Is the proof 1878 Rev 79 Morgan actually a pattern?

MrEureka

My hunch is that it is a pattern, but I don't know how to prove it. What do you think?

BTW, I've only seen one of these over the years. How many really exist?

coindeuce

Why would the chief engraver make a 7TF convex breast pattern and not an 8TF pattern ? It seems more likely that the 8TF pattern would exist as well before the time and effort was made to modify the 7TF concave breast patterns. I always thought that the exceedingly elusive Judd 1552 was the convex breast pattern, which does not match the dies for the 7TF Round Breast Reverse Proofs(VAM 215).

Wolf359

The reverse die was re-used on the 1879 and 1880 Proof (lump on letter D). Here's a photo:



Would eliminate or at least cast some doubt on the idea of a pattern?

Hayden

Would counting the ridging work if you had one of these coins?

blu62vette

edit: took off my DMPL image, did not read proof in the title.

blu62vette

In Long Beach I will see the author of the 1878 rev of 79 book, I will run it by him.

Wolf359

<< <i>Why would the chief engraver make a 7TF convex breast pattern and not an 8TF pattern ? It seems more likely that the 8TF pattern would exist as well before the time and effort was made to modify the 7TF concave breast patterns. I always thought that the exceedingly elusive Judd 1552 was the convex breast pattern, which does not match the dies for the 7TF Round Breast Reverse Proofs(VAM 215). >>



Experimental because of the new reverse?

Well what makes it a pattern? Does it stay a pattern if the design is accepted and put into production? Or does it just stay a proof? I always thought patterns were tests of different materials. I don't see that on the Rev of 79 proof.

MrEureka

I always thought patterns were tests of different materials.

That's just one type of pattern. Here are a few relevant links:

J-1550a

J-1553

What are Patterns?

messydesk

Since the design was in transition, one could make the argument that it was a pattern, but you'd need more than that to back it up.

According to the Miller book, there were an estimated 25-50 made, and he enumerates 6 known. The Rev. of 78 shows an estimated mintage of 450-475, which would lead me to believe there's an official mintage of 500 1878 7TF proof dollars. Were the Rev. 79 coins patterns, they'd not have been counted in this figure. As proofs were somewhat made to order for collectors, it would seem that when a new and improved reverse hub was designed, future proof coins for the year would use the improved design. The obverse hub of the Rev. 79 proof is also different from the hub used on the Rev. 78 coins and most of the Rev. 79 varieties, as it is the III obverse (Obv. of 1879-1904). It would seem, therefore, that the proof Rev. 79 coins, using new hubs for both sides, wasn't made until after the Rev. 79 design went into production.

I will opine that it is just another proof issue and not a pattern.

Frankcoins

Lots of first year issues (Kennedy half accented hair, Mercury dimes and Walkers with convex, rough fields, Cherrios dollars) have some minor
design tweaking...but they are just varieties, not patterns.