Patterns into Exonumia now?

Hi, I made a request for a French Pattern coin from the 1848 design contest.

I'm a bit confused because all these coins are listed under coins.

But my new request was moved into Exonumia all of a sudden.

I'm not into the guidelines that much and I don't really want to participate in the discussion on where to put these (I don't really care). But I want consistency at least. So can please someone move these wholly into one of the two places and inform the designated referees of that decision?

Short answer: yes, Exonumia.

The section for patterns already exist in Exonumia for this purpose and the sorting/definition/categories/guidelines was discussed this morning actually. Updates to come soon on this point then.

Does this also appply to trial banknotes?

I thought only Fantasy patterns belong into Exonumia.

I for one would prefer to see regular mint patterns to remain in the main catalogue.

seems strange to me to see A silver Thaler in the main Catalogue but the official Gold pattern strike of the exact same coin to be in the Exonumia section…

apuking

I thought only Fantasy patterns belong into Exonumia.

I for one would prefer to see regular mint patterns to remain in the main catalogue.

 

seems strange to me to see A silver Thaler in the main Catalogue but the official Gold pattern strike of the exact same coin to be in the Exonumia section…

Agreed, especially since some “patterns” are simply unissued circulation coins.

Then we need to specify what a pattern is and what not. Right now we put many similar but not exactly the same items under one umbrella term (I will use mostly example pages from my jurisdiction).

For me a pattern that could be put under exonumia is an object that could have become a coin but the design wasn't chosen for some reason.

N#27007 

N#27196 

Trial coins for me aren't such “patterns” because they are essentially the same as the circulating coin (they may have some writing or symbol for indication) and sometimes were thrown in circulation after the trail runs.

N#165210  (most likely a final trial of this coin)

N#24457 

The French ones are often in the normal page because of that

N#4 

In the catalogs with cast coins we also have seed/mother coins that are literal patterns for the sand that the “real” coins were cast in, they are essentially higher quality and slightly bigger circulation coins and were often put together with the cast coins after the end of production.

N#291866   → N#147023 

Then we have off-metal-strikes like in apuking's example which were used with the exact same dies most often after the production run for wealthy individuals. Also not such "patterns" more like modern non-circulating coins/ restrikes.

There are also fringe cases (to me at least) of coins made for circulation, in circulation quantities but they were never released, did these became patterns after the fact?

N#285819 

Another thing to ponder about is that many referees (me included) don't have nor want to have anything to do with the exonumia section so the addition of further types may slow down considerably.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic93269.html#p906814

My main question is, what benefit comes from shoving patterns to exonumia?

Thanks for bringing up that older discussion, I remember it well and as a result we saw the possibility if I recall correctly for those who did not want to see patterns to filter these out. It might have been made possible even earlier but because of someone not wanting to see Commemorative coins or Pattern coins.

by the fact of them not being legal tender, that is not really relevant here as then we would also have to remove around half of the coin catalogue with non-circulating not legal tender coins.

They still have a denomination and are officially produced coins by the coin issuer.

I would also think that a split with only some patterns in the coin section and others in exonumia is also not the right approach.

whilst I would vote for them to leave in the coin section I would rather see a new category next to Coins, Banknotes, Exonumia with Pattern coins, Pattern notes

Patterns then placed just next to coins.

on the other hand I would agree for the term Trial Strike to be added, so that Patterns are seperated in Pattern and in Trial strike.

a Piedfort to me does also count as a type of Trial Strike same as does a official Gold Strike of a 18th century Pfennig coin for example.

Regarding the Fantasy Patterns, these are not official.

so lets say a Aragorn Dollar from Lord of the Ring Land should remain in Exonumia under Fantasy Coins and Patterns.

As a collector of Pattern coins, I would feel anger, pain and loss of these to be moved away from the coin catalogue, so far so that such a decision might push me to leave Numista.

Hello,

There is a wide variety of patterns and trial strikes. They are pieces made in the process to produce coins.

• Patterns to evaluate a new design: N#171374 
• Patterns to control the die before starting the production: N#197843 
• Mother coins to cast coins: N#291866 
• Patterns to evaluate blanks: N#165567 
• Patterns to evaluate a minting technique: N#294319 
• Trial strikes, to present a new coin and be gifted to senior officials, mint employees, government members, etc.: N#197855 
• Trial strikes to be sold to collectors: N#681 (13 800 pieces with the word “ESSAI” in 1974)
• etc.

In my opinion, they are not coins per se; they are part of the coin production process.

Because of the many evaluated designs, materials, shapes and techniques, and because of the many steps to produce a coin, there may be several dozens of patterns, trial strikes and piedforts related to a single circulation type.

For these two reasons, I believe it may be preferable to have patterns in a dedicated category in exonumia.

I personally collect patterns, and I see no issue with managing my pattern collection in exonumia rather than in the coin section.

One could argue that trial strikes made for collectors are quite similar to non-circulating collection coins, which we currently list in the coin section, so we may want to have patterns in the exonumia section and trial strikes in the exonumia section. However, there are so many different types of patterns and trial strikes and so many cases in-between, that classifying them in two different sections may be too confusing.

What we would like to propose is to have all patterns and trial strikes in the exonumia section, under the “Coin patterns” category, with three sub-categories:

• Patterns, which are intended to evaluate or present a design, a material, a manufacturing technique, tools, etc.
• Trial strikes, which are identical to the released coin, except for a discreet mark that indicates it is a trial strike (for example added words “ESSAI” or “PROVA” or a different mint letter or privy mark)
• Piedforts, which are presentation pieces with an increased thickness

Each pattern, trial strike, and piedfort should have a link to the corresponding released coin type.

The page for the released coin types could be improved with a new section, which would automatically show the corresponding patterns, trial strikes and piedforts.

They are coins and are described as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_coin

I do not understand a move to Exonumia.

Already as per the definition of Exonumia: Exonumia are numismatic items (such as tokens, medals, or scrip) other than coins and paper money

Why not to leave them in the coin section, I do not understand.

They could be listed seperatly as selectable fields in the coin catalogue over the 

Browse the catalogue by issuer in the coin catalogue.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?ct=coin

apuking

They are coins and are described as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_coin

That Wikipedia Pattern coin article describes them as coins, but if you actually follow the coin link in that sentence you will find this on the Coin page:

used primarily as a medium of exchange or legal tender

That's not the primary use of patterns so patterns don't actually meet the Wikipedia definition of a coin.

bjherbison

apuking

They are coins and are described as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_coin

That Wikipedia Pattern coin article describes them as coins, but if you actually follow the coin link in that sentence you will find this on the Coin page:

used primarily as a medium of exchange or legal tender

That's not the primary use of patterns so patterns don't actually meet the Wikipedia definition of a coin.

primarily

The Wikipedia definition for patterns looks incorrect. They cite https://uspatterns.com/ as the source for the definition, but that website actually provides the following definition:

patterns are prototypes for coins that, for the most part, were never approved for circulation

Edit: Their longer definition actually refers to them as coins:

https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/whatarepatpi.html

this is any coin struck from a prototype die or dies to test a new design or concept

Edit again: They quote a third definition, which doesn't refer to them as coins:

https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/glossary1.html 

Pattern - (The following is quoted and/or paraphrased from a resource that may be absent from your library. “Scott’s Comprehensive Catalogue and Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins, 1971,” prepared and edited for the Scott Publishing Co., by Don Taxay) “The pattern is an essay intended for submission by the Mint Director to a higher authority, generally the Secretary of the Treasury or Congress. It may be struck in the metal intended for adoption, or, for reasons of economy, in a less expensive one. Regular patterns represent a proposed change of design and experimental patterns embody a more radical innovation such as size, shape, edge, or composition. Patterns may be adopted or unadopted. Essays embody a new idea or design proposed for adoption in the regular issue and they are made during the course of regular Mint business. Regular patterns represent a proposed change of design while experimental patterns embody a more radical innovation such as size, shape, edge or composition.” For additional reading, consult Andrew W. Pollock III, “United States Issues and Related Issues,” page 1.

A coin does not need to be approved for circulation. As mentioned earlier near half of our coin catalogue are coins not meant for circulation.

For me, the key word is “prototype” (not “circulation”): patterns are side-products of the coin production process, not the final products, which are coins.

(Conversely, we have tokens in the exonumia section which did circulate.)

I think we are not speaking about circulating or not but legal tender or not.

You can pay with a coin but you can’t pay with a prototype. Technically you can pay with a Piedfort.

What belong to Exonumia is everything you can’t use to pay. Some months ago we had a similar discussion regarding the ATM test note, produce by the French national bank but only use to control the ATM function.

I personally don’t feel confident to see that in our coin catalog:

https://fr.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?r=France+plomb&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&tn=y&tp=y&tt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=&i=&b=&d=&u=&a=&dg=&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

Sure many Tokens circulated and they are a fantastic part of numismatics a difference in being that Tokens are privatly minted objects for use in goods, payment service etc and Patterns are coins minted and issued by the official countries, states and issuers coinage ruling and minting authorities.

Please do enjoy moving these pieces to Exonumia

N#124032

N#188996

All Löser coins also could not be used as legal tender so please also move these to Exonumia.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?r=l%C3%B6ser&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&tn=y&tp=y&tt=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=&i=&b=&d=&u=&a=&dg=&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

I do not agree with this and yes I do feeld offended by this decision and therefore will step out as Referee for 

German states, Bishopric of Basel, Canton of Basel, City of Basel, Royal mint of Basel, Imperial mint of Basel

Being a member since 2012 it has been a real pleasure seeing the catalogue grow.

I thoroughly enjoyed contributing to the Numista catalogue and adding more than 10.000 coins, patterns and exonumia to the Numista catalogue.

10098 pages added, 22611 years added, 37831 pages edited, 6558 years edited

This will stay the situation at least until Patterns will be listed outside of Exonumia again.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic123873.html

While I won't do anything as drastic as resigning my referee position, I still believe that this is the wrong decision. Shoving patterns in exonumia (when nobody is complaining about them now) will be confusing and another frustration to users.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot in order to be technically correct.

No decision was made yet. It was proposed when the exonumia section was opened but never implemented, as there were contradicting opinions on this. I'm just reopening the discussion here, and I hope we can debate to find the best solution.

My goal is not to frustrate anyone, but looking for how we can improve the catalogue so that it is as clear and accurate as possible.
I don't think we'll find a consensus for the moment, so I believe we should just keep it the current statu quo for the moment. I'll probably come back later with proposals about the exonumia section, so that it can better fit the needs of each kind of collection.

XavierI don't think we'll find a consensus for the moment, so I believe we should just keep it the current statu quo for the moment.

Does this include the inaccuracy of my initial question too? Or will something be moved there?

I totally agree with Xavier's argument which exactly described the issue: as items being part of coins production process, patterns have nothing to do in coins section imho. 

They are to me closer to rough planchets than to actual coins. It is not because the value is (sometimes) marked on it that it is a coin. Most often, metal vary (tin, bronze, billon, silver, gold…), there are specific legends and mintmarks, etc.

I do understand numismats collect these items, I do not think any of them are mistaking patterns (including minting steps check, trials, etc) for coins though. It's why exonumia section exist. We could create a fourth section dedicated to patterns, but what is the point not putting them in exonumia? Is this sentimental to refuse this logic?

Also, I'd like to give feedback on Apuking reaction: using a disagreement to put resignation in the balance made me feel sad, and I'm here for only a few months; i guess people who work with you since 2012 must be hurt a bit. We can disagree, debate etc for the sake of collective intelligence, and without extreme acts like these I believe. Please explain your rationale instead of just listing authority arguments like number of entries you published.

Just one note here - what we now describe as "coin type - pattern" is arguably very wide selection of different things.

Presentation pieces from bygone eras were often exchangeable, mostly because it was silver and gold content one was exchanging.

ESSAI pieces - or presentation pieces of modern era, I am not so sure. (Provas as well)

There are also different trials - being it design trials, measurements trials, material trials etc…

Then we have design contest coins - patterns really.

And we can surely find more…

Point is, we probably should not lump them into one pocket and we should not have all of them together with coins: (this was in coins until very recently: N#197843 )

I agree with Jarcek, not everything should go into the same pocket. For me, patterns which has exactly the same die as productions coins but the word “Essai” or “Prova” and the same metal should remain with coins.

I think it's important that a definite decision on this topic comes as soon as possible! Because currently, there are referees who are and aren't moving (newly requested, and only newly requested) patterns into Exonumia. If the current limbo status exists longer, it will get more confusing each day and more difficult to sort out the mess in the end.

If the pattern coins are listed in Krause or in a local numismatic catalogue, they should be under ‘Coins’, not ‘Exonumia’.

Aidan.

BCNumismatics

If the pattern coins are listed in Krause or in a local numismatic catalogue, they should be under ‘Coins’, not ‘Exonumia’.

 

Aidan.

I often (almost allways) agree with what you write, but I don't think this particular decision should be based on the fact that a book publisher list the pattern coins or not in its publications. Book publisher can stop publishing (in a small market like Canada) or be force to bankrupt (like Krause in 2019).

P.S. Is it just me or I never saw a Krause catalog dated after 2020 ? 

For ESSAI coins in Canada with only the one of the faces (Reverse or Observe), I would prefer to have them in Exonumia. For the other ESSAI coins with both faces, I would keep them under coins.

Here's some exemples : 

N#331772

N#241532

Regards,

Québécois

BCNumismatics

If the pattern coins are listed in Krause or in a local numismatic catalogue, they should be under ‘Coins’, not ‘Exonumia’.

 

Aidan.

I often (almost allways) agree with what you write, but I don't think this particular decision should be based on the fact that a book publisher list the pattern coins or not in its publications. Book publisher can stop publishing (in a small market like Canada) or be force to bankrupt (like Krause in 2019).

 

P.S. Is it just me or I never saw a Krause catalog dated after 2020 ? 

There hasn't been a Krause catalogue for a few years now.

What is listed up on http://www.numismaster.com is not complete - & that website still sucks!

Canada has the Charlton catalogues & Coins of Canada ( Haxby & Willey ).

Aidan.

The situation is still terrible. I actually don't really care where patterns should go, but it HAS to be consistent. Not only between issuers, but inside issuers too.

For example, coins from the same French 1848 design contest are listed in coins, as well as exonumia. And that's just one of many such problems that are unacceptable.

Pattern coins should still be under ‘Coins’ - which has been an opinion I have held for a long time.

Aidan.

Trooper8

The situation is still terrible. I actually don't really care where patterns should go, but it HAS to be consistent. Not only between issuers, but inside issuers too.

For example, coins from the same French 1848 design contest are listed in coins, as well as exonumia. And that's just one of many such problems that are unacceptable.

Agreed. We have currently 240 “Patterns” items in Exonumia and probably dozens of thousands in coins.
We'll talk with other admins to suggest a solution (making sure we de not have the same category in both sections), thanks for the reminder and sorry for this issue!

BCNumismatics

Pattern coins should still be under ‘Coins’ - which has been an opinion I have held for a long time.

 

Aidan.

Given volumes existing in DB, I would tend to agree, but do you confirm you would include also those items in coins catalogue for instance? 
- control strikes: N#199852

- planchet test: N#343988

- projects of coin designs: N#192822

Compendium

BCNumismatics

Pattern coins should still be under ‘Coins’ - which has been an opinion I have held for a long time.

 

Aidan.

Given volumes existing in DB, I would tend to agree, but do you confirm you would include also those items in coins catalogue for instance? 
 

- projects of coin designs: N#192822

 

☝🏼

Ceux-ci sont bel et bien Exonumia

Polette

 

Ceux-ci sont bel et bien Exonumia

Donc ce que tu proposes c'est de différencier les essais (quel qu'ils soient) reliés à des pièces qui ont bel et bien circulé des essais de pièces jamais validées (type concours de graveurs) ? Si c'est bien ça, cela fait sens pour moi, il faudrait néanmoins trouver une façon claire de l'expliquer dans le nom des catégories.

_____________________

So what you are proposing is to differentiate the trials (whatever they are) linked to coins which have indeed circulated from the trials of coins that have never been “validated” (engravers' competition for instance)? If that's right, it makes sense to me, but we should find a clear way to explain it in the name of the categories.

Compendium

Polette

 

Ceux-ci sont bel et bien Exonumia

Donc ce que tu proposes c'est de différencier les essais (quel qu'ils soient) reliés à des pièces qui ont bel et bien circulé des essais de pièces jamais validées (type concours de graveurs) ? Si c'est bien ça, cela fait sens pour moi, il faudrait néanmoins trouver une façon claire de l'expliquer dans le nom des catégories.

_____________________

So what you are proposing is to differentiate the trials (whatever they are) linked to coins which have indeed circulated from the trials of coins that have never been “validated” (engravers' competition for instance)? If that's right, it makes sense to me, but we should find a clear way to explain it in the name of the categories.

Les essais désignés sur le lien ont été fabriqués pour le compte d’une société privée Laleta (type Göde). Il y a leur différent. Ce sont plus des médailles commémoratives que de véritables essais. Leur catégorisation dans «Essais monétaires › Essai de monnaie »  n’est pas correcte pour moi. 

Compendium

Polette

 

Ceux-ci sont bel et bien Exonumia

Donc ce que tu proposes c'est de différencier les essais (quel qu'ils soient) reliés à des pièces qui ont bel et bien circulé des essais de pièces jamais validées (type concours de graveurs) ? Si c'est bien ça, cela fait sens pour moi, il faudrait néanmoins trouver une façon claire de l'expliquer dans le nom des catégories.

_____________________

So what you are proposing is to differentiate the trials (whatever they are) linked to coins which have indeed circulated from the trials of coins that have never been “validated” (engravers' competition for instance)? If that's right, it makes sense to me, but we should find a clear way to explain it in the name of the categories.

Unvalidated trials, blanks and test device tokens are to be considered Exonumia as they have no legal tender.

Standard trials belongs to coins obviously as they are legal tender.

Indomini16

 

Unvalidated trials, blanks and test device tokens are to be considered Exonumia as they have no legal tender.

Standard trials belongs to coins obviously as they are legal tender.

Would you consider a piedfort is a legal tender? 
Same for a 1 Ducat trial in silver?

Compendium

Indomini16

 

Unvalidated trials, blanks and test device tokens are to be considered Exonumia as they have no legal tender.

Standard trials belongs to coins obviously as they are legal tender.

Would you consider a piedfort is a legal tender? 
Same for a 1 Ducat trial in silver?

A Piedort of a circulation coin is still legal tender so for me it belong to coins. You can virtually pay with it.

For the ducat I have no opinion and not knowledge on this.

Hi everyone ! 

We discussed this issue with fellow Admins and to solve this long lasting issue, here is our suggestion we'd like to get your feedback about : 

• Any pattern/trial issued officially (meaning not private issue) looking like a complete coin (even in a different alloy) should go in Coins catalogue:
  • If they refer to an existing coin, we need to see the link to it in the see also section: examples here
  • If they are complete coins but never chosen to become actual minted coin, we need to put them in a series when relevant (design contest for instance): example here
• Any item looking like an uncomplete coin (alloy trial, reverse trial, planchet trial, etc etc etc) should fall under Exonumia, in the “Pattern” category that we'd rename for this purpose (we didn't find the exact name yet, suggestions are welcome!); examples
   

If it is validated, then we'll be bale to update guideliens and inform all referees that upcoming requests may happen :-)

I would still include Pattern coins struck in a different alloy but struck by the original mint to be included in the coin catalogue.

Random example here

N#313153

For all the rest I would agree.

Just one small side note.

If they are complete coins but never chosen to become actual minted coin, we need to put them in a series when relevant (design contest for instance): example

The Concours of 1848 pattern coins are well known but I think almost all other patterns with very different design do not have any series to them.

apuking

I would still include Pattern coins struck in a different alloy but struck by the original mint to be included in the coin catalogue.

Random example here

N#313153

yes it is included in our opinion: it looks like a complete coin (even if different alloy); I updated the message above

 

For all the rest I would agree.

Nice!

 

Just one small side note.

If they are complete coins but never chosen to become actual minted coin, we need to put them in a series when relevant (design contest for instance): example

The Concours of 1848 pattern coins are well known but I think almost all other patterns with very different design do not have any series to them.

You're probably right, it's why I precised “when relevant”. It would be a case by case approach, but we thought even when there is no explicit contest, we would have the possibility to link the entry with other design actually chosen maybe?

Seems a good compromis.

Just to be sure where belong these 2 in this new set up?

N#194519
N#165916

Indomini16

Seems a good compromis.

Just to be sure where belong these 2 in this new set up?

N#194519
N#165916

Good questions. We discussed first case (when engineers produce “coins” to advertise about new machines and processes they are testing) and we considered it would fall under “Exonumia pattern”: those items being more linked to “minting processes” than trials of specific denominations.

We did not talk about second case (when 1 face is not rough but has technical inscriptions about the strike). Following our mondset, I'd say “Exonumia pattern” too as it make them less looking like actual coins.

What do you think?

With your explanation I would agree for these two to be in Exonumia.

I agree for N#194519. It is a private issue intended to advertise a minting process.

For N#165916, I consider it looks like a complete coin, so it would go to the Coin category with the definition above.

Here is a similar example: N#165567

It's a pattern to evaluate the production of bimetallic coins. It does look like a complete coin, even if the design of the obverse and reverse are not intended for a real coin.

The definition is not ideal, but it has the benefit of being simple, so it will be easy to apply and it won't generate inconsistencies between issuers: if it's issued or commissioned by the state and it looks like a coin, then it fits in the Coin category. All the rest (private advertising for a new process, imprint to verify the dies, blank planchet, etc.) would be in Exonumia.

Xavier

 

For N#165916, I consider it looks like a complete coin, so it would go to the Coin category with the definition above.

 

Here is a similar example: N#165567

It's a pattern to evaluate the production of bimetallic coins. It does look like a complete coin, even if the design of the obverse and reverse are not intended for a real coin.

 

The definition is not ideal, but it has the benefit of being simple, so it will be easy to apply and it won't generate inconsistencies between issuers: if it's issued or commissioned by the state and it looks like a coin, then it fits in the Coin category. All the rest (private advertising for a new process, imprint to verify the dies, blank planchet, etc.) would be in Exonumia.

Sorry but I'm a bit lost then …

N#165567

This one is not intended to look like a circualtion I see it more as a uniface coin terefor I see it Exonumia

Trial strikes like this N#165567 Are made to see if the machine can struck the blanks then I see it as a process item and not a coin therefor more an exonumia item in my understanding because it's the second phase of this one: 5 Centimes Lindauer (Epreuve en plomb de contrôle d'avers) - France – Numista before you go to the Trial issues for realeas with the “Essay” on it.

So, should we adjust the rule to the following?

• If the pattern is intended to evaluate or showcase a design or the full coin, it goes to the Coin category. Examples:
  • N#194947 (pattern to evaluate the design, even the design didn't end up being selected)
  • N#178055 (pattern for collectors)
  • N#166236 (piedfort, different metal than the real coin)
• All other patterns go to Exonumia
  • N#165567 (evaluate production of bi-metallic coin)
  • N#199846 (evaluate the die)
  • N#343990 (blank planchet)

I still would have three questions:

• What about patterns for the design of only one side of the coin?
  • N#355627 (competition for the obverse design; the reverse is rough)
• What if the intention is not clear or if there are multiple intentions?
  • N#165916 (I don't know for this specific example, but could it be that the goal is to evaluate several aspects at the same time? In this case, evaluating the middle hole, the reverse design, and the metal.)
  • N#292339 (I have no idea what is the purpose of this pattern, and it might be tricky to find out, or even impossible for some patterns.)
• Where should we classify patterns in different metals or alloys? Based on the discussion, I guess they should be in the Coin category as long as they have the design of a coin (either the final design or a design being evaluated).

Xavier

So, should we adjust the rule to the following?

• If the pattern is intended to evaluate or showcase a design or the full coin, it goes to the Coin category. Examples:
  • N#194947 (pattern to evaluate the design, even the design didn't end up being selected)
  • N#178055 (pattern for collectors)
  • N#166236 (piedfort, different metal than the real coin)
• All other patterns go to Exonumia
  • N#165567 (evaluate production of bi-metallic coin)
  • N#199846 (evaluate the die)
  • N#343990 (blank planchet)

 

I still would have three questions:

• What about patterns for the design of only one side of the coin?
  • N#355627 (competition for the obverse design; the reverse is rough)
• What if the intention is not clear or if there are multiple intentions?
  • N#165916 (I don't know for this specific example, but could it be that the goal is to evaluate several aspects at the same time? In this case, evaluating the middle hole, the reverse design, and the metal.)
  • N#292339 (I have no idea what is the purpose of this pattern, and it might be tricky to find out, or even impossible for some patterns.)
• Where should we classify patterns in different metals or alloys? Based on the discussion, I guess they should be in the Coin category as long as they have the design of a coin (either the final design or a design being evaluated).

For the first part I would agree,

For the second part that's a grey area, I would prefer uniface ones to go to Exonumia but I may accept it in coin.

For different metal, fine for me to have them on coins to keep it structured and easy to understand for users.

For me what solves those 3 questions is to adapt the definition a bit: 

- all patterns looking like complete and with real design coins go in coins

- other in Exonumia

This way, uniface tests of coins normally biface go in exonumia. And different alloys stay in coins.

Only remaining loophole I'd see would be coins-like patterns except very little “TRIAL” text added somewhere, but I'd find acceptable to let them in coins.

Yes I would leave those in coin also, at least if they are official and not some fantasy.

Else I also agree with Compendium and Indomini

Compendium

For me what solves those 3 questions is to adapt the definition a bit: 

- all patterns looking like complete and with real design coins go in coins

- other in Exonumia

 

This way, uniface tests of coins normally biface go in exonumia. And different alloys stay in coins.

 

Only remaining loophole I'd see would be coins-like patterns except very little “TRIAL” text added somewhere, but I'd find acceptable to let them in coins.

I'm fine with this definition. We may just need to clarify what is meant by “looking like complete and with real design coins”. I understand that it has an obverse design and reverse design that could have been used for an issued coin. The only deviation we accept is that they may have the word “TRIAL” (or “ESSAI”, “PROBE”, etc. as long as they are official) and they may be piedfort.

The only drawback I see is that some design competitions will be in Coins and others will be in Exonumia (depending on the reverse), but it's simple to implement and it's anyway better than the current situation with no rule at all.

Yes, sounds good to me!

As everyone here seems happy, here the to do list I suggest:

- update guidelines > I can work on that and let fellow Admins review

- change Pattern category name in Exonumia (I suggest “Incomplete/technical patterns” but its  challengeable) > @Xavier

- inform referrees > @Jarcek through newsletter

- move coins accordingly (and enrich with links and series for instance) > all the community

Let others comment before you take actions, I guess by moving coins we will see more grey area …

Great to see development here.

Yes, please no rush. It is best to inform others beforehand.

Incomplete/technical patterns I would just call these Trial strikes

First three steps will take several days, no worries.

Jarcek

First three steps will take several days, no worries.

Yes sorry I should have precised “to do list” does not mean immediate actions ^^ 

We all know here things take time ! And even more with ongoing holidays season 

And even if movement started, we will start with cases where we can be sure.

Compendium

Yes, sounds good to me!

 

As everyone here seems happy, here the to do list I suggest:

- update guidelines > I can work on that and let fellow Admins review

- change Pattern category name in Exonumia (I suggest “Incomplete/technical patterns” but its  challengeable) > @Xavier

- inform referrees > @Jarcek through newsletter

- move coins accordingly (and enrich with links and series for instance) > all the community

Are there new reactions regarding this suggestion?
(nothing was done yet from my knowledge)

I think it's a great initiative to have clear guidelines on trial strikes and patterns! 

However, I think “looking like complete and with real design coins” is too vague. It should be crystal clear what elements specifically should be missing from a pattern for it to be considered exonumia. And then aren't all fantasy pieces “looking like complete and with real design coins”?

I also think it is essential to be able to browse all patterns together (including one-sided, off-metal, and incomplete designs). Having some in a section and others somewhere else would be confusing for pattern collectors. 

Hello,
I updated the guidelines as per the definition we agreed above. I tried to be as clear as possible.

For categorization purpose in the Numista catalogue, coin patterns and trial strikes that look like a complete coin (both obverse and reverse are struck) and with a real coin design (the design was intended for a real coin, even if it may not have been selected for definitive coinage, and even if it may have a small inscription “trial” or equivalent) are listed in the “Coins” category (example). Other kinds of patterns and trial strikes are listed in the “Exonumia” category (examples: non real coin design, non complete coin).

(https://en.numista.com/help/scope-of-the-numista-catalogue-200.html)

I agree that this decision is not ideal, since we split patterns between the Coins and Exonumia categories, but I believe it's a good compromise until we have the ability to search Coins and Exonumia together.

apuking

A coin does not need to be approved for circulation. As mentioned earlier near half of our coin catalogue are coins not meant for circulation.

Coins not for circulation = Medal-coins!

Aidan.

What is the definition of "real coin design"? Do you perhaps mean “final design”?

Not necessarily the final design: “the design was intended for a real coin, even if it may not have been selected for definitive coinage, and even if it may have a small inscription “trial” or equivalent”

Xavier

Not necessarily the final design: “the design was intended for a real coin, even if it may not have been selected for definitive coinage, and even if it may have a small inscription “trial” or equivalent”

Such names include ‘ESSAI’ & ‘PROBE’.

Aidan.

I'm still not clear, what is a “real coin”?

Some_Nerd

I'm still not clear, what is a “real coin”?

For the purposes of Numista:

Rigid pieces of material that have a determined value (denomination) within a currency system.
The denomination may be explicit or implied by de facto use. Coins may not necessarily be intended to circulate (for example, some commemoratives, trial strikes, presentation pieces, proofs, etc.)

What about planchet sets released for vending machine manufacturers?

Some_Nerd

What about planchet sets released for vending machine manufacturers?

They don't have a value in a currency system. They match the physical characteristics of coins, but they aren't coins.

The design was not intended for a coin, but only for the test set, so I would keep them in Exonumia.

I agree with apuking, moving trial strikes to exonumia is crazy idea.

I dont agree for doing this and im glad it didnt happen.I'm on the apkuing side.

I dont want to see this  wonderful 500 coins :

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pologne-3.html

with the same place with this ones :

As for myself, i would prefer to create a new category between coin and exonumia as they in fact arent coin as well arent fantasy coins.

For me, the tests are coins issued before the final validation of the coin to be put into circulation, it is a test to be sure that the coins manufactured in large numbers will be compliant.

I therefore think that the essays must continue to be classified in the coins and have no place in the exonumia

Pour moi les essais sont des pièces émises avant la validation finale de la monnaie a mettre en circulation, c'est un test pour être sur que les monnaies fabriquées en grand nombre seront conformes.

Je pense donc que les essais doivent continuer à être classés dans les monnaies et n'ont pas leur place dans les exonumia

HerveMonaco

For me, the tests are coins issued before the final validation of the coin to be put into circulation, it is a test to be sure that the coins manufactured in large numbers will be compliant.

I therefore think that the essays must continue to be classified in the coins and have no place in the exonumia

 

 

Pour moi les essais sont des pièces émises avant la validation finale de la monnaie a mettre en circulation, c'est un test pour être sur que les monnaies fabriquées en grand nombre seront conformes.

Je pense donc que les essais doivent continuer à être classés dans les monnaies et n'ont pas leur place dans les exonumia

I agree.

HerveMonaco

For me, the tests are coins issued before the final validation of the coin to be put into circulation, it is a test to be sure that the coins manufactured in large numbers will be compliant.

I therefore think that the essays must continue to be classified in the coins and have no place in the exonumia

 

 

Pour moi les essais sont des pièces émises avant la validation finale de la monnaie a mettre en circulation, c'est un test pour être sur que les monnaies fabriquées en grand nombre seront conformes.

Je pense donc que les essais doivent continuer à être classés dans les monnaies et n'ont pas leur place dans les exonumia

Il me semble que c'est justement ce que l'on fait, peux tu donner un lien stp?

Bonjour Pascal

Pas de lien en particulier à donner … c'est une réflexion personnelle sur la question initiale … ou classer les essais

HerveMonaco

Bonjour Pascal

 

Pas de lien en particulier à donner … c'est une réflexion personnelle sur la question initiale … ou classer les essais

OK voici les guidelines mises à jour à la suite de cet ancien thread : https://en.numista.com/help/scope-of-the-numista-catalogue-200.html

My opinion id that patterns, trials and similar banknotes and coins have to be outside the coins and banknotes pages. Why?

Because It would be a mess otherwise. To many items existing and for many of them exists data and sometimes just one or few pieces. So it can't be really a collectors item.

We have to us ourself what is the purpose Numista.

The purpose is not to be a specialised site for numismatic literature and we don't have to list here everything existing. Numista is for collectors who want to list their collections and swap with others easier.

I know many people with patterns and trials in their collections that are almost unique and they don't use Numista and never will, at least not for that purpose.

But there are some other trials and patterns that exist in more quantity and some users will want to add that, me included. It is ok. There is the exonumia page for that. Maybe we need another new page for this purpose…like SPECIAL NUMISMATICS…or something like that.