Options
Trial half dollar in copper – 1897 letter
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Does anyone happen to have the copper trial piece described in the letter, below, in their collection?
Mint Director Preston is clear about the origin of the trial piece. However, take special notice that he states the piece has no value, except to numismatists. Further, he says nothing about wanting the copper piece returned and makes no claim about the piece being “mint property.”
Thoughts?
0
Comments
What's the legal reasoning for patterns with face value imprints not having any value?
For off metal die trial patterns, I'm guessing it is because they are not authorized by Congress.
But for design patterns using the authorized metal, what legal reasoning would there be?
Copper was not accounted for as part of the value of US coins or medals back then.
A pattern "coin" was not a legal tender - the design had not been legally adopted and approved. Technically, they could be sold to anyone for the value of the metal, although usually silver pieces were sold for the face value in gold. Minor coin patterns were evidently sold for a few cents to cover manufacture. Copper examples were given away, but in small numbers so as not to create a market. However, records show that some pattern pieces were sold for a considerable premium - such as the Trade dollar silver pattern sets. (See John M. Willem's book and Bowers' massive dollar book for details.)
A kind-of-related question in response to the OP.
Mr. Preston must have spent some time each day, handwriting correspondence. In order for these letters to survive until today, in such good condition, were they given to a secretary who typed them up, keeping the originals for posterity?
I'm unaware of any 1897 half patterns.
The letter is from 1897 but there's no indication that the pattern was dated 1897 in it.
It also seems to indicate that it was a die trial pattern and not a design pattern. It could also have been a piece de caprice pattern.
Some options are P1041 or P1042 from 1870.
That makes way more sense. I just assumed it was in reference to the year of the letter which would be REALLY exciting.
"A kind-of-related question in response to the OP.
Mr. Preston must have spent some time each day, handwriting correspondence. In order for these letters to survive until today, in such good condition, were they given to a secretary who typed them up, keeping the originals for posterity?"
Most letters were dictated to a clerk who then prepared the letter for signature. The original might have been typed or written cursive depending on its length and formality. The Director did not write his own business letters. Carbon copies were not routinely kept until later years.
The large journals in which these letters are found (they're called "fair copies") were prepared by a clerk each day before correspondence was mailed. The books came with 500 pages bound in leather, and the clerks wrote on as many pages as necessary each day. The paper is heavy weight and seems to be low acid, although the bindings are now dry and leather dust rubs off on your clothes. Routine correspondence is mixed with seemingly-important letters reflecting the daily flow of business at Mint HQ in the Treasury Building. Much of the mid-1890 correspondence consists of form letters sent in reply to silver/gold questions from individuals, newspapers and Members of Congress. The bulk of pages, though, are routine transfers of funds and bullion.
Technically, it could be called a "die trial" or "experimental piece."
The letter shows it was made for a legitimate purpose, so it would not qualify as a "piece de caprice."
Would Preston have known about or admitted to a piece de caprice at the time?
The letter says that the coin was "stamped fifty cents". Seems the piece must be an 1859 pattern, not a dies trial piece. No Judd book handy, so let me know if I'm forgetting another possibility.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Good catch @MrEureka
Here is a J242/P298 that says "50 Cents". Are there any that have "Fifty Cents" spelled out?
A number of these and related ones were restruck in the 1860s and 1870s. I wonder if Lynn's specimen is an original or a restrike.
That was my thought, or possibly another pattern such as one of the Standard Silver pieces.
From the letters and other documents, I doubt if anyone cared. There was certainly no "piece de caprice" definition at the Mint and doubtful if coin collectors of the day knew what that was either.
The correspondent does not say if the piece was uniface. If it was, then I'd follow Preston's explanation.
Also, Preston did not call it a coin.
Here's a Standard Silver piece in copper J983/P1103:
Next time I go to NARA, I'll look in the "Letters Received" files and see if the original inquiry is there.