Technically, are patterns coins?
PerryHall
Posts: 46,543 ✭✭✭✭✭
Are patterns technically coins? Coins are money and patterns were never monetized so they aren't money. Right? I know most collectors consider them to be coins because they look like coins but did patterns ever have legal tender status and were they ever monetized? Just wondering.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
0
Comments
Patterns are not coins because there are legal steps that must be taken before
a struck piece becomes a coin. This did not happen for patterns.
“Monetized” is a term created out of thin air by Mint lawyers to justify seizing the
Langbord 1933 double eagles. It has no legal validity whatsoever.
No. Exactly as Denga notes: they were and are not coins. The US Mint's selling and distribution of pattern pieces shows them being paid for by Mint officers at either the proposed face value (usually silver and minor pieces) or their bullion value (gold, "goloid," "metric," etc.)
To add a little... "Monetize" was first used in 1935 to describe the newly permitted use of silver bullion as legal backing for silver certificates, instead of having to make silver dollars. The bullion thus designated, was legally converted into money (although not struck) at $1.2929 per ounce, and seignorage booked by Treasury. It had to be handed exactly as if it were silver dollars. This is why in the 1960s capsules of granular silver could be exchanged for paper silver certificates.
Application of the term "monetize" to the 1933 double eagles was a lie conjured up by Treasury when the Farouk-Fenton 1933 DE was sold. Even though there was no evidence of theft and no coins were missing, the Treasury charged the successful bidder $20 to "monetize" the coin. Treasury thus came out $20 ahead. As noted above, the term has no meaning whatsoever except in relation to silver bullion.
I've complained many times about collector sbuying-in to bogus terminology -- whether Breen's "Roman proof" nonsense or Treasury "monetized" double eagles.....Looks like it doesn't help much.
Currently the mint calls them nonsense pieces
I would like a coiled hair non coin.
The current Mint nomenclature refers to the Martha Washington pieces. These were never intended for coinage, but for engineering tests.
The subject gets a little fuzzy because some pattern pieces were adopted for coinage with the same date as the pattern. Trade dollar is a prominent example.
Were the patterns indistinguishable from the regular production coins? If so, it sounds like the patterns were de facto monetized and became coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Good technical clarification from @RogerB.... However, we do call patterns 'coins'... even though it is obviously not technically correct.... More accurate would be 'pattern pieces'....since they were not money and mainly created as test and approval material. JMO Cheers, RickO
Common vernacular/usage is often more convenient - but it can be confusing when applied to too many things.....A lot like people calling medals "coins."
A. Nothing was "monetized" so get that term out of your vocabulary.
B. When a pattern was adopted as a regular design for that year, it was treated just like any other normal coin and included in production counts and proof sets. There is a 19th century mint regulation affirming this.
Is a Pattern Cent a Penny Coin?
(Sometimes it's more fun to complicate the discussion than to add to it).
Yes
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.