Jefferson Nickel 1938 Pattern Coin

As requested elsewhere (by Paddy), I promised to post the Jefferson Nickel 1938 Pattern Coin.

The story goes that the Treasury Department decided to have an open competition for the redesign of the nickel in 1938. As we all know Felix Schlag won the competition and his design is the one that we see on our current nickel coinage.

Now for the rest of the story (or a part of it). Apparently 390 artists submitted designs for the competition. One of those, was Karel Hejda, a Dutch designer.

In 1994 Stacks auctioned off two 11" uniface plaster models that were identified (by Stacks) as from the designer Karel Hejda that had been submitted for the competition. The models were unsigned, as required by the committee's rules, per Stacks.
The auction results were that the plasters sold for $4,180.

As the story goes (per Coincraft of London) a European dealer purchased the plasters and had dies produced (reduced) from them. and had 1,998 pieces of proof quality, sterling silver strikes made in honor of the 60th anniversary of the competition.

In 2002 the firm still had a few pieces left for sale at 34.50 pounds [about $62+ in US $.]

The pictures below are a sample of the coin that never was.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

FYI:
The dots to the top right of Monticello, under America are not damage, they are a part of the design.

 

Pics of the inspection

Great post Treashunt, I never knew that. Here is a pic of the plaster models being inspected for judging. Washington, D.C., April 20. Prominent and obscure sculptors from all over the country have entered models in the competition being conducted by the Treasury Department, Procurement Division, to select a design for a new five-cent coin to be known as the "Jefferson Nickel". Mrs. Nellie Tayloe Ross, (right) Director of the Mint, and Edward Bruce Chief, Treasury Dept. Procurement Division, Section of Painting and Sculpture, a few of the 390 models entered. A prize of $1,000 will be awarded to the winner, 4/20/38
"Original photo from Library of Congress, this version provided by Roger Burdette"

 

Thanks for sharing Frank! It's interesting to see another possible design. Do you know of where I could find the other 389 designs that were submitted?

 

That's pretty neat, I almost like that design better.

 

Actually, I do not.

But I will search for some and let you know.

Noost: Thanks for posting. Great picture.

snaz:
On second thought: Yes I do!
check your change, and now only 288 to go!

 

Very cool post Frank! Thanks!

 

Ooooooooooo, nice!
Something not often seen by the average collector.

 

:bow: Great post Frank! Thanks for digging it out and shooting it ...posting etc.. Now am I to wonder if this is one of the first state NICKELS? LOL it's got Va. on her. I must say I love to own one as you know I collect nickels. However Personaly I can see why the Schlag design won! It is very funky looking design. It almost looks like ... Jefferson is on steroids......! I do wonder if you could find any pictures or documents on the other designs that were entered? Mmmmm I'm going to do some research ....to see what else I can find on other designers who entered designs. Frank great post and thanks for your post last week...keep up the good work! Paddy

 

That date would have worn off so fast in circulation.

 

Are you sure thats not Robin Williams from MORK?

 

lol you're right!

 

And then they had him make so many changes to the design that the final result wound up being a very close copy of a design submtted by another artist.

 

The item posted as Jefferson nickel “pattern” is not a pattern or experimental coin. It is a privately made medal prepared from plaster models sold at auction. Coin auction companies typically are not expert in art attribution, so one should be very cautions when a plaster model is attributed to so-and-so sculptor. Whether or not the artist’s heirs were consulted is unknown. If the artist can be identified, then rights to the design belong to the heirs.

All of the contestant’s letters are in the National Archives. A few of these have drawings or photos from which one can deduce what the submitter’s design looked like. Contestants were given the option of paying for return of the models (in advance) or having them destroyed after the competition. Most were destroyed.

There are similar fantasy and imaginary design tokens for other designs and other denominations.

 

very cool guys! I'm going to have to put something on VN about this thread.

Noost - do you know if that pic' is copyrigthed?...or do you have a link so I can check out about posting it on my website?

Speedy

 

Being extremely technical, yes, the piece presented is not a pattern, as we normally understand the terminology.

As presented in the past, and as per Judd, a pattern is that which was produced as a proposed design, in various medals, with the possible intent that the 'coin' would be put into production for the intent of circulating. The Judd patterns were all created by the US mint, and as such are accepted as patterns today.

The plaster casts as produced (here) were proposed designs, and the company that paid for the reduction and production of the dies was a private company.

Therefore, it (the piece) is not an authorized pattern as understood in normal coin collecting circles. However, if a plaster model is created and a reduction lathe is utilized to create a die from the original cast, then one may, with a small amount of license, utilize the term 'pattern'.

Additionally, yes, auction catalogues are not the final word in research. They do make mistakes, and are not error free. However, we, as collectors, have to depend upon some source of information, until better data arrives to correct any mistakes in the information as presented.

 

My comments were not “being extremely technical,” rather, they are presented for the sake of accurately describing the token pictured with the post. There were hundreds of “proposed designs” including Schlag’s – only Schlag’s final version with the facing view of Monticello was ever struck as pattern or experimental pieces.

Calling the privately made token a “pattern” dupes collectors into thinking it had some sort of official US Mint role in the design of the Jefferson nickel. This is deceptive and misleading – common attributes of marketing types.

Associating this token with Schlag’s design seems disingenuous and does nothing but confuse collectors. The token, and others like it, stand or fall on their own merit.

 

Please see link:

EDITED -

Mods: I hope that this is okay. - Frank: as far as I know, that wouldn't be allowed since it is you, yourself posting it....

 

oops, please delete.

 

Spencer I had Frank post these pictures of the copy of one of the 1938 artist designs of their version of a Jefferson nickel. Ask Frank he took the pictures and posted them. Have you finished looking at the pictures I sent you?
Paddy