The Pattern pennies of Joseph Moore - recognising obverse types

[secret santa 2,013]

Anyone out there an expert in recognising the laureate head obverse types ? Peck and Freeman use the same small black and white photos to illustrate the fairly esoteric differences between the 4 obverses and they're pretty subtle. I've attempted to show close-ups of real coins (from my own collection and from other online sources such as LCA) in the Patterns section of my penny website to show these differences and I'm not sure I've got it right. If they are, they sure as hell didn't come from coins that were correctly identified because many of them are labelled as different obverse types (derived from their Freeman number). Some of my own few coins are clearly not correctly assigned regarding Obverse type/Freeman number combinations. This looks like a real can of worms to me.

[Rob 3,000]

It's not that bad. The original strikings must have no signs of rust marks on the neck, so your 1D looks like it isn't given the cluster by the back of the neck at the truncation, but I think your 1B gilt is obv. 1 as I can't see any polished rust spots.

My obverse 2 is attached.

Your 3D and 4D are possibly the same pairing. It is difficult as the one labelled obv 3 is a bit fuzzy.

I will have to dig out the other obverses as I'm afraid I got rid of my examples due to quality issues.

[Rob 3,000]

This is obverse C, a P2115. Unfortunately it is a bit bright and the spots in the middle of the cheek do not show up in relief. I suggest you save the image and blow it up a bit to see what I mean. There are strikings that have the cheek spots fully polished down, but the 3 at the back of the neck remain, which I have always taken this to be obv.C and the flattened cheek spots as obv. D

That is why I think both your obv 3 & 4 are actually obv. 4.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Rob

[Rob 3,000]

If you read the appendix in Peck concerning Shorthouse's 1885 visit to Moore's workshop post-mortem when the 3 sets of restrikes were made, it is mentioned that there was no sign of the second obverse. This die developed a large flaw and it is likely that he was in the process of re-engraving the P2135 obverse as there is a trial obverse only striking in pewter using the same bust punch as the P2135 but with re-arranged legends. Playing around with the contrast of the image gives a few hints of a prior design with traces of underlying characters. However, no strikings are known as far as I am aware with the obverse die below paired with a reverse.

[secret santa 2,013]

This is obverse C, a P2115. Unfortunately it is a bit bright and the spots in the middle of the cheek do not show up in relief. I suggest you save the image and blow it up a bit to see what I mean. There are strikings that have the cheek spots fully polished down, but the 3 at the back of the neck remain, which I have always taken this to be obv.C and the flattened cheek spots as obv. D

That is why I think both your obv 3 & 4 are both obv. 4.

Rob, do you agree with my labelling of the 4 close-ups ?

[Rob 3,000]

Yes, I think those are right. There are small spots on the base of the neck only on the last, but clear cheek spots on no.3

[secret santa 2,013]

Thanks, in that case several of my coins have been wrongly classified - I agree with you that the 3 and 4 look alike and the 1 (non-gilt) definitely isn't a 1.

I wonder how many other coins have been wrongly catalogued and purchased in ignorance over the years ?

Definitely a case of buyer beware !!!

[Rob 3,000]

Thanks, in that case several of my coins have been wrongly classified - I agree with you that the 3 and 4 look alike and the 1 (non-gilt) definitely isn't a 1.

I wonder how many other coins have been wrongly catalogued and purchased in ignorance over the years ?

Definitely a case of buyer beware !!!

Lots of things are misdescribed and the mistake inevitably perpetuated because many collectors have blind faith in the literature and don't question inconsistencies. As always, it pays to know what you are buying, because when the time comes to sell you can rest assured that someone will point out the incorrect listing if wrongly described as a rare variety (but are usually more reticent when a rare type is catalogued as a common one) . Buyer beware applies to each and every purchase. It doesn't matter whether the mis-attribution is intentional or not, just that one day the owner is likely to meet up with someone knowledgable. It could be very expensive.

For anyone interested in these patterns, a copy of the Magnay or Adams sale is a useful reference. Both collections had large numbers of them. All three of the above images were from the Adams collection.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

Thank you Rob for an interesting post.

[azda 973]

Agreed, and as Rashenly is an obvious collector of this series it's obvious too see that even the best of us still have something to learn

[secret santa 2,013]

Thanks, in that case several of my coins have been wrongly classified - I agree with you that the 3 and 4 look alike and the 1 (non-gilt) definitely isn't a 1.

I wonder how many other coins have been wrongly catalogued and purchased in ignorance over the years ?

Definitely a case of buyer beware !!!

Lots of things are misdescribed and the mistake inevitably perpetuated because many collectors have blind faith in the literature and don't question inconsistencies. As always, it pays to know what you are buying, because when the time comes to sell you can rest assured that someone will point out the incorrect listing if wrongly described as a rare variety (but are usually more reticent when a rare type is catalogued as a common one) . Buyer beware applies to each and every purchase. It doesn't matter whether the mis-attribution is intentional or not, just that one day the owner is likely to meet up with someone knowledgable. It could be very expensive.

For anyone interested in these patterns, a copy of the Magnay or Adams sale is a useful reference. Both collections had large numbers of them. All three of the above images were from the Adams collection.

Rob, I've got the Adams catalogue (I was there) and I can get their low resolution pics from their archive - do you believe that Spink will have described them correctly ? Hopefully a bit better than their efforts in last week's Andy Scott sale ! It seems quite risky to collect these patterns without being able to check the coins out in the flesh beforehand - the differences in these 4 obverses are far more subtle than the currency Victorian pennies. And then again, there is no reference against which to check values against variety. They are all "rare" but what makes a coin worth £200 as against £1000 ? Is it just the difference between R17 and R20 as estimated by Freeman ?

[Rob 3,000]

I think that they were described correctly as I recall, or at least the ones that I looked at. Somewhat ironically, the one that I am uncertain about is ex both Magnay and Adams, and was described as a 3D in both sales. It is not possible to establish the state of the rust spots from the catalogues. There is never a better option than to check in hand.

Pricing is generally based on metal type for most patterns. Copper and base metals are the cheapest, silver is more expensive and gold the most expensive. There is no rule, but it is quite obvious that there is a ballpark figure which encompasses most sales of a specific type. Silver pieces are regularly 3 or 4 times the price of a copper analogue. The rarity numbers are a red herring given they are rarely the result of a comprehensive survey, and in any case would typically only look within the country. I don't know why they are published, as you could do just as well drawing lots. In the case of the Moore patterns you have the numbers quoted by Shorthouse, which would imply a similar number (9) of each piece listed.

Some of the pieces in the market are at odds with the statement attested by Shorthouse, but having seen gilt restrikes, I have to say that the surfaces of the P2115 listed above did not obviously suggest post-mint gilding.

[secret santa 2,013]

Agreed, and as Rashenly is an obvious collector of this series it's obvious too see that even the best of us still have something to learn

Dave, I wouldn't say I'm a collector of this series - I've bought a few on a bit of an ad hoc basis but, as you can see, I'm pretty ignorant about these coins compared to the circulation coins. I'm certainly going to be a lot more wary about buying them in future.

[azda 973]

Agreed, and as Rashenly is an obvious collector of this series it's obvious too see that even the best of us still have something to learn

Dave, I wouldn't say I'm a collector of this series - I've bought a few on a bit of an ad hoc basis but, as you can see, I'm pretty ignorant about these coins compared to the circulation coins. I'm certainly going to be a lot more wary about buying them in future.

You learn something new in here everyday Rash, it keeps you on your toes.