Author Topic: Official trials and patterns that were sold to collectors  (Read 1048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28 601
Re: Official trials and patterns that were sold to collectors
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2017, 02:35:48 PM »
It is best practice to call test pieces patterns. They are used to see how the design works out in practice and if it needs to be adjusted.

I stand by the above. If RM had not marked these pieces "pattern", you and I could have safely called them medals and that is what they are. However, "pattern" sells better than "medal", even if it's an alternative fact.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline <k>

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19 871
Re: Official trials and patterns that were sold to collectors
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2017, 03:24:52 PM »
I agree with your sentiments. It seems that the 2004 "patterns", showing heraldic beasts, were designs entered in a competition for the 2004 to 2007 series of UK round pounds. However, the bridges series won, and the losing designs were then mass produced with the word "PATTERN" on them. Worse still, the circulation bridge series (2004 to 2007) was previewed in 2003 when it too was minted as "patterns".

It's clear that the Polish "proba" pieces were just an excuse to  mint some extra collector pieces, with "special appeal", that could be sold to Westerners in order to earn some much needed foreign currency. So, yes, I do use the words "pattern" and "trial" advisedly in this topic, because the mints have blurred the concepts. I suppose you would want to use the word "pseudo-pattern", but as for me, I don't have a ready-made term for these objects.

Offline <k>

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19 871