Patterns / Trials / Essais / Piedforts / Off-metal strikes / Prototypes ...

Hi

Following up on this thread:

I think the "Pattern" category on Numista is too broad and we should be more specific. I think we should split it in two:

1. PATTERNS have different designs to regular issues;
2. TRIALS have identical designs with regular issues.

I am interested in patterns, because they look different, but I want to filter out trials, because there may be dozens of Piedforts and off-metal strikes that look exactly the same (example).

More in detail:

1. PATTERNS - proposed designs that are not adopted in official issues.

-- 1.a. Currency Patterns - currencies that are never adopted officially.
E.g. the Romanat (= 100 Sutimi) currency was never officially adopted. In fact, "The United Principalities" never minted any circulating coins until they became Romania in 1866 and adopted the "Leu". Currency patterns may need their own currencies, or even issuers.


-- 1.b. Denomination Patterns - denominations that are never issued officially.
E.g. Romania never officially issued a 1.25 lei denomination


-- 1.c. Design Patterns - alternative designs that are not officially adopted for a certain denomination.
E.g. this proposed design for 1 Leu:

for this official issue:


-- 1.d. Device Patterns - tests for small variations in the design of a certain denomination.
E.g. these new devices (branches in reverse):

for this official issue with no branches:



2. TRIALS - initial test runs for designs that are also issued for regular circulation. Trials are often issued as "presentation pieces". They can have small devices identifying them as trials, e.g. the word "ESSAI". They may also miss devices present on regular issues (e.g. the mint mark). They can also have wider planchets and holes may be missing.

-- 2.a. Off-metal Trials - issues in different metals of officially issued coins.
E.g. a gold issue (notice the uncut hole)

for the Cu-Ni official issue


-- 2.c. Uniface trials - issues with one side of the coin missing or replaced by a control device.
E.g. this trial

of this official issue:


-- 2.b. Piedforts / Thickness trials - thicker (usually 2x) issues. They may be in other metals. Thinner trials may also exist, but I am not aware of any.


-- 2.c. Prototype Trials - test runs essentially identical to the official issues, in the same metal and with the same thickness, but identifiable by the presence or absence of a small device (e.g. the letter "E", absence of the mint mark, etc).
E.g. this issue with the word "ESSAI" behind the portrait on the obverse:

of this official issue:


-- 2.d. Transitional Trials - test runs minted with a date preceding the official release, but otherwise identical.
E.g. The Flying Eagle Cent was legal tender from 1857. Coins dated 1856 are patterns, but other than the date they are identical



Other systems for classifying Patterns and Trials exist. For example looking at the purpose: metal trial, die trial, planchet trial, mint trial, engraver's trial, design trial, security device trial, presentation piece etc. However, the purpose is not easily identifiable, so I think the system I proposed above is quite comprehensive.

Thanks for reading! Let me know if I missed anything and happy to hear any thoughts

Regards

strato

I like your distinction between pattern & trials, in that Patterns should definitely be coins that were never entered into circulation.

In the UK we have this uniqueness where the Royal Mint sells Piedfort coins not as trials but just as double thickness coins to increase the metal value. So they were never even trials really, especially the modern varieties!

In Slovenia, I believe it was the daughter of creator of 20 Euro cent coin obverse said, that she accidentally put in circulation a trial coin (instead of the regular one), of which only a handful was minted. Cant say if its real, but after this a lot of people started doing coo-coo stuff over these coins...

Cita: "peterjhalford" So they were never even trials really, especially the modern varieties!

​Thanks! Definitely a good point that some Piedforts are not really trials. But if they qualify as "presentation pieces" I think they would still fit the Piedfort category.

Cita: "mikimaus"In Slovenia, I believe it was the daughter of creator of 20 Euro cent coin obverse said, that she accidentally put in circulation a trial coin (instead of the regular one), of which only a handful was minted. Cant say if its real, but after this a lot of people started doing coo-coo stuff over these coins...

Interesting story, I couldn't find any details, but I think if the release into circulation is accidental and not backed up by an official act, they still count as patterns or trials.

Hi,
Agree with your definition, also as part 1: Patterns, are not legal tender then they belong more to Exonumia.

The 1985 20 Pence from Ireland is most definitely a pattern coin.

Pattern coins do NOT belong under 'Exonumia'!

Aidan.

As above if not legal tender then its exonumia. Sorry aidan

Cita: "peterjhalford"​As above if not legal tender then its exonumia. Sorry aidan

​
Peter, even if it is the same design as the normal coin?

If a pattern coin is listed in Krause or another major catalogue, it should be in a separate 'Patterns' sub-section separate from the normal currency coins in the main catalogue.

Examples of this are the 1967 10 & 20 Francs & 1966 100 Francs Essais from the New Hebrides - same as the normal coins - but with 'ESSAI' added to their obverses.

Aidan.

Essai are designed to circulate, it’s a try, you release it in where it’s designed to circulate, and see how people react. Essai are not the topic.
What is in scop is machine device test tokens and design that wasn’t selected in first place.

Cita: "BCNumismatics"​​Examples of this are the 1967 10 & 20 Francs & 1966 100 Francs Essais from the New Hebrides - same as the normal coins - but with 'ESSAI' added to their obverses.

​Did you read the first post?:

Cita: "stratocaster"I think the "Pattern" category on Numista is too broad and we should be more specific. I think we should split it in two:

1. PATTERNS have different designs to regular issues;
2. TRIALS have identical designs with regular issues.

This is very interesting, and based on this thread, I do have some additional comments to add.

But first, I have a question: for the pattern types you listed, would these all be types kept in the Coins section?

In our conversation in the above thread, we discussed the placement of various strange "patterns"; however, all the types you listed here are those that would work under the Coins section, whereas none of those strange types (those that would work under Exonumia) are included in your list. Because they are still technically patterns, and because they still belong somewhere in the catalogue, I will start with them:

3. EXONUMIA PATTERNS
----- 3.a. Mules
----- 3.b. Technical patterns

For Mules: these are errors that can result in one coin being from two countries. I believe this should be a selectable type, and with there being a struggle of where to place those double-country mules (and with these also being error pieces), I imagine they would work in the Exonumia section.

For Technical patterns: I previously called these "Experiemental patterns", but andrewdotcoza came up with the term "Technical patterns", which I like a lot better. These are like patterns of patterns--rather than being used as proposed designs, they are used for tests (to test the equipment, die, shape, weight, composition, etcetra). While produced by the mint, I see them closer to Mint tokens rather than actual patterns, which would make them work under Exonumia.

-----

With that out of the way, on to your list:

2. TRIAL
-- 2.a. Off-metal trials
-- 2.b. Uniface trials
-- 2.c. Piedforts / Thickness trials
-- 2.d. Prototype trials
-- 2.e. Transitional trials

I completely agree with catagories a, b, and c.

For catagories d and e, I think it would be fairly easy to group those "Transitional trials" in with the "Prototype trials". With your definition of the Prototype trials, there are a lot of possibilities that could fit this catagory--those that include "ESSAI", those that include an a signature (like under China with "L.Giorgri"), or those with a single letter, as you mentioned.

But for Transitional trials, the only difference is a weird date, which I would call a modification of a small device (a single number). As well, I do not think the term "Transitional trial" is self-explainitory--at least, when I saw it on your list, I thought you already covered these patterns within the "Prototype trial" catagory.

So... while I do see the difference, I think the difference is too minor to warrant a completely different type, with these two. For both catagories, the designs are identical to the non-trial pieces, with there being something small that sets them appart (be it a word or a date).

-----

1. PATTERNS
-- 1.a. Currency Patterns
-- 1.b. Denomination Patterns
-- 1.c. Design Patterns
-- 1.d. Device Patterns

I like the thought of having an option for "Currency patterns"--there are a lot of these under China. I also think "Denomination patterns" would work well as its own type.

With that being said, I think "Device patterns" can be grouped in with the "Design patterns". A device is part of the design, and having two separate catagories, we would have to quantify "how similar is similar?", and I think the distinction would be too subjective to do that.

For example, with your Romanian example of this type: I would call that a Design pattern. While they are similar, the reverse looks extremely different to me, and there are even modifications on the obverse. Even though the example you gave for a Design pattern looks very different from what was adopted, I would still call your example of a Device pattern to be very different from what was adopted, even if it is comparibly more similar.

Considering all patterns out there, I imagine there is not actually a distinct line between Design patterns and Device patterns--there will likely be something right on the line which will end up being a problem. So... I'd say to group them.

-----

And with all that being said, I would definitely like to see these new catagories implemented. Having everything under the same term has never felt right, so this would be a big step forward.

This is a super-old post that precedes many recent developments of the Numista catalogue.

This was simply a suggestion to split trials and patterns. The "sub-types" are simply listed for information purposes, I am not suggesting they should be added to the database.

And I agree too that patterns are better listed in exonumia.

Cita: "stratocaster"​This is a super-old post that precedes many recent developments of the Numista catalogue.
​
​This was simply a suggestion to split trials and patterns. The "sub-types" are simply listed for information purposes, I am not suggesting they should be added to the database.
​
​And I agree too that patterns are better listed in exonumia.
​
​

​I dread to think if a 1 year old post is super old what does that make some of our coins.

Ah, I did not see the date of the original post. Whoops.

I do think a comprehensive list of pattern/trial strike types would be nice though, and this was a very well thought out list. Considering how comprehensive our Exonumia types are, I do not think it would be a big stretch to give patterns/trial strikes at least a few catagories.

Although I still disagree with listing non-technical patterns in Exonumia.

Pattern coins should NOT be under 'Exonumia' - but they deserve to be in a separate section like the back of the chapter in Krause though.

Aidan.

Hello,

Where would wrong planchet strikes fit into this? Would they be considered trials or simply errors?

If it was a mistake it's an error, if it was done intentionally it would be an off-metall strike.

Cita: "Idolenz"​If it was a mistake it's an error, if it was done intentionally it would be an off-metall strike.

​Right, but it is impossible to determine intent. Regardless of what the decision is, we should either include all of them or none of them.

Off-metal strikes have the same diameter and are usually out of precious metals, error are most often of a different planchette dimension.

- I agree, and also think that this should be implemented.
- Technical patterns may fall into exonumia, but other patterns/trials should remain in coin section.
- For all patterns/trials, "Demonetized" (Yes/No) section should be closed/hidden, as they are never monetized.
- Add "Bosen" as a new sub-category. It is the piece using to create cast dies for East asian cash coins.