Noted Numismatist's Thoughts on Commemorative Coins in 1923

[leeg]

Before the onslaught of early commemoratives in the 1930's, Thomas L. Elder, Julius Guttag and Farran Zerbe had these thoughts about the series in 1923:

 

 

Image courtesy of The Numismatist.

 

“American collectors are, I think, fast awakening to the fact that souvenir gold dollars and half dollars which have been offered to them during the last few years by the hundreds of thousands, at from 100 to 200 per cent, premium, are a modernized and systematized sort of numismatic swindle. The writer for one is going to keep on emphasizing this point until the practice of overcharging is stopped. I do not mean that the practice of issuing souvenir coins should be stopped. Far from it. The output, while a good deal of it is of indifferent value from an art standpoint, is valuable for historical purposes, and for adding character to our national coinage. I have always advocated the issuance of such coins. But the manifest unfairness of these expositions and centennial committees in expecting the collectors and the public to pay such enormous advances over the face value of the pieces while issuing them by the hundreds of thousands is an imposition pure and simple. It is my intention to keep hammering against this injustice until these committees get some common-sense into their heads.

 

The souvenir coins which have had the greatest demand and which at the present time command the very best premiums are those gold dollars which we issued at from $1.65 to $2 apiece, namely, those of the Portland Centennial and the Pan-Pacific Exposition. This proves my argument. The McKinley Memorial dollars of 1916 and 1917 and the Grant issues seem to have gone dead recently; at any rate, the writer has found this to be true. In the case of the half dollars, there does not seem to be any disposition on the part of collectors to pay nearly the issuing price of one dollar. The Pilgrim half dollars and those of the Maine Centennial have also gone to seed, and there is little demand for either of them. Unless it is stopped, this tagging on of exorbitant prices over the face value of coins, the collectors have an infallible way of stopping it themselves.

 

The writer, serving on a Committee on United States Coins, has often advocated that numismatic societies lend their voices to the appeal for the issuance of these souvenir coins, commemorating important events or national characters, but the societies have not always lent their aid to such suggestions. This indifference on their part will not prevent his doing things and saying things which he believes to be of real help and benefit to numismatic progress in the United States. Inasmuch as these recommendations have not been adopted, I am very glad to submit them to the great body of collectors throughout the country for their information and possible help.

 

Let the centennial and exposition committees issue half dollars for not over 75 cents, and not over 25,000 of an issue; and gold dollars at not over $1.50 apiece, and not over 15,000 of an issue. Let these issues be made frequently and have them well advertised, and I predict the result will be Very gratifying to both the committees, the public and to collectors.

 

Possibly someone would raise the point that such a quantity of issue, and an offering at such retail prices, would not pay the centennial or exposition committees. There may be some truth to this supposition, and if my suggestions as to issue and prices were unacceptable, I would then suggest that the Government take over the issue and pass out the coins freely to the public at, say, $1.25 each for the gold dollars and 60 cents each for the half dollars, paying the centennial committee a fair percentage of the profits. If this were done, naturally the issue could be greatly increased without much danger of either a slump in the prices or a decrease in the demand for the coins.

 

Surely the exposition committees do very little in the way of consulting collectors as to the number of coins to be issued or as to the retail prices of them. All the evidence proves it, in regard to the manner of the recent selling of commemorative gold dollars and half dollars. The collectors have to take their stand in this matter. A reform such as has been outlined will eventually benefit the centennial committees, naturally, and prevent the eventuality of their having to resell thousands of these coins for far less than the advertised prices, or else to melt the gold dollars up for bullion, as has in more than one instance been done. Our cry, then, should be: “More Souvenir Coins at Moderate Prices.” Just in this connection we would like to see a good Roosevelt half dollar and a gold dollar bearing the head of Abraham Lincoln. The writer has advocated a Roosevelt coin time and again, but so far none has appeared.”

Courtesy The Numismatist, United States Souvenir Coins and Their Prices, by Thomas L. Elder, March, 1923, p. 107-108.

 

Image courtesy of Heritage Auctions.

 

“In the February issue of THE NUMIMATIST there appeared an article by Mr. Thomas L. Elder on ‘Constructive Numismatics,’ and ‘United States Souvenir Coins and Their Prices’ were discussed by him in the March issue. After reading Mr. Elder’s articles very carefully I find I do not agree with many of his remarks.

 

Although I agree with his statement that the general public is not as interested in numismatics as it was twenty or thirty years ago, my opinion as to the cause and remedy does not coincide with his. The principal reason for this lack of interest is the failure of the average dealer to give generous support to those whose interest in numismatics is just beginning to take root. Years ago the dealer gave freely of his knowledge and endeavored to educate the new collector as much as possible. Today many dealers make it their aim to keep the collector uninformed. During the past twenty years how many books or lists have been published by dealers? Outside of the books which Mr. Edgar H. Adams has issued, and through which interest in a new class of coins has been stimulated, practically nothing of import has been contributed to our numismatic libraries. If each and every dealer would show a live and honest interest in every new collector, encouraging him to join our Association, and perhaps the local numismatic club, I am sure it would not be long before a very live interest in numismatics would be revived. A glance through the list of members proposed, such as appears monthly in this magazine, will prove my previous statements. A few have proposed, say, half a dozen members; still fewer have proposed one or two members.

 

A campaign of education for the general public would certainly show worth-while results. A little pamphlet containing a history of coinage with the attractions of coin collecting could be printed. This could be circulated among high school and college students and to those who show even the slightest interest in coins. A small advertisement of something of this sort in the various magazines would also create interest in numismatics. While this would cost considerable, I feel sure the various clubs and societies, as well as the .N.A. members, would be very glad to contribute to such a movement.

 

Further, during the past few years so many coins and notes have been issued by countries throughout the world that I believe one drawback has been overcome. A boy who formerly became interested in “collecting” gave up the idea of coins and took to stamps. Why? Because in the beginning he wanted quantity. He was not sufficiently educated to go after the more interesting rarities. With the many new issues of small coins and notes, we are now in a position to give the small boy coins in quantity.

 

With reference to Mr. Elder’s remarks regarding ‘United States Souvenir Coins and Their Prices, I think $1 is a fair price for commemorative half dollars. I have had no trouble in selling 500 Maine halves and about 1000 Pilgrim pieces. I understand two or three hundred thousand Pilgrim halves were sold. Does this not show that the general public is interested in these coins? Of course, neither I nor any other true numismatist approves of any hold-up method in connection with the sale of any commemorative issue. With the proper publicity, at least 100,000 coins of any issue should be sold.

 

I do not think it is a time to be pessimistic. A little effort on the part of all of us to interest beginners is the thing most needed. Let our slogan be WORK. Our reward will be PLEASURE.”

Courtesy The Numismatist, Encouragement For The Young Collector, by Julius Guttag, April, 1923, p. 152-153.

 

 

Image courtesy of The Numismatist.

 

“Any criticism by numismatists of distribution methods in recent years of souvenir and commemorative coins of the United States should be with consideration of the conditions associated with their issue and sale.

 

All special coinages have been for celebration-fund or profit-producing purposes. The Government has had no control over their sale. Considerable expense attends sale and delivery, and no great quantity of any coin could be sold to produce a worth-while profit at less than 100 per cent, premium with allowance for discount for quantity. And the numismatic collector absorbs but a very small part of any special coin issue.

 

The greater part of the numerous issues in recent years have been sold in the vicinity with which the issue is associated, many purchased at a premium to help the cause rather than a desire to possess the coin. Merchants have purchased in quantity and as a business attraction have paid them out at face value in change to customers. Employers have bought good numbers and presented them to employees. Naturally, good supplies from this liberal distribution have gravitated towards the coin dealer at increasing prices, and the current market supplied slowly-moving stock has accumulated.

 

The life of a celebration of other special event committee is short and so far, with the exception noted below, without evidence of individual responsibility of obligation towards those who have purchased their coins at a premium, and, approaching the close of its affairs the coins remaining on hand are marketed as a lot at the best price obtainable, usually much less than their distribution price. Lower prices and dissatisfaction of purchasers soon follows.

 

Small premium does not insure the largest distribution and promise of greatest profit. More Louisiana Purchase gold dollars were sold at $3 each than any special gold dollar at any price, and they, with the Lewis and Clark gold dollars and all the Panama-Pacific coins, are all now catalogued as “scarce” and have been marketable at their cost price or more since their general sale closed, for the particular reason that the one in charge of their sale felt a price-protection obligation to every purchaser. None were sold for less than the price first established, and nay remainder, was turned to the Government and deminted.

 

We want special issues to continue. They have a good numismatic influence if they do not come too rapidly; but continued repetition of unsatisfactory experience by purchasers will lead to protest that may increase a new, not too friendly disposition of Congress coinage committees towards special coins.

 

But one price, and absolute maintenance of it, and destruction of all remainder, will enhance sale and produce and hold the favor that special coins should have if their issue is to be continued.

 

Farran Zerbe

 

Tyrone, Pa., March 7, 1923.

Courtesy The Numismatist, Protect Purchasers of Special Coins, April, 1923, p. 153.

 

 

 

“It pleased me to see that I awakened sufficient interest in the matter of souvenir coins by my recent article to bring letters from two well-known numismatists. Both Julius Guttag and Farran Zerbe I regard and value as my friends, and I respect their opinions. So this is not written with an idea of starting a controversy to bore the readers of THE NUMISMATIST. Contrary to the thoughts of a possible few, I want to be on friendly terms with all numismatists, feeling that nothing is so detrimental to numismatic growth as numismatic discord. Nevertheless, I have studied coins for many years, so that my opinions, whether others agree with them or not, must have some mite of wisdom about them. Mr. Guttag’s recommendations about a simple book on coins for beginners are an approval of the very ideas he says he did not agree with in my article. Did I not urge an academic, understandable treatise or pamphlet on the subject of the collecting of coins, to be sent to the heads of departments of colleges?

 

Since he thinks souvenir half dollars at $1 are not dear, and if he wishes to add further to his collection our recent issues of that great Civil War general, I can give him an address where he can get several hundred more at 74 cents per coin. How can anyone say that somebody is not badly stuck who bought those several hundred at $1 and offered them at less than 74 cents to the dealer who offered them to me in perfectly good faith? Might it not be that those centennial committees who find a large surplus of the coins on their hands offer some hundreds or thousands for a good deal less than we were forced to pay for them? I bought 1,000 Isabella quarter dollars from the Exposition Committee once for 40 cents each, and many others at 45 cents. The protection to purchasers advocated by Mr. Zerbe is not furthered by such methods as the above. I’ll admit if the surplus, not sold at full price, are remelted, that protects us to a certain extent, but only to a limited extent, in my humble opinion.

 

Mr. Guttag’s office is located in the financial district, where men who handle money every day of their lives pass and repass by the hundreds. Naturally they are interested in any new issue. It is a novelty. But the other coin dealers are not so located and did not, as a rule, sell the thousands of souvenir coins that he did. We had Grant half dollars in our window on 35th street until they were tarnished entirely black, and we sold precious few of them. They were looked at by thousands, yet twenty-five people did not buy in the months they were exhibited. Mr. Guttag says the “general public is not interested as much in numismatics as it was twenty years ago.” The public never was, and is not at the present time, interested in numismatics. It is interested to the extent of finding out whether a Buffalo nickel of 1913 has a premium or not, or whether a Columbus half dollar is worth a dollar or not? Our telephone tells us that fact several times every day. We do remember ever receiving a letter from a lay member of society, who knew nothing about numismatics, who wrote us an intelligent letter about a dozen coins in his possession. These illustrations I regard as a pretty fair index of the public’s knowledge of numismatics. And I do agree with Mr. Guttag that our slogan should be WORK, PROGRESS and OPTIMISM. Only in methods of achieving our objects do I differ from either Mr. Guttag or Mr. Zerbe.”

Courtesy The Numismatist, More On Souvenir U.S. Coins, by Thomas L. Elder, May, 1923, p. 200.

 

Enjoy

 

 

[RWB]

Of course, Zerbe fails to mention that he botched distribution of every commemorative he touched. I still do not know why the ANA has its top award named for the charlatan. (It should be named after someone of good character and high ethical standards – maybe Eric P. Newman.)

[wdrob]

.. I see some things do not change even with a great passage of time.

 

Nice read. Thanks!

[BillJones]

Of course, Zerbe fails to mention that he botched distribution of every commemorative he touched. I still do not know why the ANA has its top award named for the charlatan. (It should be named after someone of good character and high ethical standards – maybe Eric P. Newman.)

 

I agree with you that using Zerbe's name for the top ANA award is a bad joke. But then again this is the ANA, and given its checkered past, having a charlatan's name used for its top award is really appropriate.

 

From what I've read noted numismatists of the period did not respect Mr. Zerbe. I think that his name appears on this award because he saved The Numismatist magazine from extinction at one point.

[DWLange]

Naming the ANA's top honor after Zerbe was merely a matter of timing. The award was established right after his death, and this event was in the minds of ANA board members. Also, the attacks of Zerbe's character and practices were forgotten by most ANA members of 1950-51. As so often is the case, name recognition carried more weight than the individual's true value to the organization.

 

As far as Zerbe saving The Numismatist, this is misleading. He purchased it from George Heath's widow in 1908 with the idea of publishing it for profit. When this proved a disappointment to him, it was William W. C. Wilson who stepped up to buy it from Zerbe and donate it to the ANA at a loss to himself. Perhaps, the ANA's top honor should have been named the Wilson Award, but by 1951 his selfless act was largely forgotten.

[johnny9434]

interesting articles all.

[RWB]

I'd forgotten all about Wilson and his meaningful generosity.... Good idea for renaming the award and giving Wilson appropriate recognition.

[123cents]

Nice read and following comments.

[leeg]

Thanks all for adding some content.

 

(thumbs u

[cpm9ball]

Thank you, Lee, and Roger and David for making this an interesting thread.

 

Chris

[RWB]

Guttag's comments seem the most substantial. His comments relate to overall knownedge and education, and not a narrow commercial interest.

 

How things change only to remain the same.