Home U.S. Coin Forum

Should rarities go into museums? What's your opinion?

I've thought about this a few times and see both sides. Wealthy collectors sometimes donate their rarest coins to museums. In some cases, this removes an entire denomination / date / type / variety from collectors hands.

On the one hand, coins in museums present the opportunity for all collectors to see them and share in the experience. That is, if you can make the trip to their location.

On the other hand, why should collectors be robbed of the experience of owning some of these great coins? What if the last publicly available 1822 half eagle, the 1933 Double Eagle, the 1907 Judd $20 Pattern, the 1870-S $3 or other unique coins in collector's hands went into museums? What if it was the finest example of a coin in the series you collect? Let's say that they would be given to a museum that would permanently lock them away like the ANA or Smithsonian.

I like the idea that, however slim the chance, I could own one of these awesome coins someday and lean toward keeping them in private hands. What's your opinion?
Tom

NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Type collector since 1981
Current focus 1855 date type set

Comments

  • hookedoncoinshookedoncoins Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭


    << <i>What if the last publicly available 1822 half eagle, the 1933 Double Eagle, the 1907 Judd $20 Pattern, the 1870-S $3 or other unique coins in collector's hands went into museums? >>



    I believe there is a 1933 double eagle in the Smithsonian. Am I wrong?
  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    In the hands of a collector, a coin's future is uncertain. It can be stolen and melted, sold and doctored, or hidden away for generations when left to heirs that don't care about the coins and don't need the money. Therefore, IMHO, the best home for a coin is a museum that displays it well and protects it well. Unfortunately, the vast minority of coins in museums are in such homes. Where does that leave us? Beats me.
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • BladeBlade Posts: 1,744
    Hooked - I think the Smithsonian has 2 1933's if I remember correctly. But of course only one in private hands.

    Andy - I understand your logic, and that's the support for the museum side. But isn't the hobby interesting when a coin goes underground for 50 years and resurfaces in an auction for waiting collectors? Think of the drama of the 1913 Lib nic.
    Tom

    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

    Type collector since 1981
    Current focus 1855 date type set
  • Yes I just saw the 2 1933 Double Eagles. They are quite nice. Some of the other coins they have there are really nice. It give everyone a chance to view them.

    They have a display of gold coins there from a collector name Lilly (I think). Man it will make your heart skip a beat.
    Dave
    In Laurel
    MD

    Just a fist full of Dollars
  • MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 24,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Think of the drama of the 1913 Lib nic.

    That type of drama does nothing for me. To each his own.
    Andy Lustig

    Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.

    Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
  • barberloverbarberlover Posts: 2,228 ✭✭
    `RkKay told me all the 1891 Barber patterns are in a museum. Their goes my dream. image

    Les
    The President claims he didn't lie about taxes for those earning less then $250,000 a year with public mandated health insurance yet his own justice department has said they will use the right of the government to tax when the states appeals go to court.
  • It would be nice if they'd let you actually hold the coins and examine them in a museum. I've never been to a museum that had coins in it, but I can only imagine with my poor vision I'd have a really hard time appreciating the overall beauty from a couple feet and several layers of plastic away. I think a nice compromise is if you have wealthy collectors loan their collections to museums for a period of time.
    I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I once had it written into my will that my trade dollar set would be donated to the Smithsonian upon my death [the National Collection has neither an 1884 nor an 1885]. However, when I visited and saw the minimal display areas and realized that they can only share a fraction of their coins with the public, I revised that provision out of my will.

    I'd prefer to have another collector enjoy ownership after I'm gone than to have my coins sitting in some dusty back room waiting for someone to have the chance to appreciate them.
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,948 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A museum can be the best place in the world and the worst place in the world for a coin.

    If the museum displays the coins well and allows collectors with a serious interest examine the piece under the proper precautions, it’s great.

    If the museum hides the coin in a safe and does not let anybody see it, it stinks. So far as I’m concerned the coin is better off in a private collector’s hands. Some museum personnel don’t know anything about preservation. I’ve seen coins that have been ruined by improper cleaning that occurred while the coin was in the museum’s care.
    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • aem4162aem4162 Posts: 421
    i have mixed feelings about it. people get to see it if a coin goes into a museum...it disappears when it goes into a private collection unless it's loaned to a museum. on the other hand, after what happened at the usaf museum with stuff coming up missing i hate to think of someone in the museum stealing it.
    anita...ana #r-217183...coin collecting noob
    image
  • Conder101Conder101 Posts: 10,536
    In most cases coins donated to museums just go into storage (Where they often suffer from "shrinkage"). They are rarely seen by anyone. Quite often they are sold back into the collector market by the museum so they can have the money for other projects that they would rather have. They may or may not be handled properly. Unless the museum has a strong dedication to numismatics or the coins have a direct, strong tie to the museums main theme, it would probably be best if the coins were left in collectors hands.

    And the Smithsonian does have two 1933 double eagles. They also own two of the three known 1822 half eagles.
  • I'd say keep them in collectors' hands. The collector can loan them to a museum for a special, short-run display if he/she wishes. At least they won't sit in some dusty back room of the museum, out of sight for all.

    Mike
    Coppernicus

    Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!
  • Condor101 I seem to rember a Reed collection in Colorado. It may have been a complete set of U.S. coins or maybe a complete type set. It was willed to the town with the provision it maintained and made public for all to see. The town needed money to maintain the museum so tried to sell off some coins. People sued as that broke the condition of the will. The town won the case.
    This happened a few years ago. If anyone knows any more about this or if I misspoke please correct me. Joe
  • Conder101Conder101 Posts: 10,536
    That was the Byron Reed collection in Omaha NE. The collection wasn't complete but was extensive with many great rarieties and many early proof coins. Actually the city eventually won the case after promising to purchase lower graded specimens to duplicate the proofs and very high grade mintstate coins being sold so as to keep the collection "intact". The sale took place and raised I believe something like six million dollars. To the best of my knowledge the replacement coins were never purchased. A fair portion of the original collection still remains intact (That portion that is in keeping with the meseums old western theme.) but I don't hold much hope for it the next time the city or museum runs into serious financial difficulties. One piece still in the collection is an 1804 dollars.
  • boiler78boiler78 Posts: 3,056 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Joe - You are referring to the Byron Reed collection in the Western Heritage museum at Omaha Nebraska. Spink/Christies auctioned a portion of the collection in October 1996. The museum/city sold a portion of the collection to raise funds presumably to display the core group of coins? I believe this fabulous collection had spent decades in storage in a museum basement? This demonstrates some of the potential problems with donating to a museum.

    1. The majority of the collection sits in storage and is never seen by anyone
    2. The museum can potentially sell the collection to raise funds
    3. As Conder pointed out "shrinkage"

    This also illustrates a possible solution for the Smithsonian. They have countless duplicates collecting dust in storage. Why not have a panel of numismatic experts evaluate the holdings and keep the best examples of each coin, then sell the duplicates? The proceeds could be used to create a proper display for the "core" collection.

    Does anyone really know the content of the Smithsonians numismatic holdings? Anybody know how to get an inventory?
  • BladeBlade Posts: 1,744
    Boiler,
    I would go farther and like to see every Smithsonian coin - modern and ancient - put on the Internet with low and high res images. In this day and age, we have the luxury of virtually sharing all these great collections. Some can't make the travel. What a great way to show off even those coins that can't be the highlight of the exhibit. Just like the great Bass site of the best from that collection. It's awesome.

    TDN - How about putting a stipulation in the will that the coin must be part of a permanent, viewable exhibit? Even then, you've got the caretaking concerns brought up by many in this thread. And I suppose the display could be accomplished via a loan of the coins.
    Tom

    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

    Type collector since 1981
    Current focus 1855 date type set
  • boiler78boiler78 Posts: 3,056 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Blade
    Excellent idea part of the sale proceeds could be used to pay for high quality imaging, cataloging and website construction/maintenance. With this option the entire collection could be available for viewing which overcomes the physical limitations of displaying such a huge collection. Then the physical displays could be rotated every 2 years or so. Now any ideas on how to accomplish this?

    Mark
  • Conder101Conder101 Posts: 10,536


    << <i>How about putting a stipulation in the will that the coin must be part of a permanent, viewable exhibit? >>


    That is similar to what Byron Reed had for his collection, he donated it to the city on condition that it be put on exhibit. But in the 1960's(?) after a burglary attempt it was put in storage for years until the sale.

    The Smithsonian has over a million coins in it's collection with probably a lot of duplication. I don't think we need to image ALL of them. And as much as I like the national collection I'm not to keen on trying to do too much for it unless the effort can be kept away from government involvement. Do you remember the Smithsonian commemoratives? Originally ALL of the surcharges from that program were supposed to go to the national coin collection for revitalizing the exhibit and as an endowment to keep it growing. Then half of the surcharges got siphoned off to "reduce the national debt" and the other half got diverted into the Smithsonians general funds. Other than a little bit that went towards curators salaries NONE of it ever got to the national collection.
  • rainbowroosierainbowroosie Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭✭
    No...collectors should have the coins.....only exception would be the Smithsonian with a complete national collection
    "You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68."
    rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
  • jbstevenjbsteven Posts: 6,178
    Blade and Mark

    I like your ideas of imaging coins from the museums but there is one problem. They get their revenue from people walking through the doors right? How many people would not come in person and spend money if they put everything on the internet?


  • The problem I have with museums is when they do obtain a collection only highlights of the collection are on display. While the rest lay in storage unseen to anyone.
    My main hobby is prehistoric native american artifacts. Alot of large personal collections go
    unseen by the public who's tax dollars go to help fund these institutions. THe so called professionals that run and catalog these artifacts for the museum do not know what these artifacts are
    alot of the time. Largely due to ther lack of communication with the collecters.
    At least this is the case in prehistoric artifacts. I'm new to coin collecting ,but enjoy this forum.
    Analog Rules! Knobs and Switches are cool!
    imageimage
  • boiler78boiler78 Posts: 3,056 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Goldrush- The scenerio is the same with coin collections that are impounded in museums. Only the highlights are shown while the vast majority remains in storage for eternity. I first viewed the Smithsonian exhibit on a class trip in 1974 and again in 1999 on a trip to DC. The display hadn't changed much if any in 25 years!image

    Can you imagine the series of auctions if the Smithsonian sold the duplicates and triplicates from the collection!
  • BAJJERFANBAJJERFAN Posts: 31,075 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Is a museum better than sellin em to a furriner?
    theknowitalltroll;
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,323 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Museums consistently do a poor job of handling numismatic collections. I don't support numismatic museums, period.
    All glory is fleeting.
  • JulianJulian Posts: 3,370 ✭✭✭
    This has been a pet peeve of mine for 25+ years. Living just outside of DC, I have had opportunities to see the exhibit & research privately with the vault inventory. I have also had good relationships with the curatorial staff.
    Many museums, especially the SI, have accepted coins with covenants attached, i.e. the items must remain with the collection.
    There very well maybe a way to get the collection, especially the US portion, better exposure. The US Mint is in the process of building a new headquarters, and the possibility exists that the collection will be moved to a new museum at the USMHQ, similar to the philatelic collection being moved to the USPSHQ.
    All museums, as well as collectors, should dispose of duplicates, thereby creating new money for new acquisitions. Many, myself included, have urged the museums to sell the duplicates. I imagine that eventually it will be done, especially since none of the institutions have appropriate assets to fund new acquisitions.
    All of the museums have, in the past, de-accessioned items. Each of these institutions must have an outside board of consultants to oversee the collection to maintain its focus and to authorize and negotiate the terms of the sales.
    IMHO, museums should keep the best, or maybe even the two best of each item that they have, including all die states. These collections should be available to researchers, as well as just serious collectors, with appropriate security and appointments, references, etc., made.
    As has been previously pointed out, many items are loaned to museums for display, notably the Bass collection and some DuPont rarities to the ANA, and the 1933 $20 to the ANS/NY FRB exhibit.
    PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows.
    I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.

    eBaystore
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 33,948 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here's an example of the WORST that a museum/public entity can do.

    A few years ago I purchased an example of a medal in copper that was awarded to George Washington by the Continental Congress. It’s called “The Washington before Boston” medal. There have been numerous versions of this medal, but the example that I purchased was struck from the original set of dies prior to 1800 that were used to strike the gold medal that was awarded to Washington himself.

    In 1876 a group of public-spirited Boston citizens got together, pooled their funds and purchased the original gold medal that was awarded to Washington for $5,000. The medal was placed in the care of the Boston Public Library. I read that the medal was placed on display in the library on Washington’s Birthday every year. One Washington’s Birthday I went in to see, but there was no medal.

    Sometime later I drove in and asked to speak to the library administrators about how I could see that piece. After a considerable run around, I got this chilling answer: “Oh nobody has seen THAT for a long time. Didn’t the library administrator take it home? I’m sorry, but I don’t think that there is any way that you can see that piece. Would you like to buy a booklet about it and a copy of the medal?” I bought the booklet but declined the medal.

    But here you see the situation. Over a hundred years ago a group of Boston citizens gave their money so that the general public could see this national treasure. Today a public employee may have it in his possession and NO ONE can see it.

    What if this guy dies? What do you think the chances are that this item will get back to the library? I’d say that it’s at best 50-50. Political corruption in Massachusetts is quite common, and the chances are very good of having this item, of which few people know the history, disappear through the cracks is pretty good.

    No, I’m not impressed with the way museums handle numismatic items. Usually they are better off in an experienced collector's hands who really appreciates them for what they are. And it's best to have them displayed at coin show or on a short term loan situation.
    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Registry is our collective museum.......
  • BladeBlade Posts: 1,744
    TDN,
    I hope you are kidding. The PCGS registry is far too exclusionary to be a virtual museum. It would be cool if there was a place that did create a virtual museum, comprised of the best coins - slabbed and raw.
    Tom

    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

    Type collector since 1981
    Current focus 1855 date type set
  • tradedollarnuttradedollarnut Posts: 20,162 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Why would I kid? All museums compromise on what to display. The compromise here is that it's slabbed PCGS. The compromise across the street is that it's either PCGS or NGC.

    It would be cool if there was a place that did create a virtual museum, comprised of the best coins - slabbed and raw.


    Agreed, but if someone opened up such an independent website, what standard would they use to determine what coins to show? Their own? PCGS's? NGC's? ACG's? image

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file