Q. David Bowers
"While, on the one hand, he felt bound to some sort of adherence to the rules of 1866, the prospect of destroying all of the old dies was a painful One. Finally, as a compromise, he ordered more than seven hundred experimental dies, together with numerous others which had been stored up in the Mint-some since 1800-to be destroyed by sledge and fire after four or five impressions had been taken from each. Indeed, the winds of chicanery were still blowing. (The then Chief Coiner, A.L. Snowden, in later writing of the incident, remarked that whilst there had been no law against the restrikings, the practice was liable to abuse and that it was perhaps well that all of the old dies had been destroyed as a precaution. Considering the extent of the private enterprise which, for the years 1859 arid 1860 alone, has been estimated at $50,000, one may well ponder over the volume which would have been required, in the conservative opinion of this gentleman, to constitute an abuse.)
"Furthermore, both A.L. Snowden and Dr. Linderman neglected to mention, that while the working dies had been destroyed, the hubs, and in most cases the date logotypes, were preserved so that new dies might be made at any time.' Thus, despite plaintive denials by the Mint authorities, we find among the latter day goodies several pattern silver dollars of 1875 and 1876- struck from an 1857-8-9 reverse die, without the motto 'In God We Trust.'
"In addition to Snowden's Washington collection, Which he was compiling in duplicate, there was Franklin . Peale's Proof and pattern collection" and. for the enhancement of the tW9 no opportunity was lost to create some new rarity of trade-value, Restrikes, were one thing, but after a time, when the savor of chronological collecting began to pall, it was found expedient to strike certain number of 'original' pieces-the more original, in fact, the better. Consequently, we find from this period mulings not only of different denominations, but even a few struck on bimetallic planchets, half silver and half copper! Indeed, the 'pattern' had become elastic enough to meet the demands of any occasion.
"In Snowden's Description of Ancient and Modern Coins, published in 1860, there is a chapter entitled 'Unauthorized Coins of the U.S.,' wherein it is written: 'Since the establish merit of the United States Mint, many coins have made their appearance there from which do not belong to the national authorized series, being of .an experimental character i and not intended for general circulation.' ...
"The destruction of the dies. had, by and large, little effect on the private enterprises of the Mint: (It only meant that the officials would henceforth have to look forwards instead of backwards for their inspiration.) Nor was business curbed by the injunction forbidding the striking of base metal coins from dies intended for gold and silver-a law which had been in effect since 1825! (The only genuine exceptions were die trials which were to be destroyed as soon as the purpose for which they had been struck was subserved.) The indulgence, therefore, which Pollock briefly granted to the statute, can hardly afford him much credit ....
"Whatever the officers of the Mint failed to comprehend in the previous monetary laws of the United States was rendered implacably clear for them by the Revised Statutes of 1873. This law, after stating the precise requirements of our coinage, in regard to metal, fineness, weight, device, etc., clearly tells us that no coins, either of gold, silver, or minor coinage shall hereafter be issued from the Mint other than those of the denominations set forth in that title.
"A further elucidation was provided by the 'General Instructions and Regulations to the Transactions of Business at the Mints and Assay Offices of the United States,' published under date of May 14,1874, which stated: 'When a pattern is adopted and used in the regular coinage in the same year, it will then be issued, as a Proof, at a price near its current value, or if it comes out early in the year, it will be placed in the regular Proof set. Italics are author's.]
"This obviously is a little removed from our familiar usage of the term 'pattern' in numismatics; certainly, it is worlds apart from the definition conjured by Snowden, Pollock & Co. For, as Director Kimball noted in his annual report of 1887: 'The truth is ... that there is nothing to distinguish a pattern, as an authorized issue, from the U.S. Mint, from a Proof coin; a pattern piece being simply an earlier specimen or Proof from a newly adopted coinage die or dies as already defined.' ... And again, "The specific provisions above cited (i.e., the 'Instructions and Regulations etc."), inhibiting the issue, and prescribing the narrow limits for the striking, of pieces from coinage and experimental dies, contained in all subsequent editions of Instructions and Regulations, were in that (1874) edition first prescribed.'
"In 1910, the director of the Mint summed up the case against patterns as follows: 'Since the passage of this act in 1873 there has been no authority of law for the distribution of experimental or pattern pieces, and any such pieces as have been removed from the Mint have been taken without authority. No title has been passed to any individual and the pieces are still the property of the United States.'
"That the distribution of 'patterns'-and false metal patterns at that-nevertheless continued within the circle of the elect, is a fact well documented by the archives ....
"In 1887, the director of the Mint, writing on the subject of false metal emissions, stated: 'How far the sanction of this Bureau may be presumed to have been found for the production and private issue of trial and experimental pieces in soft metal and otherwise since 1873-in direct contravention of the instructions and regulations prescribed by the director of the Mint and approved by the secretary of the Treasury-the files and records of this Bureau disclose. Not even this degree of sanction can be found for the production of pieces in soft metal other than trial or experimental pieces-properly so called. No false metal pieces seem ever to have been required by this Bureau since its organization in 1873, or to have been sanctioned, if at all, as a matter of record. Indeed, it can hardly be believed that any useful or important purpose could ever have been subserved by the production of such extremely illegitimate pieces.'
"As we have seen, the Revised Statutes of 1873 left little room for doubt as to the status of the so-called' cabinet coins.' The public distribution, which had been conceived and fostered under the affectionate care of Director Pollock, thus came to an abrupt end. As for the private distribution it went on as usual, with the one difference that it required now a certain element of discretion. As a result, some of the most interesting transactions of this period remained undisclosed for many years thereafter."