• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RMW Collection of Proof and Pattern Farthings

14 posts in this topic

RMW,

Your new custom set is very cool!! You have some very nice coins there and it's a cool area to collect. My only suggestion would be to get photos of all of your coins......the ones we can look at are beautiful, but I want to see them all!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. Im trying to obtain missing photos and there will be at least two pieces to add to this set in the coming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are now 3 pieces which will be added to this custom set in the coming weeks.

1699 Proof Farthing in silver,ex-Terner Collection, currently in a PCGS Holder.

 

1713 Pattern Farthing in silver (Peck variety 747) in mint state

 

1861 Proof Farthing, currently in a UK holder (graded CGS 85, equivalent to US PR 65).

 

I have pictures of all 3 now but cannot post them until they have NGC numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, for those not famliar with British Coins, most of these patterns and proofs , especially the earlier ones and even the Victorian ones, were produced in tiny tiny quanties. Most were under 50 pieces in total and many were well below that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to explain the differences between the British and US definitions of "pattern" piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know what the US definitions are but for Britain my understanding is that they are trial pieces made for various purposes. A design might be made and a few pieces struck for approval of the design by the monarch. In other cases trials are made in various metals instead of copper/bronze, so for example the silver pieces you will see soon.

In another set of cases the partnership of Boulton and Watt, who invented steam powered coin making machines in Birmingham and established effectively the first modern factory in the world there, made sample pieces for the British government and other potential clients, using various designs and metal types. Despite the fact that their technology was clearly superior to that of the Royal Mint, there was resistence there to the use of these revolutionary machines.

the coins they ended up making were among the first products of what became the Industrial Revolution and their copper pieces are historically important for that reason.

there are other reasons as well but over the course of centuries there are different reasons at different times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another case trial pieces were made in the late 1850s and early 1860s for designs which might have been used for a conversion to a decimal currency, which was being discussed at the time, rather than the pounds shillings and pence system generally used in England since the days of the Roman empire.

Some of the designs mentioned above made for royal approval were given the thumbs down and other designs submitted in their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK.

In US pattern and experimental pieces, for a piece to be a "pattern" it must be either produced by the US Mint or directly sanctioned by the Mint, Mint Director or Sec of Treasury. Designs struck by companies and individuals are not patterns - merely commercial concepts or ideas - and have no official status.

 

Thus, if the Royal Mint contracted with Boulton & Watt to make pieces of various designs and metals for official consideration, they would fit the US definition of "patterns." Without official orders, they would be merely tokens.

 

The difference is really that the US never contracted coinage, whereas the UK ran more of a contract production operation involving various Guilds and the Bank of England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far as I know in England, currency coinage was held under royal patronage and sanction unless there was civil war, such as happened in the 12th and 17th centuries. In those cases there were multiple sources of currency by rival claimants to national or local power such as Queen Matilda versus King Stephen in the 12th century.

the exceptions that I am aware of are the copper -pieces mentioned above by the Soho Mint until the early 1800's, and other copper pieces produced by the Heaton Mint in the mid to late 1800s and again in the early 1900s, and the Kings Norton Mint in the 1910s. The Bank of England Coinage during the Napoleonic Wars I think may be another exception.

there was a lot of token coinage produced especially in the 17th and 18th century, mostly of copper which was not under royal control. Most of these tokens were produced by local business concerns to help with the shortage of small change that existed then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under US definition, a "pattern" piece had to have official sanction.

 

Roger, not sure why you're belaboring the point. They are defined as "patterns" under the definition of the classification of UK coinage, it's irrelevant if they meet the arbitrary definition of what are called "patterns" by the US definition.

 

(shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites