Alex in PA.

JP definitely has good taste.  NGC & PCGS and in MS 66 Full Steps.  Definitely a 

I decided to put together a quick essay of sorts on these patterns that I find amazing to me. I tried my best to find research to support my conclusions, but I am sure those who know more about patterns than me will likely (almost certainly) disagree with me at some point in this paper, and I hope they would comment so I can fix those mistakes. The well of knowledge to be gleaned on this seems to be running dry or it was never full to begin with, so I tried to do the best I could with the sources I could find. Anyways, enjoy, pics at the bottom from CoinFacts!
The “Sailor Head” patterns of 1875 are some of the most artistically beautiful and stunning patterns available to collectors today. Listed in the 10th Edition of United States Pattern Coins as J-1392-1395, J-1438-1440a, and J-1443-1445a, these coins were produced in the denominations of twenty cents, five dollars or a half eagle, and ten dollars or an eagle. Produced by William Barber in a year when there were no mentions of redesigning the half eagle denomination, a few mysteries result from the existence of these patterns - why were they produced, why were they not adopted, and why were they liked so much by mint staff and today’s collectors?
Design:
Produced throughout 1875, all of these patterns feature an obverse motif of Liberty facing left, with a coronet on her head inscribed “LIBERTY”, with her hair tied back in a ribbon. The highest point of the coronet has an ornamental burst of rays. Drapery surrounds the base of the bust, slanting downwards and to the left. The shape of this drapery is similar to a collar worn on a sailor's uniform, thus the nickname of “Sailor Head”. Liberty’s chin faces slightly upwards as she gazes forward confidently to the horizon. Thirteen stars encircle the obverse portrait, with the date “1875” below. There is a slight difference in the arrangement of the stars on the gold denominations, with the five and ten-dollar coins having the stars shifted slightly clockwise, and the rightmost star being lower than the leftmost. On the twenty-cent piece, the left and rightmost stars are even.
Only the reverse of the twenty-cent piece features a spade type shield divided nearly in half. The upper half of the shield bears thin stripes running east and west, while the lower half of the shield shows alternating thin stripes and solid bars, while running north and south. Above the shield is a burst of 23 rays, grouped into three distinct groups, two groups on either side of a vertical group. Below the shield are six olive leaves on each side, surrounding the base of the shield. Two crossed arrows show below the olive leaves. The denomination “20” shows in the center of the shield, with the word “CENTS” directly below near the denticles and rim. “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” completes the reverse, circling the rim.
The reverse of the five and ten-dollar pieces show a reverse motif similar to the Trade dollar and twenty-cent piece designs that were adopted in 1875. It bears an eagle perched atop three arrows, crossed, arrowheads facing left, and an olive branch facing right bearing six leaves. The eagle gazes right, its wings outstretched in a guard position, prepared to defend against threats. Below the eagle is a ribbon upon which “IN GOD WE TRUST” is inscribed. “E PLURIBUS UNUM” is above the eagle in plain text. “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” is pushed near to the rim, forming a ring around the upper half of the reverse, while “TEN DOLLARS” is similarly placed near to the rim, but only forming a curve below the eagle.
Analysis:
To begin, the production reasoning of these coins is likely to sell to collectors (five and ten-dollar pieces) or for the purposes of internal mint review (twenty-cent pieces). The twenty cent pieces seem to have been struck for a different reason than for sale - internal mint review for possible adoption. The twenty-cent denomination was adopted in 1875, so it would be very likely that William Barber took the time to prepare a set of dies and design a model for the coin with the hope of having it appear on circulating coinage. It would also appear that the twenty-cent pieces were first struck, and when Barber was denied the usage of it on circulating coinage, the mint quickly switched to making extra patterns to sell to collectors as was common practice. The lack of any reason to change the five or ten-dollar denominations in the year 1875 would point to this likelihood, as the only logical reason for the existence of these patterns is for the mint to sell them to those who collected patterns or to adopt the designs, which again doesn't quite make sense in that application. The appearance of so many different metal types also aids this determination, as patterns for internal review had very little reason to have so many different metal types and they rarely do, particularly in the amount of four different metal types. While the twenty-cent pieces do have the same amount of metal types, it is likely out of Barber’s desperation that he tried with so many metals to get his design to strike up - to be mentioned later. It is of note that the reverse design of the five and ten-dollar patterns is reminiscent of the adopted 20 cent design and the Trade dollar of 1875, but more so the Trade dollar. The lower "IN GOD WE TRUST" ribbon is substituted on the Trade dollar for lettering reading "420 GRAINS, 900 FINE.", the denomination switched out, and a ribbon added to "E PLURIBUS UNUM". Other than these alterations, the design remains unchanged. The twenty-cent piece had two stars added, the eagle lowered, and "E PLURIBUS UNUM" removed from the same five and ten-dollar design.
Since it would appear that only the twenty-cent denomination of these patterns would have been intended as a pattern for mint review, the five and ten-dollar patterns were never intended to be adopted. However, it would have been possible, even likely, that the twenty-cent pieces were to be adopted for use on circulating coinage, and therefore it must have been rejected for some reason. There are a few reasons why patterns were not adopted, and an often quoted section of the American Journal of Numismatics (January 1883) summarizes this better than the author of this research could summarize. It gives the following reasoning of rejection of pattern coinage, “things that are not appropriate, not convenient, not artistic, in short, that are not wanted”. It seems that William Barber’s twenty-cent pattern meets none of these! It is certainly artistic, appropriate, convenient, and wanted. His rendition of Liberty not being is frequently lamented by collectors due to the sheer beauty of the specimens, his design was similar to adopted designs of the time and there would be no reason to condemn it on inappropriateness. It is certainly convenient, as the denomination was adopted in the year, and lastly, it has been wanted by collectors and mint staff as they produced the five and ten-dollar pieces after it was rejected. So why was it ultimately rejected? It seems to be on technical grounds. The twenty-cent pieces had trouble fully striking up to the detail of the dies even when the mint intended to produce them as proofs. This weakness is often seen on the hair of Liberty, and later on the five and ten-dollar patterns on the eagle’s legs and breast. If a blow from a medal press at high pressure and slow speed was unable to bring up the design fully, the coin would not be fit for coinage in large quantities at high speed and lower pressure. This alone would be grounds for rejection, and it appears it was. As mentioned earlier, it is likely that Barber out of desperation to get his design to strike up tried four different times in four different metals, but the large amount of metal needed to flow into the central devices was too much. The counter evidence for this was the use of nickel for four strikes, although the majority remain in silver and copper. Later, his son Charles seems to have had a very good knowledge of central device placement and making sure that the devices were able to strike up (Heritage Auctions 1). It is possible that the failure of the “Sailor Head” was enough to make William pass on to his son this knowledge, and this would show how important these patterns were to him and allude to his desperation. This can be seen in his designs and patterns, and is likely why so many of his coins are low in relief. Of course, it is possible that the mint used the strikes in extra metals to sell to collectors, and it would be unfair to leave out this possibility.
The design alone is likely the reason collectors today are so fond of these patterns, although the rarity plays a part as well. Several are unique, and many are R7 or R8 coins. The mint liked the patterns as it made a bit of money for them, and collectors liked the coins as they were aesthetically pleasing. The common practice of the mint to sell patterns for profit is here coming through in the modern day as collectors have the opportunity to own such a coin, and so they do! Bidding on these coins is fierce, with many (almost all) of these 1875 patterns selling for five figures. The rarity and beauty surely is the cause for not only the desire to have one but to enjoy owning one.
Distinction:
To make a statement that is sure to make a few question what I am thinking:
As to the patterns of 1876 and 1877, some sources state that they are “Sailor Head” patterns as well, however there are distinct differences between those of the original twenty-cent patterns of 1875. The 10th Edition of United States Pattern Coins lists these coins as independent of those of 1875 and instead of calling them “Sailor Head” patterns, they are listed as “Barber’s Liberty Head”. The coronet, angle of the bust, and the drapery at the base of the bust are different, with the main differences being the ornamentation on the front of the coronet has been removed and replaced with beads lining the crown on those patterns of 1876. The drapery at the base of the bust had also been removed by 1876. The removal of the drapery is key, as it was the drapery that was so reminiscent of a sailor, and led to the creation of the nickname “Sailor Head”. It seems in the opinion of the author of this paper that only the original patterns of 1875 should be referred to as “Sailor Head” due to these distinctions.
Conclusion:
These coins seem to be well liked by the mint due to their existence in gold, as well as three other metal types, rather than striking them in copper or a different alloy. The patterns are beautifully designed and executed in a proof format, and they bring strong prices at auction. One could easily make an argument that these are among the top five most beautiful patterns, perhaps second only to the Amazonian coins. The five and ten-dollar denominations bear distinct similarities to the aforementioned Amazonian coins, which were almost certainly sold directly to collectors as a full unique set (gold set). Due to the demand of these patterns today, it is almost certain that collectors wanted these coins in their collections and the mint was happy to provide them with the five and ten-dollar patterns of this gorgeous design. This all adds up to one statement - when the mint did not use the patterns for internal review, they sold them to collectors who wanted them and pocketed the money. This went on for decades, and as such this is one of many reasons so many patterns exist in collector’s hands today. The design alone was likely enough to make collectors fall in love per say with the coins and obtain them at high costs, as this is certainly the case today. The rarity and beauty remain a major point in how these patterns trade hands at sale, and when such a coin does sell, it is sure to attract attention.
Photos:



I only feel the need to cite two sources formally as I had referenced the rest in the paper itself, and I don’t see this being printed in my eyes. However, should you like to have any other sources formally done, I can make that happen, just PM me or comment. I would also like to thank @MrEureka for his comment that made a lot of this research possible once I knew what to look for and apply. I would also like to thank @Floridafacelifter because his post reminded me I have a pattern book on my desk. Also, yes, I know the title is a popular song by Styx, and I happen to like that song so I elected to keep it as the title.
Works Cited
Company, Collectibles Technology. “NNP.” Newman Numismatic Portal at Washington 
University in St. Louis | Comprehensive Research & Reference for U.S. Coinage, 
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=8&AuctionId=80&page=838.
Heritage Auctions. 1875 "Sailor Head" Ten Dollar Gold Pattern, Judd-1443, Ex: Woodin, Boyd, 
Judd, Wilkison, Trompeter, Heritage Auctions, 2005, 
https://coins.ha.com/itm/patterns/1875-10-sailor-head-ten-dollar-judd-1443-pollock-1587
-r8-pr64-ngc-ex-trompeter-the-january-1883-issue-of-the-ame/a/372-8337.s.
 
 

What color do you like.  

Bleep that, when I'm not "Goldfinger" my moniker is usually "CorvetteKid" so have that Fairy Godmother drop the car off to ME !!!!!!!!    

He's baaack!   

I know!  And maybe the Fairy Godmother will bring me a new Corvette.  

I know!  And maybe the Fairy Godmother will bring me a new Corvette.  

I have bought quite a few, very nice coins from Northeast for years now.  I really can't say enough good about them.  The Wells Fargo was the first Saint I ever bought.  I also buy from Northern Nevada.  Thanks for the advice.

Kind of thought so.  It's been sitting in my desk for a while.  Thanks very much for looking.  It is a Wells Fargo 65.  Maybe one day.

Had one.

NGC MS-65.  Not much over average but, if CAC were accepting, I would have taken a chance.  Maybe JA would have given me a break.  

Me too.  Another Carson City.  They're a really great bunch.

I like Northeast also, have a coin on layaway now just one more payment. 

Great dealer. Happy to have tried to help.

I have bought quite a few, very nice coins from Northeast for years now.  I really can't say enough good about them.  The Wells Fargo was the first Saint I ever bought.  I also buy from Northern Nevada.  Thanks for the advice.

You've done well.   

Based on the images, I wouldn’t expect the coin to sticker. And the seller - a very sharp dealer - likely would have already tried it previously, if he thought it had a realistic chance.

Like that 1941 D.  But then who couldn't like an MS 66?

That one looks like some of the ones Ive found with a metal detector. Looks like its been laying in the dirt for a while. 

A missing clad layer coin will be much lighter yours weighs right where a normal clad quarter should, not a missing clad layer.

Environmental Damage.  The edges of improperly annealed coins look normal due to being struck and ejected from a collar.  Yours has the same color throughout

One would think that but.....I believe it took a short while for the 'Wait and See ers' to become true believers.
And once again we have strayed from the OP.   Wells Fargo Hoard.

...i remember sending off n getting a special plastic overlay u put on ur tv screen n special wax crayons u used to mark clues with during the show n at the end u got a secret message...still have my secret capt midnight decoder ring here someplace, i use it to pick stocks...not...n if u want a real investment how bout a square inch of land in the klondike from cereal boxes, i tried to get nuf to make an acre but got sick eating so much cereal....lamont cranston knows.....

What I find curious is that CAC is apparently busier today than ever....I would have thought they got most of the low-hanging fruit the first few years and business would slowly dwindle as most of the coins that could get the CAC sticker already got them.
Guess not.......

I will continue until Elagnore8, aka tErrorist, aka SickCoins, aka Ratzie33, et al goes away