A short quote from a current research project - or next book ? 1 1

[RWB]

These are two closing paragraphs from the current research project. The section is about early U.S. coin collectors and factors that changed the hobby into the 1850s. The quoted material is copyright 2021, Seneca Mill Press LLC.

The cumulative effect of these and other changes was to increase demand for rare coins by established and newly-minted numismatists. Consistent with greater demand came several means to supply collector wants – coin dealers, some approaching full time businesses, appeared publicly almost like cyclical cicadas; and the Philadelphia Mint developed as a potential source of rare coins. Master coins, not thought of as anything particularly unusual, developed a following. Quantifying “rare” became important as demand rose and we find Joseph Mickley publishing a pamphlet titled Dates of United States Coins and Their Degrees of Rarity in 1858 –  a snapshot of Mickley’s collection with rarity values based on his experience in acquiring coins over the years.

The definition of “rare” evolved from “I haven’t found one but I think they exist,” to “Ten are known and they are owned by these collectors.” The coin business (or “coin trade” as Edward Cogan termed it) popped into existence by giving supernumerary value to numismatic holdings, and brokering those holdings between one collector and another. What had largely been an informal specie exchange system between gentlemen enthusiasts, became a democratized value-added competitive practice.

Edited June 8, 2021 by RWB

[Oldhoopster]

Nice concise summary paragraphs.  Sounds like an interesting topic that hasn't received much research.  

Take this for what it's worth, I think the term "newly-minted numismatists" is kind of cheesy.  Maybe it's just me, but throwing a dad joke into some serious scholarship doesn't seem right, but then again, it is kind if clever.  Just my opinion. 

 

 

[RWB]

12 minutes ago, Oldhoopster said:

Nice concise summary paragraphs.  Sounds like an interesting topic that hasn't received much research.  

Take this for what it's worth, I think the term "newly-minted numismatists" is kind of cheesy.  Maybe it's just me, but throwing a dad joke into some serious scholarship doesn't seem right, but then again, it is kind if clever.  Just my opinion. 

 

 

Yeah.....I thought it out of place too.....That's what drafts are for.

[Henri Charriere]

@RWB  Whilst in exile, poring over scores of threads to which I was barred from commenting, I came across a reply you had made regarding precious and non-precious metals, and fineness in particular the specific details of which I no longer recall.

I thought it may interest you to know that Numiscorner, in all its ads for 🐓 as listed in its Coins of the World Catalog > France > 1901 -2001, routinely includes in its summary of detailed descriptions, a Fineness of .90000000000000002, or 9 followed by 15 zeros and 2.  (Point Nine quintillion Two?)

[Oldhoopster]

32 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

@RWB  Whilst in exile, poring over scores of threads to which I was barred from commenting, I came across a reply you had made regarding precious and non-precious metals, and fineness in particular the specific details of which I no longer recall.

I thought it may interest you to know that Numiscorner, in all its ads for 🐓 as listed in its Coins of the World Catalog > France > 1901 -2001, routinely includes in its summary of detailed descriptions, a Fineness of .90000000000000002, or 9 followed by 15 zeros and 2.  (Point Nine quintillion Two?)

Sounds like somebody needs a lesson in significant figures (My freshman chemistry professor would be so disappointed)

 

BTW:  I was just wondering how the listing of the fineness of modern French gold coins relates to Roger's post?  If you can tie the history of early US coin collecting to 20th century French Roosters, you're much more creative than we give you credit. 

[Woods020]

My first comment is in line with oldhoopster. I read your content before responses purposely, and the newly minted numismatist comment doesn’t seem like a good fit.

Other considerations simply to simplify the reading experience:

Supernumary could be reworded to simply say numismatic or collector value because that’s the point I think. Collectors added additional value that wasn’t previously there through added collector appeal. 
 

In the last sentence is democratized really what you want to say? It isn’t a democracy per se, but I completely understand the point. Value is now assigned by what the masses are willing to pay for it. Perhaps say that value was collector driven or demand driven by increased collector focus. 
 

Take these with a grain of salt. Nothing wrong with the original. I love your books but sometimes simpler might appeal to a broader range of readers. Don’t water down the content whatsoever but if you can convey a point more simply and concisely it will probably go further. I have always felt that the best teachers and most influential experts in any field posses an uncanny ability to take complex topics and distill them into a simple explanation. No need to take a straightforward point and unnecessarily make it complex. 

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, Oldhoopster said:

Sounds like somebody needs a lesson in significant figures (My freshman chemistry professor would be so disappointed)

 

BTW:  I was just wondering how the listing of the fineness of modern French gold coins relates to Roger's post?  If you can tie the history of early US coin collecting to 20th century French Roosters, you're much more creative than we give you credit. 

[The comment was specifically directed to @RWB who has demonstrated a remarkable proficiency in multi-tasking, conducting research, responding to queries and starting ones of his own.

If memory serves, he commented on the degree to which precious metals are refined and, unable to locate the applicable thread, I shoehorned it in here. (I supplied the 🐓 reference as a simple courtesy; their mintage, was limited.

RWB makes allowances for certified chiffonniers.  Right now, the only member I am truly concerned about is @Woods020.  If he skewers me, I won't have the strength to get up and brush the dust off. Oldhoopster, I am delighted to hear I was sorely missed and that hearing from me made your day!

[Oldhoopster]

11 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[The comment was specifically directed to @RWB who has demonstrated a remarkable proficiency in multi-tasking, conducting research, responding to queries and starting ones of his own.

If memory serves, he commented on the degree to which precious metals are refined and, unable to locate the applicable thread, I shoehorned it in here. (I supplied the 🐓 reference as a simple courtesy; their mintage, was limited.

RWB makes allowances for certified chiffonniers.  Right now, the only member I am truly concerned about is @Woods020.  If he skewers me, I won't have the strength to get up and brush the dust off. Oldhoopster, I am delighted to hear I was sorely missed and that hearing from me made your day!

Maybe responding to the original thread that you referenced, instead of adding this nonsense to a new, unrelated post would have been more appropriate.  Seems pretty simple to me, but then again, what do know.  

I apologize for continuing to push this thread off track.  I think @RWB has the makings for a good article/book, and I would love to read it.  With that, I'm finished posting my displeasure with others dragging this off topic (yes, I am guilty too).  

[RWB]

An advantage of not writing to deadlines - is many drafts until it "feels right."

"Supernumerary" was a deliberate choice to emphasize the striking (no pun, please) difference between approaches. The strange word will make most readers stop and think a little, especially since the word's  meaning is not clear from the context.

"Democratized" is sort of a two-step side-step for "commercialized" with its layers of modern implications.

[RWB]

The project is an examination of restriking circulation and pattern pieces. The original quote is at the very end of a 16-page section titled (for now) "Collecting and Trading." This applies specifically to the 1820s-50s era. Some of the other sections are:

• Cabinet of Coins
• Early Master Coins
• Mint and Medals
• Pattern-Experimental coins
• Beginnings of Coin and Pattern Restrikes

[Woods020]

I’m sure it will be a good read. Look forward to it. 
 

Restrikes in particular are an area I have identified as an area of development for me. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Woods020

[VKurtB]

Never EVER be browbeaten into “dumbing down” your vocabulary. “Whatever” For Dummies inevitably gets read by dummies. 

[RWB]

The subject is deeply ingrained in hobby-lore as a pile of illegal money making acts -  but has only been presented with the same few complaining letters. My goal is to understand what the subject meant to contemporary people, if there was real profiteering, and how it all occurred. Thus far, there is no evidence of anything illicit or illegal, or of any money being made except a few dollars paid to workmen for doing things on their personal time. The coins run in parallel with the medal situation, but at a much lower and simpler level. For example, Master coins - polished fields, superior details - were exchanged ('traded') for coins for the Mint Cabinet and/or sold at face value. It appears that anyone who wanted some merely had to ask and pay the specie cost. Master coins had no special accounts because they were just ordinary coins and there was no markup to record on the accounts.

This is all contrary to numismyth which imagines a profit oriented semi-criminal organization conspiring with selected cognoscenti...the only things missing are a severed horse head and a chain of pizza joints.

BUT -- it is early in weeding the garden.

Edited June 9, 2021 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

Man, I love this.place!!!