Coins and numismatics

Just got my Red Book covering Mercury dimes, SLQs, and Walking Liberty halves. Came across an interesting quote from the January, 1941 issue of The Numismatist that reminds me of some of the things we get here.

"They must be shown the greater values in the hobby than the mere collecting of dates and mintmarks from circulation. If the hobby had nothing but dates and insignificant letters to offer it would not be the fascinating science the real numismatist considers it to be."

And then Q. David Bowers adds this comment: "This plea was to no avail. Most new collectors were primarily interested in rarity and value, not in the art and science of numismatics."

Interesting, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yeah, somewhat....beginners are going to be focused on the "easy" stuff like rarity and value. As you get more experienced, you focus on the minute things like mintmarks, die cracks, etc.

I'm reading about those in Roger Burdette's outstanding book on Saint-Gaudens DE's....after a while, you think the emphasis on some of the more trivial differences is somewhat over-the-top (not his book, the focus on tiny differences). It's somewhat analaogous to calling a brand new car model which has scratches on the undercoat a Special Performance Model. OK, maybe a bit of hyperbole, but you get the idea.

I find mintmark double-strikes, major movements of the mark, and unique die cracks/breaks interesting. A slight squibbley line crack that you can't see but under 10x magnificiation or the angle of an "S" mintmark also needing magnificaiton is not something I think most want to focus on.

But that could just be me....

 

Rarity smarity! Just show me the money! What is my mint error with road rash, die cracks and machine doubling worth. That's all most of them care about. ~ Chris

 

In a society where money carries prestige, or at least the appearance of it, that idea will trickle down into collectibles as people strive to own "valuable" things. This syndrome has effected just about every hobby imaginable, from coins to stamps to sports cards to action figures and even fine art. Everyone wants to know "what's it worth?!?" This just comes from our economic fundamentalist culture and the so-called "honor" or "glory" of "owning" things that others want and are willing to pay loads of money for. Not to mention that owning something valuable and rare carries the side effect of making the owner look wealthy and distinguished as well. Most people respect and identify with monetary value, so ownership can convey "bragging rights." They can tell their friends and, if something becomes valuable enough, even tell the press. It's an inherent part of the rewards system in our society, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that this happens and that it will continue to happen. In some ways, we've even confused the value of human beings with the value of things. And some, not all, people strive to increase their "value" by owning "valuable" things. This likely won't change unless our fundamental values change, which they may or may not. Who knows?

 

I have collected a few date and mint mark sets in my time, but by in large I have become a very diverse collector. Some people say I have no direction, but they are wrong. Most anything that gets my collection has a story, and that's what draws me to the hobby.

I have posted some of those stories here. I have written many more.

 

The more things change, the more things stay the same. Of course, the initial collecting phase is the gateway to getting people more interested in the things they're collecting.

I wonder what his interest in the art and science of numismatics was when he started out as a teenage dealer in 1950. He had to be concerned primarily with rarity and value then, too. Would his comment had been more complete and insightful had he said, "Most new collectors, myself included, ...?" Of course, rarity and value is a lot more flashy and highly regarded than art and science, and this goes well beyond the field of numismatics.

 

must. fill. holes.

 

Speaking of things that teens are obsessed with...

 

Oh give me a break - if you take rarity and value out of the equation Q. David Bowers's interest in the art and science of numismatics would wain considerably. As it would with 99.9% of us involved in the hobby.

 

Just teens?

 

Maybe for most, but not for me. I have a small Civil War token collection of perhaps a couple hundred pieces. The big collections have 5,500 + tokens in them. I know collectors who won’t touch a Civil War token that has a rarity rating that is below R-8. All they collect is the rare stuff.

There are so many interesting pieces that are common and have neat pictures or slogans on them. Those guy don’t know what they are missing.

 

And this is precisely why I stopped collecting by the notion of a “set”. It was super boring and constricting.

The US coin market sets itself up for that, or really any market for modern (post-1700) coinage. The most common literature available are just price guides which give superficial numismatic information at best and primarily focus on a coin’s mintage and value at a particular grade level. The introduction of TPGs into the equation solidified it as such.

For modern coinage, yes, because modern coins are largely a commodity. Ancients/medievals collectors would still pursue their collections because the idea of a collection is far more free-range. In addition, when looking up the coins, you will come across more in-depth numismatic information than in just a price guide. It is natural to become more interested in the art and science of numismatics as a result.

QDB’s collection was hugely diverse, spanning from US, to ancient China, to medieval Europe. He got a taste of numismatics that 99.9% of collectors of just US coins would never experience.

 

Currency has always been about the art and history for me and has never been about the value save that i must spend some to get a piece that interests me and I want to research and write about. Rarity is interesting to me as well but only when it comes to the research.

I consider myself a generalist as everything about currency I find interesting from the mining and substrate to the people who etch the die and mint them... save the buying and selling. I have no interest in trading in coins and have never sold one. I just like what I like. So I find common coins just as interesting as rare old gems so what I own is quite eclectic.

I have never really seen myself as a collector just to amass a collection as much as acquiring those specimens that I want to present to people as interesting examples of this human endeavour. I see money much like art, they are human creations and as such they are also a subject of study. Art history, history and numismatics are all closely linked.

That is not to say my own taste do not dictate what I study most. German states, post WWI Germany, Roman, Holy Roman Empire, crusades, general world, mostly older. Just like historians might be interested in one or two aspects of history more than others. They still have studied all of history to get that degree and even if they weren't interested in the topic, if they are like me they were surprised to find they ended up interested after a semester. I did not think I would be interested in the History of Colonial Latin America when I took it for the credits....now it is something I am very interested in, I was fascinated to learn about it more in depth. Same with currency....at first I just cared about Roman coins which was my first passion tied to my first passion in history....then I bought a notgeld because it interested me and now I have a large sampling of notgeld.

 

I wouldn't classify mint marks as minute nor would I say that you have to focus more on die cracks from experience. A mint mark is a major thing and often times is just as important if not more import than the date. You can see this on coins of all types.

Die cracks can be interesting, so can varieties and all that. You don't have to be into them though as you get more experienced and many just do not care. There's so many minute varieties out there on things, I personally don't care about any that I have to use magnification to see but if others enjoy it I'm certainly happy for them.

 

If you created an annual book on coins, then what would you include if not rarity and price ?

You'd lose tons of interest except for the hard-core, full-time numismatist, no ?

I think Louis Eliasburg collected 1 of every coin ever minted by the United States. Not sure if anybody has done it since.

 

Coin collector =/= numismatist. The former just accumulates and fills holes, while the latter studies the coins and their context to learn more about them. The former has no need for the extra info, and they outnumber the latter by far.

I don’t see the point you are trying to make. Eliasburg’s collection was huge and impressive, but it was quite largely dictated by filling holes in a set. As a result, many argue that Eliasburg was never truly a numismatist.

 

I tend to agree with this. Numismatist need not collect. I seldom buy coins these days however that is because I collected a lot before and I buy very selectively here and there but never sell.

I am not concerned about filling holes, grading, errors or the coin market but those people who, say, seek to collect all the coins of Septimius Severus (a form of filling holes) and catalogs all the coin types they collect will inevitably become an expert on those coins and may contribute to the larger body of knowledge about the coinage of Rome and that ruler. Collectors, even those who hyper focus on a goal like filling holes, by sheer exposure become expert to a point over time and I would say an expert in some area of currency is a numismatist.

I think, like art history, numismatics should be a formal academic area of study and inquiry as, like art, it is a human endeavour that is ubiquitous in human experience.

The way I see it is all collectors inevitably become some form of a numismatist after enough experience however it is not necessary for a numismatist to collect.

 

The takeaway I got from the quotes I posted was that back in 1941 what they saw then is what we are seeing today. Newbies and those who claim to have been in the hobby for some time still come here wanting us to verify the preconceived idea of their coin's value/rarity and may care nothing beyond that.

 

I think there are one or two getting close, but no one will ever duplicate the feat because at least one of the unique coins from the Eliasberg collection is now permanently impounded in a museum collection.

This is something a great many people do not understand. They think "Coin collector" is synonymous with "Numismatist"

 

He had a lot of other stuff as well if you really go with the matching his collecting. The proofs filling wholes thing too complicates it, but really how someone defines what is trying to be matched if probably the most important comparison which at least one person is very close.

Any talk about which is better is a whole different rabbit hole