Which of the 1866 Five-Cent Patterns are True Essays
IGWT
Posts: 4,975 ✭
The five-cent pattern pieces sent to Treasury Secretary McCulloch in May 1866 were described in a letter by Mint Director Pollock as follows:
"No. 1: Obverse -- the 'Union Shield resting on tied arrows,' peace, &c. Motto, 'In God we trust,' and date. Reverse -- 13 stars set in rays, U.S. of America, and figure &c. '5 cents.'
. . . .
No. 2: Obverse -- 'Head of Washington,' Motto, 'In God we trust,' and date &c. Reverse -- same as No. 1; a neat and elegant design.
No. 3: Obverse -- 'Head of Washington,' U.S. of America and date. Reverse -- Wreath and figure &c. '5 cents.'
No. 4: Obverse -- 'Head of Washington,' Motto, 'In God we trust,' and date. Reverse -- Wreath and figure '5.'"
Given that more than one pairing of pattern dies match the descriptions given for No. 3 and No. 4, I'm wondering if anyone has performed the research necessary to determine which Judd/Pollock designations refer to those two patterns. That is, which of the 1866 five-cent patterns are true essays.
Edited for typo one month late.
"No. 1: Obverse -- the 'Union Shield resting on tied arrows,' peace, &c. Motto, 'In God we trust,' and date. Reverse -- 13 stars set in rays, U.S. of America, and figure &c. '5 cents.'
. . . .
No. 2: Obverse -- 'Head of Washington,' Motto, 'In God we trust,' and date &c. Reverse -- same as No. 1; a neat and elegant design.
No. 3: Obverse -- 'Head of Washington,' U.S. of America and date. Reverse -- Wreath and figure &c. '5 cents.'
No. 4: Obverse -- 'Head of Washington,' Motto, 'In God we trust,' and date. Reverse -- Wreath and figure '5.'"
Given that more than one pairing of pattern dies match the descriptions given for No. 3 and No. 4, I'm wondering if anyone has performed the research necessary to determine which Judd/Pollock designations refer to those two patterns. That is, which of the 1866 five-cent patterns are true essays.
Edited for typo one month late.
0
Comments
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
In any event, #2 has to be J-473.
#3 has to be J-461.
#4 is the mystery. It could be J-467 or J-470. I suspect both are "true essays" but only the favored one was sent to McCulloch. (That's purely a guess.) And to take it one step further, I'd guess that J-470 was the favored design, which I say because the rarity of this piece is similar to J-461, with J-467 being far rarer.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Why can't coins not referenced in the letter be "true essays"?
In any event, #2 has to be J-473.
#3 has to be J-461.
#4 is the mystery. It could be J-467 or J-470. I suspect both are "true essays" but only the favored one was sent to McCulloch, but that's purely a guess. And to take it one step further, I'd guess that J-470 was the favored design, which I say because the rarity of this piece is similar to J-461, with J-467 being far rarer. >>
I suppose that coins not mentioned in the letter can be "true essays;" as far as I know, however, a good bit of doubt remains due to the number of obvious fantasy pieces that were struck. Most everyone accepts J-486 (Lincoln portrait) as a proposed design even though it wasn't sent to McCulloch for consideration; but, is that acceptance based on anything more than wishful thinking? I always liked the possibility based on use of the same reverse for both -461 and -486. Isn't it best just to use the bright line drawn by Pollock's letter?
I agree with you on No. 2. and also think J-461 for No. 3. With respect to No. 4, patterns other than -467 and -470 are eliminated only because Pollock's description omits reference to the word "cents." That's an easy oversight and not necessarily definitive (although certainly the best evidence that I know of). I like your reasoning that -470 was the favored design.
You don't mention No. 1. Are you among those who have concluded that J-416 is a fantasy piece; and, if so, is J-510 the No. 1 piece in Pollock's letter?
J-416 does appear to be a fantasy. I don't know about #1. We probably need to look at die states of the reverse to figure it out.
BTW, there's also the possibility that J-461 was restruck. (The depth of mirrors on most, if not all, is suspiciously shallow. Do any exist with strong mirrors?) If most J-461s are restrikes, then my thinking on #4 may be wrong. This would make sense if we determine that #1 is one of the high R-7 or R-8 varieties. (All of the original strikes of the true essays could be great rarities.)
EDITED for STUPIDLY mixing up my numbers!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
What you give in one post, you take away in the next.
Edited to add: OK, I see your edit. How much of your conclusion rests on the assumption that the Mint struck the same number of each piece submitted for consideration?
Edited again to add: Wait! You edited twice, and my first edit didn't take your second edit into account.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
But how important is consistency in the number of each struck in reaching our conclusion? If we're looking only for coins with like mintages, then what coin falls into the No. 1 slot? The solution is particularly difficult if J-416 is disqualified as a fantasy piece and J-510 disqualified due to its R-8 value. I've never seen a J-510. How does it differ from the regular proof issue? Is it possible that No. 1 was struck with the same dies used to produce the regular issue proof?
Thought provoking thread. For what it is worth I think coin #1 being the chosen design has to be virtually indistinguishable from the regular issue 1866 with rays proof.
Coin # 2 is most certainly J473
Coin # 3 fits J461.
Coin# 4 is likely J 470 based on comparable mintage estimates but we can't rule out J467 (J464?? Dutch 5 not withstanding??).
I think it is highly unlikely that coin # 1 is J510 Why submit a copper die trial when nickel planchets had already been prepared for evaluation purposes? IMO J510 is a fantasy piece.
J416-J419 have to be fantasy pieces IMO.
J461 may have been restruck but in answer to Andys question my J461 is a deeply mirrored cameo