Should retrospective patterns be called patterns?

[Zoins]

While looking at pattern coins I've come across several different types:

 

(a) official patterns: contemporary with the date and made with sovereign mint dies

 

(b) official patterns for the public: the British Royal Mint makes "pattern" coins they sell like they sell Britannias and modern commems

 

© private patterns: contemporary with the date and made by private issuers, e.g. Gallery Mint and Daniel Carr "concept dollars"

 

(d) official retrospective patterns: these are basically backdated tribute coins, e.g. Mexico Mint

 

(e) private retrospective patterns: backdated fantasy coins, e.g. UK Patina Collection

 

I can understand how the first three can be classified as patterns because they are contemporary with the time/date/era they represent and are made to generate discussions on what coins of the time can/will look like.

 

I'm having a harder time classifying retrospective patterns as patterns as they are not designed to generate discussion about contemporary coinage. IMO, the official ones seem to be better described as official tribute coins while the the private ones seem to be better classified as fantasy coins.

 

What do you think? Should "retrospective patterns" be classified as patterns are fantasy coins? What about the rest?

[WaxonWaxov]

(b) official patterns for the public: the British Royal Mint makes "pattern" coins they sell like they sell Britannias and modern commems

 

Would that include the set of 2003 pattern British EURO coins I have?

[Zoins]

(b) official patterns for the public: the British Royal Mint makes "pattern" coins they sell like they sell Britannias and modern commems

Would that include the set of 2003 pattern British EURO coins I have?

I don't know who issued those but my impression is that those were not government issue. There is a 2002 British Euro pattern set that is confirmed to be a private issue and the packaging looks similar IMO. My speculation is that the Royal Mint won't release official Euro patterns before the government commits to the Euro since it could be a political snafu.

 

I was thinking of the 2003 1 Pound bridge patterns.

[World Colonial]

I only consider coins such as those listed in the Judd reference book to be patterns. I thought the purpose of a pattern is to test what a coin looks like before it is introduced into circulation.

 

The UK Euro coins resemble that purpose but since they have not adopted the Euro, they do not fit that purpose either.

 

In any event, whether my definition is correct or not, Judd patterns and similar issues are or appear to the only ones with real collector demand.

[TomB]

I would only consider those that fall under definitions A and B to be patterns. The remainder, while not true patterns in my opinion, would have to be classified as something else.

[Zoins]

I only consider coins such as those listed in the Judd reference book to be patterns. I thought the purpose of a pattern is to test what a coin looks like before it is introduced into circulation.

My impression is that the Judd reference only covers the US? NGC has slabbed sovereign patterns from other countries including Germany and Uruguay.

 

For so-called "private patterns" my understanding is that some of the Gallery Mint concept dollars were made for Congress (and not for general sale to the public) to discuss proposed patterns before small dollars were introduced into circulation. One of the Gallery Mint issues is based on a design in the US Mint Archives by former Mint Engraver James Farrell and requested by US Representative Mike Castle. Since Congress now decides what designs go on US coins perhaps the US Mint's role as the sole generator of what coins would look like in circulation has changed somewhat?

 

Daniel Carr's medals are somewhat different because although the design was submitted to the US Mint, the medals were not. I believe Daniel Carr's medals were made primarily for sale to collectors.

The UK Euro coins resemble that purpose but since they have not adopted the Euro, they do not fit that purpose either.

The Euro private issues are definitely fantasy coins IMO but the question is whether they can also be called private patterns. Perhaps these should not be called patterns because they are for the public and not under discussion by the government. The term "pattern" seems to be abused by companies marketing Euro fantasy coins.

In any event, whether my definition is correct or not, Judd patterns and similar issues are or appear to the only ones with real collector demand.

In general I don't think private issues will see a lot of demand until say 50-100 years after they were made so I agree there will be low collector demand for some time. So-Called Dollars are generally event souvenir tokens and medals and did not have much collector demand until recently where they have been selling up to the mid four figures for items that are over 100 years old. For my purposes here, I'm more interested in classification than whether there's collector demand or not.

[Zoins]

I would only consider those that fall under definitions A and B to be patterns. The remainder, while not true patterns in my opinion, would have to be classified as something else.

What do you think of the Gallery Mint's 2000 Statue of Liberty concept dollar that was made at the request of US Representative Mike Castle and distributed to members of Congress for discussion, given that it is Congress that decides themes for US coinage now?

[Hoot]

(a) Patterns. These are concept pieces that are being tested for use as coinage for commerce. The Mint destroys these nowadays. 1974 aluminum cent and Gasparro Liberty dollar are examples, with the latter destroyed in their entirety.

 

(b) Concept coinage and Novodels - depends on whether they are officially recognized as bearing their denomination (face value) in commerce. One could readily consider the 1804 dollars in this category.

 

© Fantasy issues - tokens.

 

(d) Restrikes from transfer or reproduction dies. Many of these are official denominations, e.g. 1915 Austrian Ducat. If not officially denominated, then they are novodels.

 

(e) Fantasy issues - tokens.

 

Hoot

[TomB]

My working definition of a pattern would include coinage that is internally produced, worked on or discussed within the Mint for the purpose of imminent production. Outside interests, Congressional lobbying or coins requested for illustrative purposes, which were not requested or produced within the Mint, would not qualify for the term pattern, in my opinion.

[Zoins]

(d) Restrikes from transfer or reproduction dies. Many of these are official denominations, e.g. 1915 Austrian Ducat. If not officially denominated, then they are novodels.

Are coins/medals from transfer or reproduction dies technically "restrikes"? I like to think of restrikes as being only items struck by original dies that were also used to strike the original issue, e.g. Haseltine and Bashlow CSA restrikes. I prefer to not think of transfer or reproduction die creations as restrikes as they are struck with different dies, but rather as replica, reproduction or tribute pieces. Am I being too narrow?

 

... or ... is the definition of restrike tied to the issuer? If this is the case are the Haseltine and Bashlow restrikes not technically restrikes because they were not struck by the CSA? Does the term restrike have more to do with the organization doing the minting or the dies?

[RWB]

From Philadelphia Mint engraver Charles Barber:

 

"A pattern piece or die is one made for the purpose of displaying a certain de-sign for a coin, whether for a contemplated change in design or some existing coin or merely to exhibit the design.

"An experimental piece or die is made for the purpose of testing some proposed change in metal or alloy, such as that made for the goloid dollar, the pure nickel and aluminum coins, coins with holes in the center and with points projecting from the periphery, etc.

"A trial piece is made from dies for coin to be issued, in order to prove the correctness of the die, that is, to test whether the dies fully answer the mechanical requirements of coinage, for example: the trials made in the last designs for the double-eagle, eagle and cent."

 

(Letter dated May 14, 1910 to Landis from Barber. Quoted in "Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915" to be published later this year.)

 

Barber's first sentence would include Fraser's Buffalo nickel electrotypes because they served exactly the official purpose he described and were officially sanctioned. To me, anything not closely related to the above definitions is a fantasy piece made to capture a price or satisfy some illustrative purpose.

 

The "Britannia patterns" and the rest do not contemplate an official design, they are only pretty tokens to which marketing folks have attached a term to try to sell the pieces, a la "First Strike" and similar corruptions.

[Zoins]

From Philadelphia Mint engraver Charles Barber:

 

"A pattern piece or die is one made for the purpose of displaying a certain de-sign for a coin, whether for a contemplated change in design or some existing coin or merely to exhibit the design.

"An experimental piece or die is made for the purpose of testing some proposed change in metal or alloy, such as that made for the goloid dollar, the pure nickel and aluminum coins, coins with holes in the center and with points projecting from the periphery, etc.

"A trial piece is made from dies for coin to be issued, in order to prove the correctness of the die, that is, to test whether the dies fully answer the mechanical requirements of coinage, for example: the trials made in the last designs for the double-eagle, eagle and cent."

 

(Letter dated May 14, 1910 to Landis from Barber. Quoted in "Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915" to be published later this year.)

 

Barber's first sentence would include Fraser's Buffalo nickel electrotypes because they served exactly the official purpose he described and were officially sanctioned. To me, anything not closely related to the above definitions is a fantasy piece made to capture a price or satisfy some illustrative purpose.

According to Charles Barber's writings, it seems that the 1974 aluminum cent would be an experimental piece and not a pattern.

 

It also seems that the 1965 Martha Washington pieces (J2101/P2081, J2116/P2082, J2134/P2083, etc.) would be experimental pieces and not patterns since the design was not chosen to exhibit the design but was just a fantasy design that was used primarily because it was not the design of circulating coinage. The Martha Washington pieces do not have a denomination and their purpose seems to be for "testing some proposed change in metal or alloy" which is classified as experimental pieces. If these are already classified as experimental pieces then all is well. I will check on this.

[Zoins]

I just found the USPatterns.com Concordance page which says:

Private Pattern from Non Mint Dies – these are coins struck by outside companies either under contract for the mint or in the hopes of getting a mint contract.

It seems that USPatterns.com recognizes the term "private pattern" and that some Gallery Mint and Daniel Carr fantasy tokens would qualify as "private patterns from non mint dies" using their definition. According to Coin World, the 2002 UK Euro fantasy pieces were made by the International Numismatic Agency which claimed to be attempting to get a Mint contract in the event of conversion to the Euro. Is the USPatterns.com site fairly authoritative or should one not rely on it?

[TomB]

Would the Daniel Carr concept dollars fall under this? I don't believe he was under contract from the Mint to produce the pieces and I don't believe that if his design was chosen that he would have procured a Mint contract.

[Zoins]

Would the Daniel Carr concept dollars fall under this? I don't believe he was under contract from the Mint to produce the pieces and I don't believe that if his design was chosen that he would have procured a Mint contract.

I'm not sure. His state quarter designs for New York and Rhode Island were chosen and put into circulation by the US Mint. Did he have to license his designs to the US Mint via a contract for those coins? I assume there is some contract involved as I think it would be foolhardy for the US Mint to use them without clear, legal authorization, however I'm not sure on this. I assume if any of his small dollar designs were chosen, the same type of relationship would exist between him and the US Mint for the small dollar as the two state quarters, if any. Do you believe he does not have a contract for the NY and RI state quarters?

[TomB]

I have no idea if Daniel Carr has Mint contracts for his winning State Quarter designs, but it would seem that he might very well have one or more. I guess the main problem I have with that definition is that it appears to me to be too wide open. In other words, anyone who slaps together any concept, no matter how inappropriate, amateur or otherwise ill-suited might claim to have a private pattern if they also claim that it was produced in order to procure a Mint contract.

[World Colonial]

I did not literally mean just the US as listed in the Judd reference book. I agree with you that any equivalent coins from other contries are also patterns.

 

Your comment on the Gallery Mint Museum makes sense but I am just not familiar with this practice.

[Zoins]

I have no idea if Daniel Carr has Mint contracts for his winning State Quarter designs, but it would seem that he might very well have one or more. I guess the main problem I have with that definition is that it appears to me to be too wide open. In other words, anyone who slaps together any concept, no matter how inappropriate, amateur or otherwise ill-suited might claim to have a private pattern if they also claim that it was produced in order to procure a Mint contract.

I agree that this seems to be an area that is open for potential abuse. I think it's important to look at the issuer and evaluate whether their claims of attempting to get a Mint contract are legitimate or not. Some claims may be outright bogus and only done to create marketing hype. For me the claim to get a Mint contract has to sound plausible. If someone submits a design that is obviously inappropriate, I would not consider it a legitimate claim to getting a Mint contract even if s/he has a letter from the Mint acknowledging the item. Because of this, the history of the designs and pieces becomes important.

 

My belief is that some GMM and DC items may qualify as private patterns using the USPatterns.com definition because of the intent to win a contract. Some of these pieces have been reworked given changing Congressional/State suggestions which indicates to me a real desire to win.

 

For Daniel Carr specifically, not only has the US Mint used two of his designs, for the Sac competition he was one of only two outside designers invited by the US Mint to participate. His reverse design was also one of seven finalists for the small dollar. The US Mint seems to give some recognition to Daniel Carr beyond just acknowledging receiving an outside design submission. I also found Daniel Carr's page on the design history for his NY and RI state quarters instructive on how he changed the designs over time to meet various new (political) requirements.

 

Regarding the International Numismatic Agency (INA) and the 2002 UK Euro fantasy coins, what I found interesting is that they requested and received permission to use a new portrait of the Queen Lord Chamberlain's office. I assume the Lord Chamberlain's office gave their approval knowing what the new portrait was going to be used for. Apparently there are many issuers of Euro fantasy coins and only two issuers provide tokens of high quality, those being the INA and one group in Switzerland. The others are apparently cheap pieces of *spoon*. I'm not 100% convinced the 2002 UK Euro fantasy coins can be considered private patterns because I haven't seen any INA vs Royal Mint correspondence yet but at least (a) they claim to want a contract (b) they have approval from the Lord Chamberlain's office to use the Queen's portrait and © they are of high quality. The INA pieces were minted in Birmingham and there was a Birmingham Mint that produced other pieces that appear to be non-commercial pieces targeted to potential Mint/Country customers rather than the public at large. These things are enough for me to not completely rule these out as private patterns but more research is needed IMO.

[RWB]

The standard pattern references include true patterns, experimental pieces, trial pieces (including splashers), off-metal pieces and mules, and some ephemeral material. Documentation is sketchy on many of these items and collectors commonly debate the correct "bin" for a specific item. Don Taxay proposed some good category definitions, but they've never come into common use.

 

In my opinion, a "pattern, experimental or trial piece" must have some official connection to actual coinage design and production by the minting authority. Mr. Carr's "concept dollars" are accurately categorized as "concept" - not patterns. The same would apply to my coin-like design scribbling on the back of an envelope. If, however, the US mint contacted Mr. Carr and said, "Prepare some of your ideas for coinage designs," then the products might be called trial pieces, patterns, etc depending on how they were made. Without the US Mint (or other official government mint) involvement, a design is just a design and struck metal items are just tokens or medals.

 

BTW – the first Saint-Gaudens extremely high relief double eagles were called “experimental pieces” by the mint, not patterns.

[Zoins]

The standard pattern references include true patterns, experimental pieces, trial pieces (including splashers), off-metal pieces and mules, and some ephemeral material. Documentation is sketchy on many of these items and collectors commonly debate the correct "bin" for a specific item. Don Taxay proposed some good category definitions, but they've never come into common use.

 

In my opinion, a "pattern, experimental or trial piece" must have some official connection to actual coinage design and production by the minting authority.

What are the standard pattern references you are referring to and when were they published? IMO, Charles Barber's definitions are not modern enough to be all-encompassing with respect to how modern coin designs are selected. Do any of these references you are referring to cover design selection for the State Quarters program and Sac small dollar? I believe so-called private patterns started to be used when the US Mint invited outside designers to participate with the State Quarters and small dollar programs so if the references do not cover their design selection, their focus may be too narrow for this discussion.

 

Are the people at USPatterns.com generally respected or is their site not to be relied upon?

 

Also, do you participate in writing a pattern reference book or website? I agree with your mentioning references and think it's important to rely on reference books and websites because the people putting them together have to think about these issues a lot. I'm just wondering if the references you are referring to are modern enough to have given this area serious consideration.

[RWB]

Pollock and the current Judd books are standard references and the USPatterns.com site is excellent. Taxay's descriptions are in the "Comprehensive Catalog of US Coins." As with anything, there is a range of personal opiinion, so collect what you enjoy owning.

 

Difficult to know how to reply except: "In my opinion, a 'pattern, experimental or trial piece' must have some official connection to actual coinage design and production by the minting authority."

[Zoins]

Thanks for your responses and your opinion RWB as well as everyone else who replied. I agree one should collect what s/he enjoys.

 

I would probably use something along the more narrow, classic definitions mentioned if it were not for the USPatterns.com definition and my impression that other references are not modern enough. For now I will try to use the USPatterns.com definition for my own classification purposes.

 

Regarding the original question on so-called "retrospective patterns", I think these are properly classified as fantasy coins/tokens.