Who Thinks Patterns Deserve Recognition as "Real" US Coins?

RKKay · August 8, 2004 8:39AM

Patterns are prototypes the United States Mint considers for coins that, for the most part, were never approved.

Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

A regular dies trial piece is any off metal striking from production dies on normal sized planchets.

Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

A restrike is a coin struck later than that indicated by its date.

Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

A piece de caprice is a pure fantasy piece as are most regular dies trial pieces, mules and restrikes.

Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

LanLord · August 8, 2004 8:47AM

personally, I think patterns are exactly what the name implies.

Not a true coin, but a trial of what could have been.

I think they are equal in stature along with true US coins, I believe it's a very interesting area of numismatics.

But they are not US coins.

Should they be in the Redbook - absolutely. As collectibles with an audience that appears to be growing, they should be included in the Redbook.

darktone · August 8, 2004 8:50AM

No I don't think they should be classified as real coins. If they are should mint made medals and the like be included as well? I do like them and they are neat. mike

Ed62 · August 8, 2004 8:59AM

Rick;

We both know patterns are BETTER than "real" U. S. Coins !!

Let the flames begin.

Ed

majorbigtime · August 8, 2004 9:02AM

Were any considered legal tender??

tradedollarnut · August 8, 2004 9:06AM

There already are patterns in the Redbook. The 1856 flying eagle cent and the 1838 Gobrecht, for example.

Lakesammman · August 8, 2004 9:10AM

Rick

Were you a school teacher (not schoolgirl) in a former life?? After reading the questions, I felt worn out

oreville · August 8, 2004 9:18AM

Geez, I would have answered the question differently if dorkarl had asked the question.

Now that RKKay asked I have to really think and answer:

Patterns are prototypes the United States Mint considers for coins that, for the most part, were never approved.
Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

No. Yes. For the same reason that the Red Book thought it appropriate to include them in the latest several editions.

A regular dies trial piece is any off metal striking from production dies on normal sized planchets.
Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

No. Yes. For the same reason that the Red Book thought it appropriate to include them in the latest several editions.

A restrike is a coin struck later than that indicated by its date.
Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

No. Yes. For the same reason that the Red Book thought it appropriate to include them in the latest several editions.

A piece de caprice is a pure fantasy piece as are most regular dies trial pieces, mules and restrikes.
Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

No. Yes. They are of interest to collectors and were struck by the US Mint. Anything struck by the US Mint whether coins or not should be in the Red Book. That is my opinion only.

wingedliberty · August 8, 2004 9:22AM

Patterns are one of the most fascinating areas of numismatics, although there is a limited section available in the Red Book, the Judd pattern book, both old and the new reprint are essential for anyone serious about this realm of numismatics.
I consider them REAL coins.

291fifth · August 8, 2004 9:24AM

Patterns are patterns. Some are legit...some are fantasies...but none are real coins.

wingedliberty · August 8, 2004 9:30AM

While they are denominated by the Federal Government , A denominated coin does not always translate into legal tender, ie, Early Copper was not legal tender.

MrEureka · August 8, 2004 9:47AM

Rick - With all your definitions, you forgot the two most important ones: those for "real" and "coin".

AuldFartte · August 8, 2004 10:07AM

Not me.

Catch22 · August 8, 2004 10:12AM

I have always been fascinated at the number of pattern coins that find their way into circulation. In the early days of American coinage, it was not unusual to see trial pieces handed out to politicians who immediately spent them or gave them away themselves.

As for whether or not they should be included in the Red Book, I'm pretty neutral. I'm not sure I want the Red Book to become a phone book on numismatics.

OKbustchaser · August 8, 2004 10:14AM

They are just as much real coins as proofs and commemeratives...ie No

Jim

Reece · August 8, 2004 10:17AM

Rick just one question how come theye are so expensive, I would like to own just one.!! Reece

mgoodm3 · August 8, 2004 10:42AM

If they start going into the RedBook, they'll get more expensive with the extra exposure.

RKKay · August 8, 2004 11:11AM

My answers:

Patterns are prototypes the United States Mint considers for coins that, for the most part, were never approved.

Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

They are not real coins. They are experimental pieces desgned for decisionmaking purposes, not circulation. However, they are as real as the 1804 dollar and 1913 Lib nickel (and as TDN mentioned, the 1838 Gobrecht and 1856 FE). They should be in the Redbook, as they are a part of the history of the regular circulation pieces.

A regular dies trial piece is any off metal striking from production dies on normal sized planchets.

Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

They are not real coins. It is debatable as to whether they should be in the Redbook, as they were mostly struck for sale to collectors by Mint insiders, which is arguablly relevant to the history of US coinage.

A restrike is a coin struck later than that indicated by its date.

Are they real coins? Should they be in the Redbook? Why or why not?

They are not real coins. It is debatable as to whether they should be in the Redbook, as they were mostly struck for sale to collectors by Mint insiders, which is arguablly relevant to the history of US coinage.

A piece de caprice is a pure fantasy piece as are most regular dies trial pieces, mules and restrikes.

They are not real coins. However, they are as real as the 1804 dollar and 1913 Lib nickel. They should be in the Redbook, as they are a part of the history of the regular circulation pieces.

Lakes: No, I wasn't a teacher, just long winded.

Ed: I agree.

MrEureka: I intentionally left "real" and "coin" undefined, as I don't know what those words mean.

Reece: They are not expensive relative to their rarity.

MBT: None were considered legal tender, so that's a big NO on "are they coins?"

Orville: Thanks for cutting me some slack.
Edited to change cut and paste error pointed out by TDN.

tradedollarnut · August 8, 2004 11:27AM

I have some strong disagreements with your responses. For instance: Concerning "patterns" However, they are as real as the 1804 dollar...... and concerning "A restrike is a coin struck later than that indicated by its date" They are not real coins. It is debatable as to whether they should be in the Redbook

And I assume the following is a cut and paste error on your part [my underline]:

A piece de caprice is a pure fantasy piece as are most regular dies trial pieces, mules and restrikes.

They are not real coins. They are experimental pieces desgned for decision making purposes

Coinosaurus · August 8, 2004 11:40AM

Too many things in the pattern series are just bogus fantasies made for mint insiders. They are NOT real coins.

RKKay · August 8, 2004 12:10PM

TDN: Yes, that was a cut and paste error. I am going to edit it.

As to the comment about the 1804 dollar, it was not struck in 1804, but rather much later, as were many regular dies trial pieces. The 1913 V nickels were certainly created by a Mint insider and were not authorized. The 1856 FE was a pattern (many argue).

oreville · August 8, 2004 12:26PM

I have a question and perhaps it should be in a different thread.

Have the 90% silver proof coins (dimes, quarters and halves of recent years) been authorized for issuance for circulation?

If so, how were they authorized for issuance for circulation?

tradedollarnut · August 8, 2004 1:25PM

I consider the 1804 originals to be a worthy coin. It certainly was struck and utilized in an authorized purpose.

RKKay · August 8, 2004 1:37PM

<< <i>I consider the 1804 originals to be a worthy coin. It certainly was struck and utilized in an authorized purpose. >>

Very good point. Based upon the definition of a coin being that it was produced for an authorized purpose, I would agree with that argument. On the other hand, restrikes struck solely for collectors would not fit that description.

At the same time, true patterns are as real as the 1804 dollar (originals). They were specifically authorized to test new designs, alloys, etc.

mrearlygold · August 8, 2004 3:01PM

Patterns are worth real money and are really collected as types of coins often in the same way that people collect pattern halves, cents, dates, metals, etc etc, and it would be great if they had more exposure to the collector than they traditionally have had. They're cool and the real link to ideas of what could have been and what turned out to be.

What Morgan dollar collector can really say he wouldn't like to own a Morgan dime etc?

But they are certainly a more exotic specialty which is apart from the usual avenues and always have been so no, I don't think they should be in the red book except for the brief introduction and a few examples.

Real "coins" though? No.

Now the back of the book stuff really gets me going

Tom

JrGMan2004 · August 8, 2004 3:41PM

They are very much so "Real" Coins... is it a planchet of medal that was struck by one or more dies to produce a design on said planchet? Yes, they are real coins. Are they real "US" coins, sure, they were made in the mint... I believe they should certainly be included in the Red Book as they are a part of numismatics... the study of money....

cosmicdebris · August 8, 2004 7:26PM

One important question you forgot to asked. Were they monetized?

P.S. Patterns rule

flaminio · August 9, 2004 2:32AM

<< <i>Rick - With all your definitions, you forgot the two most important ones: those for "real" and "coin".

>>

I agree. What's "real"? What exactly is a "coin"?

Anyways, my opinion is: of course they are "real coins". I don't collect them, but that doesn't make them any less "real".

michael · August 9, 2004 5:06AM

since they are basically an intergrial part of the hobby and are collected beside regular issue federal issue usa coinage are holdered by the leading grading services and have a facinating history and other mainstream coin catalogues
such as
taxay's catalogue and encyc of us coins
breens encyc. of usa coins "telephone book" lists a very few not all
coin worlds catalogue and encyc. of usa coin

list them next to regular usa coinage

i consider them real coins and as such should be listed in the red book

michael

Who Thinks Patterns Deserve Recognition as "Real" US Coins?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Who Thinks Patterns Deserve Recognition as &quot;Real&quot; US Coins?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Who Thinks Patterns Deserve Recognition as "Real" US Coins?