• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Should the ANA’s highest award be named for a "scoundrel?"

23 posts in this topic

The highest honor conferred by the ANA, the Farran Zerbe Memorial Award is given in recognition of numerous years of outstanding, dedicated service to numismatics.

 

Farran Zerbe was, evidently, less than popular with Mint of Treasury personal, and thought of as someone waiting to "put one over" on others. His ANA dealings seem “tainted” and other than his traveling curiosities show, he appears to have had minimal positive impact on the hobby of numismatics.

 

The suggestion has been made to the ANA Board that the ANA’s highest award be renamed in honor of Eric P. Newman, as one who continues to embody the highest standards of scholarship and ethics. Having heard nothing on the subject, I’m wondering if the suggestion fell on deaf ears?

 

I’m wondering what others think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should not name awards after people. It can only cause problems as no one is universally liked and perfect. I say that without knowing Mr. Newman. How about they start a Walter Breen Young Numismatist of the Year Award?

 

Based on the wiki article, Farran Zerbe seems to have been a good supporter of numismatics and the ANA.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality, I did not know who Zerbe was until the internet explosion and the coin chat boards took off. I guess one reason is, I never attended any auctions where a "Zerbe Proof" was being offered, then again I probably would have went to the rest room when the 1921 Morgans were being auctioned anyways...I don't collect them.

 

Since I am also not a member of the ANA, nobody gives a hoot about what I think anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about they start a Walter Breen Young Numismatist of the Year Award?

 

Now that is truly sick! :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about they start a Walter Breen Young Numismatist of the Year Award?

 

 

Oh, ouch.

 

See children, that's what we call irony.

 

lol

 

Why? What did Walter Breen do?

 

Shirley you jest :gossip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The highest honor conferred by the ANA should be the chris cipolitti

Memorial Award given in recognition of numerous years of outstanding service to numismatics

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about they start a Walter Breen Young Numismatist of the Year Award?

 

 

Oh, ouch.

 

See children, that's what we call irony.

 

lol

 

Why? What did Walter Breen do?

 

Twice convicted pedophile who died in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hobby has a number of not-so-nice people. Wasn't Dr. William Sheldon a psychologist who believed in eugenics (people mating for the genetics to "properly" perpetuate the species)? I also believe that many of his theories were invalidated following his death in the 1970s.

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheldon may have be a eugenicist I don't know, frankly I don't care (I see nothing wrong with the idea, the implimentation is the problem.) A great many intellegent and powerful people back then were eugenicist advocates and were until after Hitler's methods of implimentation soured everyone on the concept and made eugenics a bad word..

 

And Sheldon's theories were invalidated long befor his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once worked for Robert Klark Graham of American Eugenics fame. I was an engineer for a couple of years at Armorlite Lens Co. which he owned, along with partners. He sired over 450 children as a result of his sperm bank through Mensa and from various marriages, supposedly justified by the superiority of eugenics. He was associated with eugenics groups and Mensa for most of his life. His own children did not turn out very well and certainly most were not geniuses, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once worked for Robert Klark Graham of American Eugenics fame. I was an engineer for a couple of years at Armorlite Lens Co. which he owned, along with partners. He sired over 450 children as a result of his sperm bank through Mensa and from various marriages, supposedly justified by the superiority of eugenics. He was associated with eugenics groups and Mensa for most of his life. His own children did not turn out very well and certainly most were not geniuses, however.

 

That's largely because of the huge effect of the environment on genetic predispositions. There have been several studies showing that certain environmental cues can trigger physiological and biochemical reactions that result in epigenetic effects. For instance, there was one study on rats that demonstrated that licking or caressing from the mother resulted in DNA methylation (read as silencing) of certain genes that predisposed the rats to aggression (I believe).

 

Second, I wonder who the mother was, and certainly any genes related to intelligence would likely be autosomal meaning that each parent has two alleles. Perhaps only one of those has intelligence, so in order to "perfect" his plan, Klark would have had to bred several generations to end up with homozygotes that would unequivocally transfer the gene of interest. This would take a lot of time and resources including money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheldon may have be a eugenicist I don't know, frankly I don't care (I see nothing wrong with the idea, the implimentation is the problem.) A great many intellegent and powerful people back then were eugenicist advocates and were until after Hitler's methods of implimentation soured everyone on the concept and made eugenics a bad word..

 

And Sheldon's theories were invalidated long befor his death.

 

I fully agree. Isn't partner selection a form of eugenics? Look at animals in nature; animals that have disabilities or abnormal traits that reduce reproductive fitness or survival are often shunned and unable to find mates. It all boils down to genes (and epigenetics).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No selective breeding program reaches it's goal in a single generation. It takes multiple generations with continued selection for reinforcement of the desired trait and elimination of the "culls". (When I say elimination I am not meaning it in the literal sense, just that you stop using them as part of the breeding program.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Graham was a rather cold and distant individual and I would guess that behavior trait created an environment which did not bring out the best and brightest in his children. He was not exactly a loving involved parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of the supposed story that the physics nobel prize winner William Shockley would refer to his son as "regression toward the mean". An interesting side note is that Shockley had an interest in eugenics and was actually connected to one of Graham's later projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites