent", but I have seen a glass Walker. >>
I believe you mean a glass of johnny walker, but hey ...
<< <i> The definition of what a private pattern is can be considered to be vague at best. As an example, Judd calls the plastic 1942 pattern cents "regular" patterns, and lists them as any other pattern. Pollock placed them in the private pattern section, I believe from the top of my head .
The above is a very good statement and something the pattern folks probably should clean up. To me, an experimental or pattern piece has to be directly associated with the US. Mint or Treasury Dept. – one of them has to be part of the experiment or design proposal. Thus, things like Fraser’s electrotypes for the Buffalo nickel would be legitimate patterns for proposed coin designs because they were officially reviewed and in some cases solicited by the Secretary of the Treasury. Privately made items claiming to be “patterns” are just tokens and practically worthless.
The 1942 plastic and other composition pieces struck from token dies prepared for this purpose by the US Mint, would be valid experimental pieces, but not patterns for a new design. All of the other 1941-1944 “odd” pieces are either valid experimental pieces or wrong planchet errors.
Like many other numismatic "facts," what we have at present are layers of speculation, guesswork and misattribution with a few hard facts whipped in.
Presently, I know of about 75 experimental pieces in many compositions, plus one true pattern design from official dies. >>
I am often confused as to what is a "pattern" and what is an "experimental" piece.
By some definitions, the 1856 Flying Eagle cent is not a pattern. No new designs were used to make it, and it was basically an experiment to see how a small, thick, 88 copper/12 nickel coin would strike and feel.
TD
In the present world usage of the terms, experimental pieces are a subset of patterns.
Coincidentally, I recently read an excerpt from the 1887 Mint Report, in which Mint Director Kimball struggled with the differences between the "proper" definitions of pattern categories, as compared to the prevailing language "on the street".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Tom, do you feel that business strike 1856 Flying Eagle Cents were meant to circulate? If so, wouldn't that indicate that they were neither patterns nor experimental pieces? >>
I don't know if they were meant to circulate, or if they "just did" because they happened to exist. Lots of other patterns of much lower mintages ended up in circulation.
TD
<< <i>I am often confused as to what is a "pattern" and what is an "experimental" piece.
In the present world usage of the terms, experimental pieces are a subset of patterns.
Coincidentally, I recently read an excerpt from the 1887 Mint Report, in which Mint Director Kimball struggled with the differences between the "proper" definitions of pattern categories, as compared to the prevailing language "on the street". >>
I think one of the issues that causes confusion is that the term patterns is commonly used and listed as a subset or category of patterns so people talking about patterns can be talking about different things. For example, the Henry Bass Foundation History and Overview of Patterns classifies these pieces as the following:
Pattern Categories:
- Trial Pieces: to test dies. Most "trial pieces" are really Numismatic Delicacies
- Experimental Pieces: test new concepts such as metals
- Patterns: to illustrate new designs
- Numismatic Delicacies: largest category of patterns, typically made for collectors
- Restrikes: 1836, 1838, 1839 Gobrecht dollars, etc., typically made for collectors
The USPatterns.com Pattern Concordance seems to solve this issue by not listing patterns as a recursive type of pattern; however, it uses the French word Essai, which is not commonly used in English. Perhaps, partially because of this, many people "on the street" may continue to use the word pattern for a design trial when it should be used to refer to the entire series of categories.
It does seem like some clarification of word usage would be useful. Particularly, it seems that it would be useful to have a different name for either the overall series or the design test category, preferably one that can see wider collector adoption than Essai has today. I think using the term "Design Trial" for the pattern category in place of pattern and Essai would go a long way to reducing confusion. It also fits nicely with Die Trials.
It is interesting to note that the majority of patterns, from the Henry Bass Foundation perspective, may be "worthless" as they were made for collectors. However collectible, these patterns were not used to determine future directions for coinage.
1) a decorative design, as for wallpaper, china, or textile fabrics, etc.
2) decoration or ornament having such a design.
3) a natural or chance marking, configuration, or design: patterns of frost on the window.
4) a distinctive style, model, or form: a new pattern of army helmet.
Because of this definition incongruity between the numismatic definition and more common word usage, using the word pattern to refer to things that do not have a distinctive visual design may be an uphill battle that will lead to confusion for some time.
Above, I argued for using the term Design Trial in place of Essai (at least for English). This is a good solution; however, there may be a solution that creates even less confusion. That is to use Pattern to refer to design trials, and find another term for the series. I think this would be more in line with common word usage and create less overall confusion.