Mint Director James Ross Snowden's Comments On Varieties

James Ross Snowden was US Mint Director 1853-1861 so he held that office when coin collecting first became popular. (Coin collecting by the general public really took off when Large Cents were discontinued in 1857.)

I ran across this interesting quote by Dir. Snowden from 1860 regarding coin varieties. He did not appreciate the importance passionate collectors place on an added berry, a missing leaf or a small date.

There you have it - variety collectors are selfish (according to Dir. Snowden).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting!
I don't feel too attracted to many of the errors/varieties.
However coins like the wide / narrow AM pennies and the
special editions like the Bicentennials and the more recent
State Quarters, the nickels, the upcoming cents and the
Sac $s sure are very interesting varieties to collect.
I'm definitely not attracted to waffle cuts!

 

It takes all kinds , evidently Mr.Snowden , wasn't a very tolerant man .
rzage

 

Those were crazy times at the mint. Snowden had his hands full as director. Im thinking he traded a lot of important coins to the public for other coins and medals to improve the mint cabinet. I always thought that was cool. These same years the Eckfeldt family were at the mint.
It's possible the night watchman in 1857 didn't share Snowden's opinion on varieties.

 

Snowden may have seemed a bit extreme but I can't honestly say I completely disagree with his attitude towards people who get a little too obsessed about every single variety of coins... some of the differences between different "varieties" have often seemed too ridiculously minuscule to me to be worth bothering to notice. Unless it's a fairly dramatic difference, I have a hard time seeing what's so interesting about variety differences, but I guess that's why for the most part I stick to collecting by type.

 

I agree with him. Has always seemed a bit silly to me but I find a lot of things silly in this hobby...like very soft cotton cloth harming very hard metal.

 

Snowden has a lot of hutzpah calling anyone selfish considering all the games he played as director of the mint.

 

Hobo:
Thank you for posting.
Very interesting tidbit of history.
:thumb:

 

Brain Drain......................

This just goes to show you what a snob this guy was. Govenment officials are always trying to force some elite system of morality on those who truly innovate. This kind of mentality is like a tax on virtue.

I am not a variety collector myself, but more power to those who are. If you have the patients and the expertise to catalog, indentify, and find rare varieties you should be rewarded.

Anyone who agrees with this guy is most likely a lazy slimebag who doesn't want someone else to have something they themselves cannot get or do not have the ambition to get.

To top it all off he was dead wrong, because varieties have become a big part of US coin collecting, and are now etched into it's history.

 

what is innovative about collecting varieties? How should they be rewarded? We bake them a cake? Or they should get 200 bucks for a modern penny because the letters are space a minute amount further from the norm or some such thing? Well if people will pay that, more power to them...but there is nothing innovative about it and certainly no reward is needed...isnt collecting and the thrill reward enough? :lol:

yes...you hit it the nail right on the head there...if you agree with him you are 'a lazy slimebag!!'...er....lacking ambition....

 

...which makes them no different from many of us human beings !

But seriously folks... Snowden mentioned the history of coins of the US. I can see how he might feel that the history tie-in was independent of micro-varieties. Maybe he felt one could learn enough history looking at the coinage "big picture".

But maybe there are some things Snowden missed !

Using varietal micro-differences is how some very clever people have deduced what was happening 200 years ago.

When I read books, especially Breen, I'm amazed at what people can figure out looking at coins. It's kind of like Sherlock Holmes. Or like paleontologists figuring out what life was like 200 million years ago looking at the fossil record - which is incomplete, just like the coinage record.

 

I tend to agree with Snowden, although I wouldn't have used the word selfish and if he thought about it he probably could have come up with a better term too. He probably should have left the word out and just said the desire to own something unique no matter how artificial the detail that defines the uniqueness. While a very pronounced double-die is different enough to make something collectible for that reason alone, most varieties don't rise to this level in my opinion and are no different than a unique toning pattern. Maybe another way to put it is to say that varieties are interesting but probably not worth paying for.

 

First of all a reward can come from many places. In this case it could be personal satisfaction, or the market could reward them when they sell their coin. Since there is a market for variety coins this could be a driving factor for individuals to collect such speciments in the first place.

I never suggested that anyone do anything for them, or that they should be rewarded by others. On the contrary your efforts will reward themselves. It is called success. You might want to study this a little.

"isnt collecting and the thrill reward enough?" -- Your comment is much the same as the mint director's comment about selfishness. Who are you to define what kind of reward is enough? Your morality is selfishness in and of itself.

 

The above sounds to me like a very colorful explanation of why variety collecting is innovative.

in·no·va·tion Audio Help /ˌɪnəˈveɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-uh-vey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.something new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum. 2.the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.
in·no·vate Audio Help /ˈɪnəˌveɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-uh-veyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -vat·ed, -vat·ing. –verb (used without object) 1.to introduce something new; make changes in anything established. –verb (used with object)

 

You said they should be rewarded...it was a general statement made by you...how was I supposed to know what you meant, how in you mind you think they should be rewarded...since these people are so innovative and you claim they should be rewarded...I thought maybe you expected us to carry them on our shoulders or bake them a cake. Here I just though they were just another type of coin collector. I had no idea they were breaking new ground!! Innovating if you will.

I am not one to define what is reward enough nor have I ever said I was...and morals have little if anything at all to do with the subject. You make absurd statements, extreme hyperbole at best.

I have NEVER said people shouldn't collect exactly what they want to collect and if someone rewards them with money or whatever they feel is rewarding about the endeavor, more power to them.

I personally dont care to do it, do not see a need to do it, would not enjoy doing it, not because I am lazy as much as it would bore me as its not interesting or important to me in the least. I do not think its innovative or teaches us anything more about the time, history, or anything other than the fact that there was a very slight change or mistake made....nothing more, nothing less. If people like to catalog, record and collect such things, that is their right and its my right not to see it as important. I agree with Cloudsweeper when he said I wouldnt use the word 'selfish' as I think that is a bit harsh (like you) and feel he probably could have, and maybe would have if given a second thought, worded it better.

I will refrain from flailing about, striking out at anyone who doesnt agree with me by saying you have a moral problem or if you dont agree with me you are a 'SLIMBAG' and say enough said on this matter...:headbang:

 

First of all variety collecting does add something new to coin collecting, even if variety collecting itself is not new, new varieties are found often. Therefore, variety collecting is innovative (not my opinion, Daniel Webster's).

You say it does not add to history...... I am not a variety collector, but if you read about varieties it oviously adds much to history especially when it comes to operations at the various mints, and more....

I share your sentiments when it comes to the lack of desire to be a variety collector; however, I was never making a case for my emotional attachment to coin varieties. Rewards should, and do come to those who put forth directed effort, otherwise effort would be fruitless in all endevours, and therfore worthless.

I will not get into your accusations of generalities, me making absurd statements, or have ideas that are extreme hyperbole.

Since you made negative comments about variety collecting, and then proved in your own words you have no idea what you are talking about I have no reason to refute your statements.

Your comments that it does not add to coin collecting, is not innovative, or adds no historical narrative proves without a doubt all your arguments lack actual facts.

Slimebag was the wrong thing to say... It was not my intention to put anyone down, and I see how that comment was uneeded.

 

Thats your opinion...its not like I have never read about varieties. I simply came to the conclusion that it contributed little I found worthwhile. This does not mean all must bend to my opinions on this matter...its just an opinion that obviously differs from your own.

Rewards should, and do come to those who put forth directed effort, otherwise effort would be fruitless in all endeavors, and therefore worthless.

This statement just does not make any sense. Simply because effort is put forth does not mean rewards will be forth coming or that it is worthwhile...that doesnt mean other efforts will not be rewarding simply because this one isnt, its not a case of all or nothing and black and white... If one endeavor proves not to be worthwhile or rewarding, that doesnt mean ALL endeavors would be fruitless...nor are all endeavors worthwhile simply because you put effort into it, some fail, others succeed but bring no reward.

Also, if ANYTHING new that is introduced is an innovation and there are no other requirements to be called innovative like it being positive or important...then I guess it was innovative quite some time ago when people first started searching, collecting and cataloging varieties. Also that means innovation is not always worthwhile, good, positive, or worth keeping but can also be either unimportant or negative. For instance I would never have characterized 'new coke' as innovative as it was a huge failure an most people simply did not like it. Under that strict definition I guess it would be innovative thus one would need to qualify innovation as something that is either important or beneficial innovation (good), negative (bad) innovation, and possibly innovations that are, on the whole, inconsequential...I would say the subject we are discussing would be the later...

These are just opinions of course and I am not trying to be insulting...I am sure some people dont care for the way I approach collecting, and certainly there are MANY people who dont care or understand why people collect coins at all!! I simply agreed with the original thought expressed by Mr. Snowden (though I dont think selfish was the right wording) and didnt think I was a 'slimebag' for agreeing with him...

 

Spirited debate is good, and leaves us all better off. I think you read more into what I say, than what I actually said. I probably do the same to you as well, as we all come from somewhere different, and therefor have a different frame of reference. However; I never said people are always rewarded when they put forth effort. What I said was that people are rewarded for effort. The opposite of that statement is that they are not rewarded,(go to the word otherwise in my statement) if this were the case ALL effort would be worthless.

Anyways.... I know where you are coming from, but in this case I was trying to defend people who are variety collectors. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but I appreciate the spirited debate!

 

Personally, I never could understand the appeal of varieties, and errors counted as varieties, such as the 55 DD cent. I was always happy just to fill a hole with a coin of the date and mint required without regard to minute differences that no one could see without a measuring loupe or microscope.

When you consider that the Bust Half series with a 29 year run and with no mint varieties has a total of 453 recognized varieties ( http://www.busthalfdollar.com/ ) then I think things have gotten a little out of hand.

I haven't counted totals for other denominations but when you consider die variations, die combinations, overdates, large letters, small letters, large dates, small dates, double dies, die clashes, lettering positions, off centers, planchet errors, proofs, patterns, etc., where do you draw the line? Do you collect every possible combination, or only some of them? Which ones do you focus on?

Although I no longer collect because of the theft of my collections, I had decided to make my life easier by simply collecting by date and mint with no regard to any error or variety. I never felt that I was missing something.

 

Personally I think one would have to devote an awful lot of time and resources to collect all the die varieties, and a strategy like this would not allow me to be very diversified as I do not spend that kind of money.

I think this arose precisely because some people had already collected all they could collect with types, dates, mint marks et cetera. Naturally, to broaden their horizons it was neccessary to study coins further than what had already been done. The result ended up being that some die varieties made were rare.

I have even heard suggested now that their is a big move into paper money collecting because all the horizons have been reached in coins. The idea that there is nothing new to do is troubling to some.