Options
Patterns: The "Bronze" vs "Copper" nonsense...
MrEureka
Posts: 24,737 ✭✭✭✭✭
Some patterns were struck in both bronze and in copper. When this is known to be the case, Judd lists them as two separate issues, and gives them each their own catalog number.
Additionally, with respect to Indian Cents and Two Cent pieces, some "regular dies trials" in copper are listed.
Because it is often impossible to differentiate between copper and bronze without testing the coins, many mistakes in attribution have been made over the years. Additionally, some pieces listed in both copper and bronze may, in fact, only exist in one metal or the other. And some pieces listed in only one of the metals may exist both ways.
All of this confusion is worth it when studying experimental pieces, such as the 1863 and 1864 Indian Cents, the 1854 and 1855 Flying Eagle Cents, and the 1896 patterns.
For all of the other issues, I'm inclined to think that it's a mistake to make too much of the copper vs bronze designations, and I'd argue that the Judd book should reduce some of the two-coin listing down to just one.
I could argue it either way, of course. But the key factor leading me to my decision is the belief that the non-experimental issues that happen to exist in both bronze and copper were struck both ways unintentionally, and were probably considered identical issues at the time of manufacture. Remember, most of the non-experimental issues in bronze or copper were made to sell to collectors. And it's really difficult for me to believe that anyone at the Mint thought that they could convince collectors to buy both a bronze and a copper specimen of the same coin.
All of this will probably strike most people as a "who cares" sort of subject. But when you consider how collectors often feel the need to get one of every listed coin in their chosen field, it's important not to frustrate them with trivial and erroneous listings.
Additionally, with respect to Indian Cents and Two Cent pieces, some "regular dies trials" in copper are listed.
Because it is often impossible to differentiate between copper and bronze without testing the coins, many mistakes in attribution have been made over the years. Additionally, some pieces listed in both copper and bronze may, in fact, only exist in one metal or the other. And some pieces listed in only one of the metals may exist both ways.
All of this confusion is worth it when studying experimental pieces, such as the 1863 and 1864 Indian Cents, the 1854 and 1855 Flying Eagle Cents, and the 1896 patterns.
For all of the other issues, I'm inclined to think that it's a mistake to make too much of the copper vs bronze designations, and I'd argue that the Judd book should reduce some of the two-coin listing down to just one.
I could argue it either way, of course. But the key factor leading me to my decision is the belief that the non-experimental issues that happen to exist in both bronze and copper were struck both ways unintentionally, and were probably considered identical issues at the time of manufacture. Remember, most of the non-experimental issues in bronze or copper were made to sell to collectors. And it's really difficult for me to believe that anyone at the Mint thought that they could convince collectors to buy both a bronze and a copper specimen of the same coin.
All of this will probably strike most people as a "who cares" sort of subject. But when you consider how collectors often feel the need to get one of every listed coin in their chosen field, it's important not to frustrate them with trivial and erroneous listings.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
Some pieces with the woodgrain pattern to them can definitely be attributed as Bronze. Other strikes cannot. I personally would have no problem with combining the listings for copper and bronze for most listings under a generic term such as "essentially copper" or the like which would be understood to mean that the precise composition is not known, but recognize that some people might wish to pay for elemental analysis to look for traces of tin and zinc. In such cases, the correct analysis should determine the attribution of the piece.
TD
All of this will probably strike most people as a "who cares" sort of subject. But when you consider how collectors often feel the need to get one of every listed coin in their chosen field, it's important not to frustrate them with trivial and erroneous listings.
This is a good reason to care.
Some patterns were struck in both bronze and in copper. When this is known to be the case, Judd lists them as two separate issues, and gives them each their own catalog number.
Additionally, with respect to Indian Cents and Two Cent pieces, some "regular dies trials" in copper are listed.
Because it is often impossible to differentiate between copper and bronze without testing the coins, many mistakes in attribution have been made over the years. Additionally, some pieces listed in both copper and bronze may, in fact, only exist in one metal or the other. And some pieces listed in only one of the metals may exist both ways.
All of this confusion is worth it when studying experimental pieces, such as the 1863 and 1864 Indian Cents, the 1854 and 1855 Flying Eagle Cents, and the 1896 patterns.
For all of the other issues, I'm inclined to think that it's a mistake to make too much of the copper vs bronze designations, and I'd argue that the Judd book should reduce some of the two-coin listing down to just one.
I could argue it either way, of course. But the key factor leading me to my decision is the belief that the non-experimental issues that happen to exist in both bronze and copper were struck both ways unintentionally, and were probably considered identical issues at the time of manufacture. Remember, most of the non-experimental issues in bronze or copper were made to sell to collectors. And it's really difficult for me to believe that anyone at the Mint thought that they could convince collectors to buy both a bronze and a copper specimen of the same coin.
All of this will probably strike most people as a "who cares" sort of subject. But when you consider how collectors often feel the need to get one of every listed coin in their chosen field, it's important not to frustrate them with trivial and erroneous listings.
Paragraphed.
And Pollock gets no creds...
Zinc about it
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
many sectors of coin collecting would not exist. I.E. VAMS, die cracks, minor doubling etc..
Cheers, RickO
OK, creds to Pollock.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The only time I separated the copper and bronze is where the bronze was a regular issue.
OK, for something like an 1867, 1874 or 1890 Cent, if you found one struck in pure copper, would you consider it a pattern, an error or something else?
All three, among others, are listed in Judd.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Zinc about it.
As one who used to have about 50 small cent patterns and is OCD, I like the idea.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
https://www.bluesea.com/resources/108
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
I was a Monkey
Lance.
RKKAY (Rick) or Andy...
The 171(a) I won today at Heritage (w/CAC) ... is it really a 171(a) or a 170(a)? Do either of you know if it has been tested previously?
Wondercoin
Curious that some Lincoln cent years, pre copper-plated zinc, lack tin and are technically brass, not bronze. 1944-46, 1962-82. At least according to Coinfacts. Do you suppose this is accurate?
Lance.
Technically accurate, but common usage says otherwise.
RKKAY (Rick) or Andy...
The 171(a) I won today at Heritage (w/CAC) ... is it really a 171(a) or a 170(a)? Do either of you know if it has been tested previously?
Wondercoin
Hi, Mitch. I don't know if I should say "congrats" or curse you. I believe I was the underbidder, and on another day, it would have been different. Here is a link to most 171As I have tested. In other words, if it is a 171A, I have not tested it, and that is one major reason I was interested.
In light of Professor Carmichael's research in the 1980s and various publications from the 1860s through the 1880s, I strongly suspect there are some 80% Cu/20% Ni and some 75/12/13% (approx.) Cu/Ni/Zn specimens out there. In the alternative, it is possible that my numbers and/or Professor Carmichael's are closer together than it seems.
Although, as you know, you can't tell by eyeballing alone, I think this is one is probably more likely in the 171A range, rather than the 170A range. This coin's strike has the relatively weak strike you usually see in the 171A, though it does look on the stronger side of 171As. Looking at your pix, the color is interesting in thinking 170A. Later today, when I get a chance, I will see what pix I have of other 170As.
Are you thinking about testing it?
Specializing in 1854 and 1855 large FE patterns
<
Wondercoin