Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Treashunt, post: 655030, member: 6763&quot;]Being extremely technical, yes, the piece presented is not a pattern, as we normally understand the terminology.</p><p><br /></p><p>As presented in the past, and as per Judd, a pattern is that which was produced as a proposed design, in various medals, with the possible intent that the &#039;coin&#039; would be put into production for the intent of circulating. The Judd patterns were all created by the US mint, and as such are accepted as patterns today.</p><p><br /></p><p>The plaster casts as produced (here) were proposed designs, and the company that paid for the reduction and production of the dies was a private company.</p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, it (the piece) is not an authorized pattern as understood in normal coin collecting circles. However, if a plaster model is created and a reduction lathe is utilized to create a die from the original cast, then one may, with a small amount of license, utilize the term &#039;pattern&#039;. </p><p><br /></p><p>Additionally, yes, auction catalogues are not the final word in research. They do make mistakes, and are not error free.&nbsp; However, we, as collectors, have to depend upon some source of information, until better data arrives to correct any mistakes in the information as presented.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in