De Francisci “Reverse electrotrial” of Jefferson Nickel.

[RWB]

FOR: LanceNewmanOCC ( Thread Link )

RE: De Francisci “Reverse electrotrial” of Jefferson Nickel.

 

[font:Courier New]Question: “Why wouldn't the rough side just be smooth if it wasn't struck between 2 dies? I understand it is a trial and it is kind of a no holds barred. Maybe that answers my question aka just because that is what they chose to use.

 

Just seems like they'd have a good idea of what it looked like prior to striking and would use a to-spec flan.”[/font]

 

[font:Times New Roman]The piece referred to is a privately made electrotype of deFrancisci’s rejected entry in the 1938 Jefferson Nickel competition. It was never die struck and is not a U.S. Mint product. Therefore, it is not a real pattern or experimental piece.

 

A uniface electrotype will have an irregular back because it is simply a filled shell of copper, and not a planchet intended to be die struck.

 

Marketing types have been trying to exaggerate this little bit of ephemera, and several others from the competition, for several years.

 

The best numismatic use of actual-size electrotypes was by Fraser in preliminary design work for the Buffalo nickel. (See Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1915 for details and illustrations.)[/font]

 

[Disclosure. I was the one who found the plaster models of this and the obverse in the Smithsonian storage warehouse in Suitland, Maryland. I was also the one who corrected the original expert opinion that this was a design by James Fraser. (See back issues of Coin World for details.)

 

[Zoins]

Great history and finding in the Smithsonian Roger! It must have been amazing to find and attribute the plaster models.

 

In addition to this piece, what others have been marketed recently?

[RWB]

"...what others have been marketed recently?"

 

I don't pay much attention to these imitations, so I really don;t know what has recently been promoted as "pattern" coins or other drivel.

 

A major difficulty with numismatic research is establishing credibility with professional museum curators so they will open the doors to their archival materials.

[Zoins]

"...what others have been marketed recently?"

 

I don't pay much attention to these imitations, so I really don;t know what has recently been promoted as "pattern" coins or other drivel.

 

Do you think fantasy off metal coins made by Mint employees for collectors, often called pieces de caprice or numismatic delicacies, should be considered "pattern" coins? Typical pattern coins were made for the Mint for testing coinage composition and design, not special orders for collectors.

 

A major difficulty with numismatic research is establishing credibility with professional museum curators so they will open the doors to their archival materials.

 

I'm glad you have this credibility and have been able to further numismatic research in many areas. Keep up the good work.

[RWB]

The operative phrase is "made by the mint or at direct mint instruction." Unfortunately, we don't know much about why many of the 19th century pieces called "patterns and experimental pieces" were produced. Traditional speculation is that they were made for profit or to trade with collectors for pieces wanted for the mint's cabinet of coins.

 

We now know that many off-metal pieces were made in response to official requests for design sets in cheap metals (or experimental metals such as aluminum), and for trading purposes. I've never encountered anything that demonstrates that mint employees made money off the work - but available sources are scant.

 

Some pieces, long called 'fantasy pieces' have turned out to be real experiments. This includes the 2-headed Indian cents which were made intentionally to see if die position affected detail.

 

None of the tinker-toys made from failed contest entries were produced by the mint or at mint request, so they are just assorted private junk. However, note that in 1911-1913 Jim Fraser made many five-cent electrotypes at the request of the Sec of Treasury, which, to me, makes them valid design patterns just as if they were struck from mint-made dies in Philadelphia.

 

I have no problem with putting the junk in an appendix - or maybe a colon - but they have to be clearly identified as private junk. You have to contact Whitman about their official position regarding the Judd book.

[BROADSTRUCK]

The PCGS slabbed example as I recall has been paraded around for $50-75K in the last decade.

[Zoins]

The operative phrase is "made by the mint or at direct mint instruction." [...] None of the tinker-toys made from failed contest entries were produced by the mint or at mint request, so they are just assorted private junk.

 

If the US Mint held the contests and requested contest entries, wouldn't the failed entries have been made at the Mint's instruction and request?

 

Also, did the Mint ever consider the experimental pieces they made themselves to be junk to be discarded, e.g. assorted public junk? Certainly they used to discard their uncancelled used dies as junk before deciding to cancel them.

[Zoins]

The PCGS slabbed example as I recall has been paraded around for $50-75K in the last decade.

 

It seems like PCGS 90058986 was last offered with a $10k reserve. Good to get closer to a long term value for the piece.

[Conder101]

If the US Mint held the contests and requested contest entries, wouldn't the failed entries have been made at the Mint's instruction and request?

I believe most of the requests for entries were either of drawing or plaster models not metal representations, especially coin sized.

[RWB]

The operative phrase is "made by the mint or at direct mint instruction." [...] None of the tinker-toys made from failed contest entries were produced by the mint or at mint request, so they are just assorted private junk.

 

If the US Mint held the contests and requested contest entries, wouldn't the failed entries have been made at the Mint's instruction and request?

 

Also, did the Mint ever consider the experimental pieces they made themselves to be junk to be discarded, e.g. assorted public junk? Certainly they used to discard their uncancelled used dies as junk before deciding to cancel them.

 

The mint only requested design models and the mint did nothing with them except throw them away per contest rules. The junk parading around came from the artist's families or others who had copies of the models.

 

Many of the early metal experimental pieces were thrown away as were most of the 1942 experimental pieces. The material had no value.

[Zoins]

The operative phrase is "made by the mint or at direct mint instruction." [...] None of the tinker-toys made from failed contest entries were produced by the mint or at mint request, so they are just assorted private junk.

 

If the US Mint held the contests and requested contest entries, wouldn't the failed entries have been made at the Mint's instruction and request?

 

Also, did the Mint ever consider the experimental pieces they made themselves to be junk to be discarded, e.g. assorted public junk? Certainly they used to discard their uncancelled used dies as junk before deciding to cancel them.

 

The mint only requested design models and the mint did nothing with them except throw them away per contest rules. The junk parading around came from the artist's families or others who had copies of the models.

 

Many of the early metal experimental pieces were thrown away as were most of the 1942 experimental pieces. The material had no value.

 

Is calling the privately made pieces junk a bit harsh?

 

After all, the US Mint discarded the experimental pieces so theoretically US Mint patterns could also be called junk, could they not?

[RWB]

Harsh? No. That's what they are in the context of legitimate pattern pieces. They deserve listing in the back of reference books so that people will have an honest information source. But they have no validity as official pattern or experimental pieces. Any implication that they do is gross misrepresentation.

 

As for US Mint off-metal trial strikes, uniface test pieces, design intermediaries, WW-II metal and plastic - these were, literally, junk or trash and thrown away.

[Conder101]

At least considered to be junk by the Mint. I'm sure the collectors would like them.

[RWB]

Collectors love the mint's trash -- everything from used coinage strip and waffle coins, to brass test pieces and paper die impressions. Many are quite informative abut how our coins were created and produced.

 

The privately made junk has little historical value except as minor curiosities.

[Zoins]

Well, at least we have collectors that like Mint and private trash / junk

[RWB]

Collecting the stuff is fine, but folks should be realistic about what they sell and buy.

[Zoins]

Collecting the stuff is fine, but folks should be realistic about what they sell and buy.

 

I agree. The market for both Mint and private pieces like this can be very thin.