Is the 1974 Aluminum Cent a Pattern or Cancelled Regular Issue?

Zoins

Wikipedia says that there are some numismatists that consider the 1974 aluminum cent a cancelled regular issue and not a pattern.

What is the reasoning for considering them a regular issue if they were never authorized by Congress?

BillJones

I see them strictly as a pattern. There was no authorization on any level that would have made them a regular issue. They were handed out to members of Congress for their review, and an unknown number of them were not returned.

CaptHenway

In my opinion they are a pattern, though I could accept matalurgical trial strike since the normal design was used.. They are not a regular issue.

BustHalfBrian

The idea to use aluminum was only proposed and tested; it never went as far as being considered for use in commerce, let alone for "regular issue".

keyman64

Pattern

291fifth

They are patterns ... period.

oih82w8

I consider them an "off metal strike".

There are countries that use aluminum planchets and it is possible that a straggler was in the bin with the regular planchets of the intended batch. Very similar to the 43 copper and 44 steel cents.

CaptHenway

<< <i>I consider them an "off metal strike".

There are countries that use aluminum planchets and it is possible that a straggler was in the bin with the regular planchets of the intended batch. Very similar to the 43 copper and 44 steel cents. >>



There were some Nepal aluminum proof coins struck in San Francisco in 1974 that are about the right size and weight. It is known that in that time period San Francisco used to ship unfit proof planchets higher than cents to Denver to be struck as regular issues. Unfit cent planchets could of course have been struck as regular issue 1974-S cents. Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

That said, Denver personnel have confirmed that they did deliberately strike some cents in aluminum. The question is, did he receive them legally. Not intentionally, but legally.

The Toven coin is a serious precedent. I hope that the Treasury doesn't decide to go after it to make the precedent go away.

jmcu12

In general I agree with the majority that say it is a pattern but I can see the argument for a cancelled regular issue. Anytime you mint more than a million of something doesn't that indicate a larger intention?

MsMorrisine

<< <i>In general I agree with the majority that say it is a pattern but I can see the argument for a cancelled regular issue. Anytime you mint more than a million of something doesn't that indicate a larger intention? >>



Not necessarily

The Mint makes runs to fully test the processes such as die life.

ricko

Definitely a pattern, and intent was to test the viability of an aluminum cent... many were handed out to congress people... there seems to be no agreed upon count of those items....Cheers, RickO

Raufus

<< <i>Definitely a pattern, and intent was to test the viability of an aluminum cent... many were handed out to congress people... there seems to be no agreed upon count of those items....Cheers, RickO >>



ricko, do you (or anyone) know whether there is even a very approximate estimate of the number of these cents? Thanks.

kevinj

So are the 1964-D Peace Dollars that escaped the melting pots patterns or regular issue that were illegally distributed?

Congress authorized 45 million to be struck on Aug 3, 1964, 316,076 were struck,
following normal Mint practices, employees were permitted to purchase 5 each
Congress resinded authorization,
a few were not returned (estimated 5)
rest went to melting pot.


On the 74 Alum,
first struck 1974 on Oct 17, 1973, two were given to Deputy Treasury Secretary William Simon (these are obviously patterns)
Mint ledgers state
1,441,039 of the 1974 Alum cents struck between Oct 17 1973 and March 29, 1974, all but 59 of these were melted April 2, 1974
1,579,261 of the 1974 Alum cents were struck between Jan 7, 1974 and May 30, 1974
130,061 of the 1974 Alum cents were struck between Apr 12 and Jule 4, 1974 - of these 67 specimens retained by Office of Technology, 65 then went to Phila Mint and 2 were kept by Alan Goldberg of Office of Technology

25 1974 Alum cents were sent to Annual Assay Commission, returned later14 1974 Alum cents were given to Congressman

14 were distributed to Congress members.


I agree that there were never officially released.
But with the obviously high number produced, it is more likely that they were intending to release into circulation and replace the copper cent as the price of copper had risen.

In the end it was decided not to use.

Are they a pattern or a coin initially intended for circulation, but illegally released?

Are the 1856 Flying Eagle cents patterns or proofs?
Same general circumstance, coins struck released to Congressmen to see response. They are considered proofs and business strikes

A pattern is by defintion a coin used to test a design, planchet, alloy, and so on.
By law, a pattern that is the same year, design, alloy as intended to be authorized could be sold as a proof.

Given the large number struck, they were obviously beyond testing the design/alloy/planchet,
I would respectfully disagree that these should be classified as patterns.
They are kinda in that grey area, illegally distributed, or distributed and illegally kept.

Kevin

Overdate

A few may have been *legally* distributed. It depends on what was intended when the coins were given to members of Congress. If they were actually given to congresspersons with no expectation of receiving them back, it could be argued that the congresspersons thereafter owned the coins and could then legally sell them or give them away.

kevinj

<< <i>A few may have been *legally* distributed. It depends on what was intended when the coins were given to members of Congress. If they were actually given to congresspersons with no expectation of receiving them back, it could be argued that the congresspersons thereafter owned the coins and could then legally sell them or give them away. >>



At the time they were shown to Congress, I believe they were authorized with the intent to distribute.
One o fthe main problems was the vending machine companies condemmed them and said their counterfeit detectors would all have to be changed.
After it was decided not to use, the Mint came out and said that they are considered illegal for private hands.

Kinda funny, they give them out, saying nothing, then demand them back.
I agree, if legally distributed, should be a done deal.

Same for the 64D Peace, legal when distributed to Mint employees, illegal after not authorized.

telephoto1

The way I see it...

The 1974 aluminum pieces cannot be a "cancelled regular issue" as there were no authorized regular issue aluminum pieces, ever. They are patterns as they were specimens of a proposed issue never officially authorized in that composition.

The 1856 FE cents were patterns also... only they happened to be made with the same exact design and composition as the intended series.