Options
What is a pattern coin?
Dentuck
Posts: 3,820 ✭✭✭
What is a pattern coin? The question has no single answer, as over the years what collectors have designated as pattern coins has comprised many different things. By way of analogy, 'What is a motor vehicle?' might be a similar question—the answer including various types of trucks, cars, motorcycles, farm tractors, and more.
A quick explanation might be: (>>> continue reading)
(from The Whitman Review Guest Column, July 2007, by Q. David Bowers)
A quick explanation might be: (>>> continue reading)
(from The Whitman Review Guest Column, July 2007, by Q. David Bowers)
0
Comments
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I have also read that pattern coins were struck to see how the dies for a certain design would hold up.
Many patterns were considered for use as our currency, however, were scrapped because of problems that would arise. For example, a design might have to be struck with too much force in order for metal to flow substantially in a given pattern. This would cause premature cracking of the die; the mint figured that constantly having to replace dies would not be economically feasible. Patterns gave the mint a way to experiment with strike pressure, metal floow, die wear, etc.
A pattern piece or die is one made for the purpose of displaying a certain design for a coin, whether for a contemplated change in design or some existing coin or merely to exhibit the design.
An experimental piece or die is made for the purpose of testing some proposed change in metal or alloy, such as that made for the goloid dollar, the pure nickel and aluminum coins, coins with holes in the center and with points projecting from the periphery, etc.
After searching through large quantities of original documents including many dealing with pattern and experimental pieces, it seems that the subject is probably somewhat less jaded than Dave Bowers notes in his commentary. While the pre-1870 period is largely undocumented, there are tantalizing documents from government officials ordering sets of coins in aluminum, or several hundred pattern pieces in non-standard alloy. Examples, much like proof/specimen/master coins of circulating designs, might easily have been created and sold for personal profit.
After about 1870, there are quite a few direct instructions from Congress or authorized officials to design and produce examples of proposed coinage. In every case for which documentation is available, samples were paid for either at face value (as if they were real coins) or metal content. The Goloid sets are a good example – they were sold to congressmen and others for their metal value. In other instances, copper examples of proposed coin designs were made simply because they were cheap and could be given away. Obviously, some of the unusual examples – particularly off-metals – cannot be explained by expedience. Any might have been made-to-order for collectors such as R. Coulton Davis, who the mint specifically attempted to keep supplied with new pattern and experimental varieties.
Twentieth century pattern and experimental pieces followed the same basic route. Pattern and experimental strikes were sent to mint and Treasury officials for review. Some were kept, some returned. At various times, mint officers asked for payment of the face value, at other times the records are silent. All of the 1907, 1916 and 1921/22 pattern and experimental pieces were sold to individuals or Treasury officials for their face value. In one exceptional instance researchers have been able to identify nearly all of the original owners of one rare version of the 1907 $10, and confirm that they were sold at face value. Similarly successful work was done on the MCMVII EHR Saint-Gaudens patterns. In several instances, 1916 experimental pieces were sold to vending machine companies for testing – again at face value. Although the possible instances of self-dealing are fewer after about 1885, there are some rather notorious examples that can only be explained by either whim or greed. Among these are the off-metal Panama-Pacific “things” in gold or silver or other non-standard metals or cut down double eagles.
The newest edition of Judd is an excellent resource and highly recommended. But it should be read with a copy of Andrew Pollock’s earlier, and much more expansive, book on patterns at hand. Interested collectors should also spend considerable time at the superb USpatterns.com web site where more timely and detailed information can be found.