Wanted - For 1942 Pattern Research

[RWB]

Please let me know if any members have some of these or are aware of the location of any specimens.

Research only: not buying or selling.

 

[RWB]

Keep those cards and letters coming....

[KeyMan64]

I sure wish I had a few rolls of these. I look forward to reading about your findings.

[RWB]

It would be excellent to see good photos of the two that CEOcoinshopcom mentioned on the PCGS board. I can likely tell him a lot about them.

[bartlesvilleok]

Wow they are assigned19 different Judd numbers. Only auctions I found were j2054 05/2005 ANACS AU55 $6900.00 Stacks & J 2062 1/2005 $2760 Stacks

[messydesk]

It would be excellent to see good photos of the two that CEOcoinshopcom mentioned on the PCGS board. I can likely tell him a lot about them.

Indeed it would.

[RWB]

The emergency coin experiments made from 1941 to 1944 are not well known to collectors or professional numismatists.

 

In the context of WW-II, the mint’s experiments were “quick and dirty.” Few records were kept, tests were ad hoc, and the mint had little concept of what constituted a successful outcome. They just tried to keep competing interests satisfied and maintain the support of Congress.

 

The rather sparse published information in Judd and Pollock pattern books can be traced back to articles by Robert H. Lloyd (1967) and William G. Anderson (1975). These, in turn, are based on replies from the Mint Bureau to questions and various newspaper articles (1942 and later). Past information has relied on differences in color to separate different plastic pieces, and assumptions about alloy for metal pieces.

 

My approach is to separate plastics according to composition and manufacturer, and metals according to alloy or superficial coatings applied to an alloy. Documentary information was extracted from thousands of pages of reports, letters and memoranda. It was then analyzed and collated into master production tables for cents and nickels.

 

The results are: an overall story of what was done to adapt coinage to the copper shortage; a description of the contribution of the Mint Bureau and each participating company; identification of material types used by the mint and companies; correlation of color and surface characteristics to material and production methods; and an illustrated catalog of all known experiments. Catalog numbers are based on date of production, reverse die used, composition and manufacturer. Thus,

an experimental piece molded in Bakelite® by the Bakelite Corp., first reverse, in 1942 is number RB 42-51;

the same made in Plastacele® cellulose acetate by E.I. DuPont, first reverse, in 1942 is number RB 42-52;

the same in urea formaldehyde by Patent Button Co., third reverse, in 1942 is number RB 42-53 and so forth.

 

(It’s much easier to see the catalog than to describe it….)

Color is relatively unimportant because it can change over time. Exposure to moisture and contaminants, and natural volatization of constituent chemicals, change color and other surface characteristics.

 

[RWB]

For CEOcoinshopcom –

 

Even from the blurry photos on PCGS board I can tell you what you have.

 

#83787 – 10.30 grains (0.6675 grams), injection molded from phenolic resin. [RGB color = 70-59-40] (This is the “dark brown” piece shown with the #83791 envelope. It belongs in the #83787 envelope.)

 

#83791 – 10.76 grains (0.6972 grams), injection molded urea formaldehyde resin. [RGB color = 93-75-44] (This is the “tan color” piece shown with the #83787 envelope. It belongs in the #83791 envelope.)

 

These are not “planchets.” They are molded product samples made by Patent Button Company of Tennessee, Inc. Only pieces with five concentric rings just inside the rim, and the correct diameter for a one-cent coin are legitimate artifacts of the 1942 experiments. Both whould be about 0.066-inch thick. An unknown quantity was sent to Mint HQ and approximately 25 of each were forwarded to the National Bureau of Standards for testing. The “tan” piece was labeled “A,” and the “dark brown” piece was labeled “B” for the tests. These two pieces were evidently not used; some others were destroyed during testing.

 

Provenance: Patent Button Company of Tennessee, Inc.; US Mint HQ; National Bureau of Standards, tested then discarded; former NBS employee or descendant; Richard Nachbar; Q. David Bowers; Bowers & Merena auctions; CEOcoinshopcom.

 

[KeyMan64]

Good stuff Roger. I posted the stuff ATS.

[RWB]

Thanks!

 

Re: Potential value

 

The only auction notes on “value” I have are from the Heritage Baltimore auction of 2003. Lot 10055 (phenolic) sold for $230 and lot 10056 (urea formaldehyde) sold for $172.50.

 

One difficulty is that until this research is published, no one will be able to distinguish ordinary button or transit token samples from the very few pieces associated with the 1942 mint experiments. A second potential problem is that because these have no coin-like design, many have probably been discarded. Finally, several auctions in the past few years have included button samples cataloged as “blank planchets” or similar. These further confuse an already chaotic situation.