1 Cent "1792 Silver Center and Copper" Pattern

Hello,

I guess this page need to be split as most users are not of the bi metalic version.

Pinging a referee @cncote10 

Trial Patterns, especially those whose design never went to legal tender coins, are (were) commonly made with multiple different compositions using the same dies.  Should the “composition rule” also apply to them as it does to legal tender coins?

I do not think this should be split In this case personally. 

We split pages for way less than that. Composition and shape are good reasons to split

I remain of the same opinion as before. if one pattern is aluminum and one pattern is silver, sure splitting is fine i have no objection and have done this in the past. in this particular case, i think it makes more sense to keep these together as they are. If someone above me wants to overrule me thats fine but personally i'd leave as is

cncote10

I remain of the same opinion as before. if one pattern is aluminum and one pattern is silver, sure splitting is fine i have no objection and have done this in the past. in this particular case, i think it makes more sense to keep these together as they are. If someone above me wants to overrule me thats fine but personally i'd leave as is

+1

Numista guidelines state that change of composition and/or weight and dimension leads to multiple pages.

For sure the versions must be split here, again we split pages for way tinier differences in the catalogue often

These coins all come from the same die and so i do not believe the intention with them was necessarily to change the composition in such a way as to fundamentally alter the coin. Again if you have a pattern and one is copper one is silver and one is aluminum, the intent is to try different versions and you have fundamentally altered the coin. in this case, i dont really think it is the same and inclusion of a plug or not a plug is, in my opinion, not grounds for breaking this coin up. 

cncote10

These coins all come from the same die and so i do not believe the intention with them was necessarily to change the composition in such a way as to fundamentally alter the coin. Again if you have a pattern and one is copper one is silver and one is aluminum, the intent is to try different versions and you have fundamentally altered the coin. in this case, i dont really think it is the same and inclusion of a plug or not a plug is, in my opinion, not grounds for breaking this coin up. 

As weight and composition change depending on version, we have no othet choice than to split if we dont want to display false information

Please let us know when the page is created, so we can move the users from one page to another.

If the decision to split pages of pattern coins where different compositions were tried using the same dies then the following will have to be split also:

N#123983

N#123989

N#124038

N#102989

N#124009

N#102973

N#124007

N#124010

N#124012

N#124034

N#124035

N#124037

N#124036

N#124004

N#102987

N#102976

N#123982

N#102996

N#102997

N#23016

N#23017

N#124033

N#23020

I still maintain that because of the nature of pattern coins where tests on different alloys with the same dies are/were commonplace that the guidelines on composition should be different from those for production strikes.

I am 100% in agreement with rsirian and personally do not want to split the page

Please don't split @rsirian1 arguments are valid 

Sjoelund

Please don't split @rsirian1 arguments are valid 

Which arguments? He only asked questions and pointed to examples needing a division.

Would you then merge, for instance, those 2?

N#400076

N#23020

I fail to see any good reason to merge this coin with this one

N#23020

https://www.rarecoinwholesalers.com/1880-goloid-metric-1-j-1652-pr66-plus-red-sku-143866

Is it that you fear we have too many Numista pages?

How do you suggest we handle composition and weight fields with your approach? Not mentionning pictures…

When I see how many pages we create for very similar coins or notes, for very minor differences but just because Krause or Pick or [name your favorite specialized catalogue] have different numbers for them, I completely fail to understand why the very composition wouldnt qualify for a split

Compendium

Sjoelund

Please don't split @rsirian1 arguments are valid 

Which arguments? He only asked questions and pointed to examples needing a division.

Would you then merge, for instance, those 2?

N#400076

N#23020

 

 

No. Different dies. Besides the 1880 goloid one already has its own aluminum line (and copper).

Compendium

I fail to see any good reason to merge this coin with this one

N#23020

https://www.rarecoinwholesalers.com/1880-goloid-metric-1-j-1652-pr66-plus-red-sku-143866

 

I

Actually they are already merged.

rsirian1

Compendium

I fail to see any good reason to merge this coin with this one

N#23020

https://www.rarecoinwholesalers.com/1880-goloid-metric-1-j-1652-pr66-plus-red-sku-143866

 

I

Actually they are already merged.

Yes but I fail to see any good reason to let 2 very different items mixed. 

How a slight die change is so obviously a criterion to split but something so obvious as Composition and weight is not?

Compendium

rsirian1

Compendium

I fail to see any good reason to merge this coin with this one

N#23020

https://www.rarecoinwholesalers.com/1880-goloid-metric-1-j-1652-pr66-plus-red-sku-143866

 

I

Actually they are already merged.

Yes but I fail to see any good reason to let 2 very different items mixed. 

How a slight die change is so obviously a criterion to split but something so obvious as Composition and weight is not?

I would have put the 1879 aluminum on the same page as the 1880 one.

To me it makes more sense to group the patterns by design intent (the alloys used were secondary; the goal was to decide on a new coin).  If you do split all those pages they should reference each other.  

rsirian1

I would have put the 1879 aluminum on the same page as the 1880 one.

Agreed

 

To me it makes more sense to group the patterns by design intent (the alloys used were secondary; the goal was to decide on a new coin).  If you do split all those pages they should reference each other.  

For sure, with see also links

cncote10

I am 100% in agreement with rsirian and personally do not want to split the page

And what do you think about all examples above which are not about plugs but whole different alloys?

Do not split as it was only an EXPERIMENTAL PATTERN coin.  Mission creep has begun on this thread. Back to the original question. Maybe this will help settle it.

https://www.usmint.gov/news/inside-the-mint/silver-center-pattern-cents-of-1792

https://www.usmint.gov/learn/history/historical-documents/legislation-to-regulate-copper-coins

As mentioned previously, same dies and  same diameter. The question was about composition. Copper was expensive and the U.S was having difficulty securing enough to meet the demand, thus the bimetallic SUGGESTION which was considered and rejected by Congress. Ultimately, through the coinage act of Jan. 14  1793, they decided to reduce the diameter of the copper cent and ½ cent by specific weight specifications as this very large Pattern coin was deemed impractical to produce and far too large for every day commerce relative to it's value.

Edit: In summation. 12 or 13 of this entire pattern type produced are known to exist including no plug, silver plug, and billon plug which were distinct but not yet specified as to purity. Even suggestions of other metals such as lead as a consideration. Suggestions and experimentation. Do we make a page for each coin?