Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Rexford, post: 4647424, member: 67871"]Thanks John! Both of those questions are discussed towards the end of the post, but in sum, I conjecture that it was produced to function as a pattern does; i.e., it was presented as a proposed change in design by Gobrecht to mint director Robert Patterson. It was engraved because a) producing an actual pattern die would be a waste of time and energy, especially since Gobrecht was the only engraver in the Mint and had other things to do, and b) engraving it on a struck proof coin, rather than simply sketching it out on paper, allowed for a clear juxtaposition of the differences between the old and new designs. Since many elements, such as the changes in size and rotation, are very small, they would not be that distinctive if just sketched on their own. The provenance can be traced back to the William Beaver Chamberlin collection, amassed in Philadelphia in the 1890s. As such, it was likely purchased from J.C. Randall, a prestigious Philadelphia dealer who had direct access to the US Mint for decades, and bought many of his coins directly from his connections there.[/QUOTE]