Options
Does not taking an interest in Colonials make me less of a numismatist?
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I was reading the ANA Centennial Anthology which is a compilation book of scholarly articles from some of the best known numismatic researchers. The articles in general are highly technical. Anyway, I was reading this article about NJ coppers, and the background/history was interesting. Then the article turned into a highly, highly technical analysis of various die marriages in certain year, the number of the dies, the differences, etc., etc. It had charts showing different marriages and other data. I have to read the Internal Revenue Code every day as part of my job, and I thought that was boring sometimes. However, this article was downright painful to read. I like to read different numismatic works (not just ones in my specialty) in order to get a good level of overall knowledge, but this particular article was just way too over the top for me. I am sure there are professional researchers in the house that eat this sort of stuff up, but it wasn't for me. Does anyone else feel this way (i.e., things can get so technical that they border on being unenjoyable)?
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
What is now proved was once only imagined. - William Blake
42/92
While I like colonials, I'd probably find highly esoteric information about them to be of passing interest at
best.
Suit yourself.
Yes, I agree. While I enjoy reading such detail in my areas of interest, if I had the opportunity to read about die marriages of capped bust half dimes or similar technical information on clad quarters, I would certainly pass.
<< <i>Does taking an interest in Moderns make you any less of a numismatist? >>
That's not funny. Next time please type a little more slowly and see if you can't get these in after my post.
<< <i>Just because you don't enjoy an overly technical article on colonials doesn't mean you don't like the coins. I love looking at choice colonials and really enjoy their history. Reports about die-marriages don't really turn me on, unless those reports help to answer a historical question. Anyway, it doesn't sound to me like you have a lack of interest in colonials, you just don't enjoy pseudo-scientific research articles. >>
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I don't see anything wrong with deciding that you aren't that interested in going deeper into a particular area, though. No one can be enthralled by every aspect of a hobby.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
One thing you might consider doing to join the ANS and subscribe to the Colonial News Letter. It has articles that range from die marriage to the history of the different coinages. Check out the three sample articles listed on this page because they are a good sampling of type of articles that are published. Even though I own fewer than 20 colonials (I own many more MS clad dismes!), nonetheless I find myself putting every other piece of numismatic reading material aside when I get an issue of the Colonial News Letter so that I can read it.
Mark
The first two sample articles were awesome! Thanks for bringing this website to my attention.
While I'm not into die marrriages, difference, numbers of, etc., I am always interested in coinage historical information like these two articles.
I'm going to join up and learn some more.
Years ago the standard format for die variety books was to have the descriptions, die state, rarity estimate and other information in one part of the book, and the photographic plates (and believe it or not there were some books that had no photos, which made them next to useless IMO.) in the back of the book. This arrangement made it much harder to attribute the varieties, and resulted in books that were anything but user friendly.
The big break from this came in the early 1970s when Roger Cohen published his half cent variety book. Al Overton used a similar approach in the first edition of his book, although he did not have pictures of every variety. Cohen's and Overton's formats had the pictures of each variety above written information. That started a very positive trend that has become the standard for later works.
As for what to collect, don’t feel as if you are a second class citizen just because there are some series you don’t enjoy. When I belonged to the Boston Numismatic Society many years ago, many of the “old timers” there didn’t think that I amounted to anything because I didn’t collect ancient Greek or Roman coins. I had a number of reference books, and could discuss some topics with these people, but since I didn’t collect ancients, they figured I was a second class citizen.
Well, that’s their opinion. As the others have written you can’t collect everything unless you had a lot of money in Eliasberg’s time. Today you have to specialize to an extent or your collection is just a hodgepodge. Collect what you enjoy.
Unfortunately, what most collectors seek, and therefore what most authors publish, are pretty dry descriptions of die marriages, which can make for some very dull reading if you are not a devotee of the series. In no way do I mean to be critical of any die marriage reference book; I have a library full of them, and use them almost daily. But few die marriage reference books of late have been written with the same passion and flair that William Sheldon used when he first published "Early American Cents", in which he wrote impassioned anecdotes about his childhood memories of looking through his grandfather's (?) box of the old large cents. To be sure, this is not important information in the attribution of the coins, but it certainly makes for more interesting reading.
No one should be criticised for admitting a lack of interest in any particular series; we collect what we like and enjoy. The most serious afficianados of a particular series will delight in the most boring and mundane descriptions of die marriages, even more so if accompanied by charts and graphs. But the more casual reader, or one who is simply seeking general information on the series, might prefer the less technical anecdotal information.
This is perhaps why some of QDB's many numismatic books of a more general nature, such as the "Fireside Companion" series are so highly acclaimed, and will always outsell any die marriage reference book.
While, as stated, no one is to be criticised for admitting a lack of interest in any particular series, I must confess my horror at RYK's comment:
"...if I had the opportunity to read about die marriages of capped bust half dimes or similar technical information on clad quarters, I would certainly pass."
Now that really hurt.
"...if I had the opportunity to read about die marriages of capped bust half dimes or similar technical information on clad quarters, I would certainly pass."
Now that really hurt.
It is not personal, just a reflection of my lack of interest in that series. I wanted to give an example of a classic and a modern series that hold no interest for me. Reading time at home is precious and scarce. I have to spend it wisely. For me, reading about half dime die varieties does little to advance my collecting acumen.