Options
Are all US Patterns legal tender at their face value?
GoldenEyeNumismatics
Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
Even if they aren't the proper metal? (i.e. gilted copper Half Union)
0
Comments
• sold for bullion value (Goloid sets, etc.), or
• nominal face value (pattern Morgan and Barber dollars to President Hayes), or
• in sets/individually at a small premium to cover manufacture, or
• given away (Thomas Acton at NY Assay Office got a pair of copper pattern dollars in 1877 at no cost - the mint did not track copper in such small amounts), or
• lost by the Treasury Dept. through carelessness or oversight.
Think of it another way,
Patterns were the loser's in the choice of coin design!
The name is LEE!
were generally the most esthetically pleasing?
Camelot
One reason why the Cheerios dollars is better classified as a variety.
Lots of things have circulated and been accepted as money when they aren’t. Most pattern pieces certainly look like real money, and the gold and silver ones had intrinsic value. We don’t know how many times a merchant rejected a $4 Stella because he didn’t recognize the coin, just as we don’t know how many times it was accepted in payment simply because it looked like real money. If people actually accepted gold plated Liberty nickels in 1883, even though the coin was grossly underweight, then some segment of the public would probably accept steel washers with Donald Duck on them. (In the Orlando, FL area, merchants are occasionally handed Disney Money in payment.)
Interestingly, newspapers and magazines were not permitted to print photos or drawings of new coin designs. When a new design was introduced, all people had to go on were clumsy written descriptions, and trust that what their local bank was passing out were real coins.
Re: “monetized.”
This word is a pet gripe – it was invented to give legitimacy to the 1933 $20 auction. It never shows up in official documents , at least not through 1945.
<< <i>Patterns were never monetized. I have always assumed that they were not legal tender. >>
Darn! I always counted on their face value being the value of the coin in a worst case scenario.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>No.Patterns are not legal tender.
One reason why the Cheerios dollars is better classified as a variety. >>
What about the 1878 Morgan dollar with the three-leaf branch rather than the nine-leaf branch? It is a pattern, but I'll bet you could argue its legal tender status before the Supreme Court.
What about 1856 Flying Eagle Cents?
What about the 1849 $20?
TD
<< <i>What about the 1878 Morgan dollar with the three-leaf branch rather than the nine-leaf branch? It is a pattern, but I'll bet you could argue its legal tender status before the Supreme Court. >>
Would SCOTUS hear a case like this? If so, would they say it's legal tender? I'm not sure.
Are you willing to bring a legal case? And how much would you wager?
<< <i>Are all US Patterns legal tender at their face value? Even if they aren't the proper metal? (i.e. gilted copper Half Union) >>
It may be more correct to classify patterns as non-legal tender medals no matter what their composition.
A gold, proper composition pattern is probably more a bullion round than a legal tender coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>No.Patterns are not legal tender.
One reason why the Cheerios dollars is better classified as a variety. >>
What about the 1878 Morgan dollar with the three-leaf branch rather than the nine-leaf branch? It is a pattern, but I'll bet you could argue its legal tender status before the Supreme Court.
What about 1856 Flying Eagle Cents?
What about the 1849 $20?
TD >>
What about the 1933 $20?
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
Even if they aren't the proper metal? (i.e. gilted copper Half Union)
In a technical sense, no. Stamped pieces of metal become coins when they
go through the legal requirements. Prior to 1873, for example, the mint
director signed a warrant authorizing the delivery of the coins at Philadelphia.
The procedure varied after after 1873 at Philadelphia and at the branch mints
after 1837.
Pattern pieces were never formally delivered by the coiner and therefore are not
coins in a true sense.
The matter becomes confusing when it is realized that all proof coins prior to 1860
(with the exception of the Gobrecht dollars) were struck in the medal department and
are not, in a legal sense, coins, The same is true for all minor proof coins made before
1878, as these were also considered medals under the law.
Denga
The three-leaf design (J-1550/1552 etc.) was not the one approved by the Secretary of the Treasury for final production. If it had been, it would be a regular issue coin, not a pattern. One could argue the status as being legal tender before any court, and one would likely loose. Legal tender does not “just happen,” it occurs only after those with the legal authority to designate a piece of metal or paper as “legal tender” have given final approval for production. From a practical standpoint, very few would notice the difference between any of the Morgan pattern dollars of 1877-78 and the final version.
A more recent example:
The Buffalo nickel design was approved in December 1912. It was approved again in January 1913. It was approved again in early February 1913. Final approval for production was granted on February 15. It was only after this last step that the coin became legal tender.
The key points are: what design was approved, and when was it given final approval for use? Apply them to the 1849 $20 or 1856 FE cents.
1933 double eagles
These are not and never were pattern or experimental pieces. They are regular issue coins and should not be confused with pattern or experimental pieces.
<< <i>Legal tender does not “just happen,” it occurs only after those with the legal authority to designate a piece of metal or paper as “legal tender” have given final approval for production. >>
Is there actual statutory law to this effect? I am pretty sure there is law to the effect that only the Mint & BEP have authority to produce legal tender. But is there something more specific which denotes a necessary process internal to these institutions, in order to constitute monetization? Or are we just talking about what their practices have been historically?
<< <i> 1933 double eagles
These are not and never were pattern or experimental pieces. They are regular issue coins and should not be confused with pattern or experimental pieces. >>
Were they ever legal tender since they were never monetized (with the exception of the sole legal coin)?
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
<< <i>Why is it, that the "losers" in the contest
were generally the most esthetically pleasing? >>
That is a question I have often wondered myself. I also wonder if they would have switched rolls that we would still think the same thing. i.e. if the morgan dollar did not win would we think it was a better design because we don't see it every day and get bored with it.
The 1933 $20s were legal tender the moment the coiner accepted them as “coins.” (Excludes defective and unstruck pieces.) That is the point when seigniorage is booked and a chunk of metal becomes a spendable coin. The question is: were they illegally removed from mint custody? Apparently there is disagreement on this between the Mint/Treasury and the present owners of some 1933 $20s.
[As noted above, “monetized” is a meaningless invention to support the auction and make it sound like Treasury was doing something special. Coin collectors who buy into that nonsense should have their Red Books confiscated for a week!]
<< <i>Is getting “monetized” like getting knighted
Don't forget that we can always pst a pic of the Knights of the Coin Table medal
On a side note, what about errors? The Mint doesn't authorize, for example, the striking of a cent on a dime planchet, but if these are released into circulation, are they legal tender?
The present wording "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" no longer matches the statues. There is legal precendence that public dues are not debts. The statue has been modified; our notes haven't.
Yes, these are legal tender as long as they they were properly released (i.e. if a mint worker makes one and smuggles it out of the Mint then it's not legal tender).
Does this question apply to the 1836 RE 1/2 Dollar? If so, is the answer found in this coin? Respectfully, John Curlis
The 1836 reeded edge half dollars were delivered under warrant and are legal coins.
Unfortunately the warrants do not distinguish between lettered and reeded edge half
dollars for that year.
Denga