Should the 1999 experimental planchet statehood quarters be listed as patterns?

Zoins

I was just reviewing some information on the 1999 experimental planchet SHQs and HA described this as follows (emphasis mine). If the Mint really did test the planchets on the statehood quarter dies, should these be considered patterns?

HA
1999-P 25C New Jersey Quarter -- Struck on an Experimental Planchet -- MS68 PCGS. Manganese alloy planchets for the newfangled "golden" dollar apparently arrived at the Philadelphia Mint before their intended target, the Sacagawea dollar dies. Mint workers instead tested the planchets using statehood quarter dies. Only a handful of examples are known for each of the five statehood types. The present piece has raised rims, and the peripheral legends are normally struck, without the stretching often encountered on the experimental planchet strikes. The well struck apricot-gold surfaces are immaculate and semiprooflike. The flan is mildly granular throughout E PLURIBUS UNUM, as made.

MWallace

I think "Trial" piece would fit better. More specifically "Planchet Trial".

johnny9434

that looks kinda neat. jmo

TwoSides2aCoin

Wouldn't know. But as long as they fit in a parking meter they're ok by me.

ModCrewman

I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to do so.

RogerB

From the limited description, they appear to be experimental pieces intended to test a new alloy. However, they are not patterns for a new quarter. Andy Lustig and Saul Teichman are aware of these.

hickoryridge

i wonder how these escaped the mint ????

Zoins

I've added some lists of classifications of patterns from both USPatterns.com and the Harry W. Bass, Jr. Foundation patterns page at the end of this post.

My thoughts are:

• There are categories for trial pieces and experimental pieces which seem more fitting than the error classification currently assigned.
• If these were used to test the planchets, they seem to have much more claim to the term pattern than restrikes, numismatic delicacies / pieces de caprice (fantasy coins made for sale to collectors), and even mules.
• If they cannot be verified to have been created to test the planchets, they still seem to have more or the same qualifications as a numismatic delicacy, the largest category of patterns according to the Bass Foundation website

Is there any reason these should not be considered patterns if they were created by the US Mint to test dies on new planchets? Especially, when items like fantasy coins (numismatic delicacies) and restrikes are called patterns?

From USPatterns.com Class classification

The first name is from the What Are Patterns Page. The second is from the Concordance.

• Essai or Pattern / essai
• Experimental Piece / experimental piece
• Regular Dies Trial Piece / die trial
• Mule
• Mint Restrikes
• Private Striking from Mint Dies
• Private Pattern from Non Mint Dies
• Splashers

From the Harry W. Bass, Jr. Foundation patterns page

Under the all-inclusive term of “patterns” are gathered over 1,500 different coins that can be divided into other categories, some of which overlap. Many patterns are members of more than one group. The classification of patterns has never been an easy task, and no system ever developed has been pleasing to all.
Major categories include these:

• Trial Pieces: Coins struck to test the dies, the coining process, or some other aspect of coinage production. There is some overlap between this category and experimental pieces. Also, certain trial pieces – indeed, most of them – were really made as numismatic delicacies. Such is the nomenclature with which specialists contend.
• Experimental Pieces: Just as easily called experimental coins, these include those struck to test new concepts, such as different alloys of silver and copper, the feasibility of aluminum for coinage, the use of holes in the center of a coin to enlarge the diameter while retaining the same weight (experiments with holed coins were made in 1850-1851 and 1884-1885), etc.
• Patterns: In the truest form, pattern coins illustrate new designs produced by Mint engravers (usually), different from those currently being used, or in some instances, proposals for forthcoming designs intended to replace those currently in use. Also, from time to time patterns were made to display variations in inscriptions such as the Motto IN GOD WE TRUST, which had as antecedents in pattern coinage such mottos as GOD AND COUNTRY and GOD OUR TRUST. Thus, such concepts as the 1858 “skinny eagle” used on certain cents, the 1859 “French Head” employed on half dollars, and the seated Indian Princess motifs of the late 1860s can be called patterns, as can be the Standard Silver issues of the 1869 era. Often, if a pattern proved to be of numismatic interest it was restruck, or combined with an irrelevant die, to create a restrike or numismatic delicacy, both of which are addressed below.
• Numismatic Delicacies: Called pieces de caprice by numismatic historian Don Taxay, these comprise the largest category in the pattern series. These are pieces made not to illustrate unusual metallic compositions or new designs or some other forward-thinking concept of mintage, but instead, to provide rarities for sale to the collector trade. These coins include strikings of gold denomination dies and other metals such as copper and aluminum, the illogical combining of dies not intended for each other (such as a two-headed half dollar pattern of 1859), the extensive Standard Silver coinage of 1869 and later (which was made with plain edges and reeded edges, and in metals including silver, copper, and aluminum), etc.
• Restrikes: Coins struck from pattern dies, but produced for collectors at a later date, such as Gobrecht silver dollars dated 1836, 1838, and 1839, restruck at the Mint circa 1859 and later; restrikes of 1836 2-cent patterns and gold dollars of the same date, etc.

Zoins

@RogerB said:
From the limited description, they appear to be experimental pieces intended to test a new alloy. However, they are not patterns for a new quarter. Andy Lustig and Saul Teichman are aware of these.

Yes, but both USPatterns.com and the Bass Foundation list experimental and trial pieces as patterns (along with fantasy coins, restrikes and mules).

If this is an experimental piece and not considered a pattern, should previously classified pieces of a similar nature be de-classified? For example, should J-2069 Glass, RB 42-70 be de-classified as a pattern?

MrEureka

As far as I know, the circumstances behind the production of these coins is unknown. Yes, they may be true experimental pieces. Or they could be a "mint sport", or simply errors. Until we know more about the history of the coins - which may never happen - I would only suggest that the least likely story is that the coins are errors. My vote would be to tentatively catalog the coins as experimental pieces. And I would suggest that the TPGs simply describe the coins as being struck in an "Experimental Alloy", which would remain accurate whatever we may learn in the future.

Zoins

@MWallace said:
I think "Trial" piece would fit better. More specifically "Planchet Trial".

In this case, both USPatterns.com and Bass Foundation include trial as a type of pattern.

Zoins

Another interesting thing is that while I'm generally not a fan of how Washington's hair is rendered on a clad quarter, it seems pretty nice on this manganese planchet.

Zoins

@MrEureka said:
As far as I know, the circumstances behind the production of these coins is unknown. Yes, they may be true experimental pieces. Or they could be a "mint sport", or simply errors. Until we know more about the history of the coins - which may never happen - I would only suggest that the least likely story is that the coins are errors. My vote would be to tentatively catalog the coins as experimental pieces. And I would suggest that the TPGs simply describe the coins as being struck in an "Experimental Alloy", which would remain accurate whatever we may learn in the future.

Makes sense. It would be nice to have some official or at least 1st person record of how these pieces came to exist.

MrEureka

To clear up some confusion, the word pattern is commonly used to refer to a broad range of things, but it is more technically correct to use the word with a narrower definition, which is shown above. So for example, the Washington Quarters struck in Experimental Alloy can and should be called patterns, but they're not really patterns in the strictest sense of the word. Got it?

Zoins

@MrEureka said:
To clear up some confusion, the word pattern is commonly used to refer to a broad range of things, but it is more technically correct to use the word with a narrower definition, which is shown above. So for example, the Washington Quarters struck in Experimental Alloy can and should be called patterns, but they're not really patterns in the strictest sense of the word. Got it?

That's my understanding. Generally, the hobby classifies many types of pieces as patterns, including many 19th century numismatic delicacies / fantasy coins. While trial and experimental pieces seem to be broken out more often, I don't see numismatic delicacies broken out as much in practice.

It's also interesting to note that in this thread, there seems to be a distinction between experimental trials and patterns, but that didn't occur when calling J-2069 Glass, RB 42-70 a pattern, even though that's also more of a experimental piece.

If the Washington Quarters struck in Experimental Alloy are patterns in the broad sense, it seems fitting for these to have Judd numbers.

I think there is value in consistency.

RogerB

The hobby generalizes terms such as "pattern piece" both for convenience and to promote sales on the commercial side of things. This inconsistency has been around a long time - even Don Taxay tried to bring reason to common usage, but it mostly was a dud.

At least the pattern books separate the various "creatures" into species. I tend to prefer clearer separation so that terms have specific meanings and that those definitions are followed by all hobby/business professionals.

johnny9434

im wondering if the mint is going to do anything else after the national parks quarter is maybe use them planchets and do something radical like that. its just an idea for now and just saying. (it beats having the dollars sit in banks and vaults now as well)

MrEureka

@Zoins said:

@MrEureka said:

If the Washington Quarters struck in Experimental Alloy are patterns in the broad sense, it seems fitting for these to have Judd numbers.

I'd like to know a little more about the history of the coins before listing them. Or at the least, wait a few more years before deciding that we probably won't learn any more. But my personal opinion is that the coins will probably be listed at some point.

Along those lines, has anyone ever tried to get information from the Mint about what alloys were tested in 1999?

ms70

In a word, yes. I think so.

RichieURich

These are great coins, and this is a very instructive thread!
I learned something today!

RogerB

Various alloy test reports and hub/dies are mentioned in several files in the archives, but most of these are from the 1970s. There is latter material in other file folders and boxes, But I have not checked them....there is only so much time for unfunded research.