General name for Inco, Gould and similar items

RogerB

Over the past year I’ve asked many of you for thoughts concerning the best descriptive term for items such as those made by Inco and Gould. After a lot of examination, I’ve decided to use the term “Private Pattern Piece” to describe them.

The rationale breaks down like this:
“Private” – Made at the expense and risk of a non-government entity.
“Pattern” – Demonstrates some proposed change in design, composition or utility applicable to circulating coinage; AND made with the knowledge and/or cooperation of the U.S. Mint or Treasury Department.
“Piece” – Distinguishes these items from tokens, medals or coins while emphasizing they are not denominated coins.

As with most definitions, this one is not perfect but I feel it captures the essential aspects of these privately made items while separating them from true, U.S. Mint pattern and experimental pieces.

Thanks to all for their ideas and suggestions!

FredWeinberg

I can't argue with your logic whatsoever!

CaptHenway

Works for me

grip

Well crafted.

MrEureka

I would prefer "Private Test Piece". They could be considered a subset of the traditional and overly broad category of "Patterns", as are "Regular Dies Trial Pieces". But neither subset contains true patterns, technically speaking.

Also, English majors might point out that if you're going to be calling these items "pattern pieces" for the stated reasons, you should also be calling US Mint patterns "pattern coins" instead of "patterns". But I am not an English major. (:>)

By the way, my proposed language is consistent with descriptions of similar pieces around much of the world.

*Edited to delete the alternative suggestion of "Private Trial Piece", because that could easily be misunderstood to refer to private restrikes.

BillDugan1959

@MrEureka Absolutely agree. "Pattern" is the super-loaded word here. Few people will read the OP's lengthy, picky definition. Something something about Occam's razor, insert here.

If adopted for such pieces, some people will simply attempt to use the word pattern in a way to extract more money from the credulous. I reference the sky-high prices asked for the Kings Norton Mint "pattern" stuff, most of which were just salesmens' samples.

RogerB

Yep. "Private Test Piece" was the runner-up – and a very close photo finish. Nothing will please everyone and it comes down to the personal implications we bring to ordinary words. The definition could be made more precise, but I doubt that would improve practical understanding. I recall Don Taxay's breakdown of the subject in his pattern book; it made great sense and was clear -- but almost completely ignored.

It's OK if someone wants to use different terminology. What was posted is what will be in the Gould and Inco articles along with dozens of new varieties and new numbering (with a Pollock concordance).

Nothing can be done to prevent commercial abuse of language. Seen the "Morgan pattern half-union" lately? Perpetrators will find no fault in their exaggerations and there is nothing us chickens can do about it.

ricko

@RogerB ... I like it, and believe it describes the items perfectly. I prefer that to the 'test' version, since it was not really a test, more of a sample trial. Cheers, RickO

Zoins

I like this term @RogerB

Private - is there a reason you make the distinction between at the expense and risk of? Are some "Public" patterns made by private organizations, but classified as public because they were paid for by the Mint?
Pattern - they are created in conjunction with the Mint to test new designs, compositions, etc.
Piece - they are not coins as they don't have a denomination and are not intended for trade or barter.

For Public Patterns, it's possible to consider the pieces with denominations to be "Public Pattern Coins" and pieces without denominations, such as the Martha Washington pieces, to be "Public Pattern Pieces."

I think the term Test is almost too generic here since private companies can be testing things for themselves or private companies. A "Private Test Piece" could be anything.

RogerB

I understand the difficulty and potential confusion. If the Mint or Treasury 'made or paid' then it became government property and officially recognized.

To me an "official pattern" is one made by or at the direct involvement and assent of the Treasury or US Mint. If we look at the 1942 plastic and metal pieces, all of them are "experimental pieces" except the "War Series" [1942] Lincoln cents made in plastic directly at Mint request. (Incidentally, this interpretation would place the Fraser Buffalo nickel electrotypes of 1911 and 1912 as true "official patterns" since the Sec of Treasury was directly involved with the sculptor.)

A "private pattern" would have official knowledge and corporate information exchange, but no Mint or Treasury participation in preparation or production.

The exclusion is everything else, including all the items made by Bolton, Pitches, or as proposed designs or concepts, and so forth. That does not diminish the beauty (or ugliness) of some or collector interest.