1840 Durango Pattern?

AND it has the "O.M." assayer mark of Zacatecas, not Durango. That's a contemp ctft. - an interesting one. I hear there's this guy out there who collects them kind of casually...

Realswatcher, very interesting article. Roman, looks like you have one of the coins described in Kent's article. Be interesting if you could post some clear pictures and weight/size information for us when you actually obtain the coin.

A friend specializing in the series posted this on another forum:




Here's the link to the Heritage one sold last year:

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...&lotNo=25311

Regardless of whether I won the auction or not, this was an interesting lesson so far.

Received an email confirming I was the highest bidder. I will post dimensions, better images of all 3 sides, and SG once I receive it.

Great coin - Congratulations - I have been hunting for onr for YEARS.

realeswatcher Yes in both cases.

That the 1840 coin was most likely a pattern of sorts makes complete sense to me and it is very well known that the Soho facility and others in Birmingham, England did make unrequested patterns for many different countries while attempting to sell their expertise as die makers. The original intent was not to make counterfeits for circulation.

But a pattern for any coinage is normally required to have been produced in response to some form of "request" to do so by the governing agency responsible for coinage. I am unaware that any researcher has located the supporting documentation to prove that the coin in question was a "requested" therefore authorized pattern. In 1840 the Durango mint was still operated under lease by Bras de fer and since he used French hubs in 1832 it is very likely he was shopping again.

But in many places, producing such an unrequested or unauthorized "pattern" could be considered a crime if the coins in fact reached circulation. The coins would then become de-facto counterfeits regardless of the actual original intent of manufacture.

So the non-fraudulent purpose of the original production does not make the coin an "authorized" pattern - that is another issue entirely. The status of the 1840 absent the written proof that it was considered to be a pattern contemporaneously or was actually requested by Mexican mint authorities - leaves us somewhere between Pattern and Counterfeit. This is an area which has no actually well accepted name.

So, while I think an answer in the affirmative should be considered absolutely the correct answer because I believe the coin was meant as a pattern for a proposed coinage in Durango - I could not oppose an interpretation of counterfeit should circulated off metal strikes be encountered in significant numbers (relative to known mintage - which here is a very low number).

The second question has a much clearer answer. Yes, I have seen a crude copy of this coin which was obviously made to capitalize on the rarity of date. The coin was in a collection of counterfeits and I only briefly examined it. But it was a poor excuse for a pattern. The primary purpose of a pattern is to demonstrate the capabilities of the maker as a die sinker. It is, therefore, not a crude rendering like a concept trial by an artist. The coin was clearly cast and lacked fine details.

That "odd" counterfeit was what drove me to research this date in the first place perhaps 15 years ago.

So as in ALL CASES where a rare item is involved - be CAUTIOUS but not paranoid.

Finally received it in-hand. SG of 8.44, which sounds about right for silver plated bronze. Same crazy rotation as the coin in the Heritage auction and the same die markers. Going to shoot some close-up pics before sending it in to NGC to get into a holder.

Pics will be posted shortly. Very neat coin.