What consitutes numismatics?

sumnom

I have been thinking about the nature of numismatics as of late. Much of what I read (and don't read) on the US coin forum revolves around grades and colorful toning. While tones are interesting and grades are important in buying ans selling coins, I will put forward the proposition to this august forum that grades and "monster toning" are not related to the field of numismatics. They are important issues for determining prices but they are not rightly placed within numismatics defined as the study of coins, medals, and tokens. Naturally, we here, as people who buy and sell coins, are concerned with such matters but when it comes to persuits numismatic, how relevant is the grade of a coin? I am not saying it is irrelevent entirely but I do think that placing a numerical value on the degree of wear is tangential to the numismatic enterprise. Assigning a grade to a coin does little to help us understand questions of design, variety, composition, production techniques and problems, the policies and politics of minting and circulation, and areas and rates of circulation, among other issues. All of these are topics that in interest me in my numismatic studies. All of these areas of inquiry tell me something both about the coin itself and about the context in which the coin was produced, circulated, and even collected. Grading a coin will tell us something about the state or preservation in which the coin in question has come to us in the present day and we also may venture a guess as to current market value based on a grade. This is important information for buying and selling but I do not think it has much to offer numismatically.

I am just thinking out loud here. My thoughts are not fully formed on this question. What do other here think? What place, if any, does grading (and toning) have in numismatics?

sumnom

I forgot to add this link to a thread on the US board wherein one can find a discussion about a planned course on modern coinage at the ANA.

shirohniichan

Toning seems to be in the realm of aesthetics, but grade can be more than that.

For example, if there are no coins of a certain denomination and date in high levels of preservation, there may be an interesting reason why. In the case of 1877-P trade dollars, you cannot easily find a high grade unc even after looking through hundreds of coins. It appears that the Philadelphia Mint was more interested in cranking out lots of coins than in making nicely struck ones. After all, trade dollars were basically bullion for use in foreign trade.

I agree with you that the "my coin has a higher grade than yours" can seem more like bragging than the study of coins, though. My interest in history makes me want to study about the background behind the coins instead of just the coins themselves. How did they circulate? Where did they go?

sumnom

Shiroh, the way in which coins wear is of numismatic interest. Your point is well taken. As you have mentioned, wear (and quality of the strike) can tell us much about production, composition, and even broader historical issues. I also find interesting the way in which wear plays a role in design changes. Here I am thinking of the early buffalo nickels. However, how important is placing a numerical grade on the wear? How important numismatically is it to differentiate MS60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, AND 70?

Color plays a role in my coin collecting and study, actually. I am concentrating on Korean cast coinage these days, as many of you know. Color is important in discerning counterfiets, distinguishing government and private issues, and judging composition. The composition in some cases can give some general clues about when a coin was produced, the earlier issues of a particular series usually being of a higher quality in both metal content and casting.

Sylvestius

I accept the above arguments that grades are important in determining how coins wear, especially if they alloy has subtley altered from one to another. I think a case example would be English silver coins of Henry VIII (1509-47) when the reign started they were .925 silver. When the reign ended they were silver washed copper.

The historical incentives for doing this were so Henry could make some profit on the coins and use the profit to live upto his dream of being a fighting king, in Henry V style he could invade France and conquer it. He got Boulogne... then lost it.

The historical repercussions of this were telling; firstly confidence in the coinage plummeted, this affected trade particularly the staple trade of England the wool trade with Flanders. Other events such as the Reformation affected political alliances anyhow, so destroying good trade was even more of a blow. Inflation went up, there were a run of bad harvests and for the next two decades after his death Henry had severely affected the lives of the lower classes simply by changing the coinage. He also gained a nickname, 'Coppernose' because the highest point of the design on the coin was his nose and this was the first area where the silver wore off and the copper showed through.


So wear is important in identifying certain coin types and in understanding the coins themselves, but it is not the fundamental point.

Wear, alterations and abuse help to underline the changes in use of the coin. It's alot like a castle. (Back with the castle thing again!)

Whilst the changes, the damage and the alteration to your typical medieval castle are of interest. Most people view it more as a monument to the past and try to understand the period around when it was built or when it was at it's height. (They usually ignore the Victorian additions and the 1960s reconstruction work, if they're even aware of the fact in the first place).

For the same reason people are fascinated by old buildings, they are fascinated by coins. Numismatics is to me is 30% studying the coin and 70% studying the context around it. Of the 30%, 15% is the appreciation of grade and the look of the piece, it's flaws and points of interest, 15% is the how and why has this been minted, and where has it been, and how has it come to me like this?

You can't answer the last 15% that directly relates to the coin unless you know something of the 70% of the context. Look at early US coinage, conder token, even the Mercury dime.

15% to appeciate the Merc.
15% to understand why and how it came about. Roosevelt thought the coinage was dull so he spiced it up, and it's design is in a classical style.

The next 70% is understanding the political climate and social climate of the time. Why don't many 1910s dates survive in top condition, this involves understanding relative buying powers of the period, the fact that a war was raging in Europe that the US soon got involved in. Why choose a classical style design? A new age of hope perhaps? An approaching age of greatness or a golden era, escapism? It tells as much about the facts of why it was done as well as conveying a sense of what contemporaries thought and more importantly felt.

SYRACUSIAN

For the same reason people are fascinated by old buildings, they are fascinated by coins.




Well, there is some truth in this. However, old buildings fascinate people because people are scared of modernism ever since the 1960s brutalism. Both in the US and Europe, people will expect from their architects the most high tech design for their offices but will prefer plagiarism of old styles for their houses' facades. And how often don't we hear complaints about the modern designs of coins from collectors? However, it's two very different things, you get to live in a house and it's important that you feel good in it, while coins are only a hobby for those that can afford it.

I totally understand sumnom's anxieties and I sympathize with him. I can already imagine some members preparing their positive response to this very delicate subject.There is no doubt that I too was thrilled to see shiroh's thread on the 960 reis overstrikes at the top, instead of the usual grade related threads,or even worse, the goodbye threads, and I do not exclude myself from this recent grade-tendency. If someone wants to spend time educating himself about the design of coins, their historical context and other useful information, there is a massive bibliography available, especially on US coins. Learning to snub high grade coins and focus instead on a certain period, for instance the varieties of Governor Kapodistrias' coins in Greece, is a stage of maturity that I personally haven't yet achieved. Research is basically a very lonely occupation without instant rewards. But what really constitutes numismatics? It's the coins and the people who are willing to pay to collect them. Pride of ownership, value of a collection, possibility to liquidate ,and therefore grades, will always be top subjects because such is human nature. I really wonder how other collectible markets have evolved. What are the main discussion topics in the arts market? How many collectors have spent time learning to read a modern painting , or studying art history? I don't know but I tend to believe that, money and record prices achieved by such and such artist are far more important topics in their forums than the evolution of deconstructivism or the historical context of a certain painting.Collectibles are a luxury and as such they will always be victim to the vanity of those who are involved with them. But it's nice to hear the opposition every now and again, only it's a little bit like ecological parties in politics. We all like their principles but how many of us actually vote for them?

wybrit

I wish I had some time to add to the thoughtful musings already posted here, but I've got to take off in one minute.

I look forward to reading this thread again later today.

Suffice to say I agree with the basic sentiment being posted thus far.

How important numismatically is it to differentiate MS60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, AND 70?

This is quite frankly one of the more irritating things about modern day collecting. While I would want to sell a coin for the highest value, slabs don't interest me much as a collector.

More later!

cladking

Certainly considerations of grade have their merits but there are too many collectors
who consider it the be all and end all of collecting. There is much information that can
be learned from studying grades and circulation. One could spend a lot of effort in
learning why a 1984 quarter wears at a much higher rate than a 1972 quarter. Find-
ing why an 1883 WC nickel is commonly found in low grade and its counterpart in
high grade shouts volumes about mass behavior even at a time that few people were
considered collectors.

Pursuing a collection based solely of completeness and quality is certainly a legitimate
undertaking and in todays enviroment there are so many collectors competing for this
same thing that there will be large price differentials in each grade. More evidence of
this quality consciousness can be seen in the tiny prices at which cull and unattractive
coins change hands and the advent of professionals who raise the appeal of such coins.

There are a lot of reasons to collect coins and many of us are specialists. Sometimes
this involves a single series like hammered pennys or Michigan good for tokens. In
many of these narrow specialties the actions of other collectors appear strange or
weird. For instance many good for token collectors actually prefer worn specimens.
They don't want them damaged or heavily worn usually but they like nice attractive
pieces which look like they've seen some use; like they've actually been spent count-
less times.

It's not only collectors who come in every possible stripe and sort, it is also coins. No
one would collect hammered or bust halfs by die stage but it might make an interesting
collection for memorial cents or even indians.

A lot of collectors who first collect classical US coins will move on or expand their col-
lecting to darkside or modern US for just this reason: the "overblown" importance of
grade. There is also the sense whether it's warranted or not that all the coins have
already been studied and collected a million times before, the sense that there can be
no new discoveries of any importance. It is ironic that many of those who have migrat-
ed to modern US have often found that the same forces which create price disparities
by grades in classics act even more strongly in most of the moderns. What many over-
look is that this affects the high end of the spectrum and frequently the entire lower
end has almost no price disparity and even scarce choice coins can be bought at prices
around face value.

I suppose there is no real answer. The nature of numismatics is as complex as each
collector and each collection. While markets appear to be odd in many cases, it is al-
ways collectors who make them so.












comma added in last sentence.

BigAlan

Certainly considerations of grade have their merits but there are too many collectors
who consider it the be all and end all of collecting.


But that's the whole point of collecting, what appeals to the collector. If someone's whole world revolves around the differences between MS64+ and MS65- that's their business. Toning is, however, a different story. I really don't see the point in glorifying corrosion.

sumnom

I'm not so sure that coin collecting, coin dealing, and numismatics are one in the same.

coinpictures

Well, what is "numismatics" anyway? How scholarly does something have to be in order to be included?

I don't consider myself a numismatic scholar by ANY stretch of the imagination. I collect darkside material for several reasons:

1. The seemingly endless number of designs compared to lightside material, many of which are breathtaking.

2. A coverage of history that far surpasses that of the U.S.

3. Being able to find coins in states of preservation, relative "works of art", at pennies on the dollar compared to what U.S. pieces from the equivalent time period would cost. You can find 18th and 19th century UNCS and proofs for a fraction of what U.S. coins cost.

4. One of the main reasons I started collecting stamps as a kid: exposure to and learning about world geography, history, and economics.

5. If you like varieties, overdates, doubled dies, etc., there are a myriad of them (especially in Central and South American coinage) that don't command a premium. There aren't cherrypickers foaming at the mouth to pay 17x for a VAM87 or whatever.

6. Dead countries, colonies, city states, etc. Little pieces of the world that existed for very small slices of time.

Are these "numismatic" endeavors? Who cares, it's fun.

-Dan

Preussen

<< <i>I have been thinking about the nature of numismatics as of late. Much of what I read (and don't read) on the US coin forum revolves around grades and colorful toning. While tones are interesting and grades are important in buying ans selling coins, I will put forward the proposition to this august forum that grades and "monster toning" are not related to the field of numismatics. They are important issues for determining prices but they are not rightly placed within numismatics defined as the study of coins, medals, and tokens. >>





I enjoy studying and learning about history; military history primarily, and that involving the German State of Prussia in particular. I am interested in what happened, when, why, what was the result/impact, and who was involved. So for me, Numismatics is the blending of that interest with the ownership of the coins that represent this history.

I recently shared some of my interest in the history of my coins in my Thread about Kaiser Friedrich III .

As for grades, toning, etc., most of us tend to like nice things, and we naturally reflect this in our collecting. We take great pride in having the nicest coins we can obtain, and there is nothing wrong with this. I like high grade coins as much as the next person, but without my interest in their history, I personally can’t imagine any reason to collect the coins in any condition.

This is what Numismatics is to me, but I am certainly not implying that my definition is any more valid than anyone else’s. If we all collected the same things for the same reasons, it would be a pretty boring hobby, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, that’s my $.02 - Preussen

spoon

Excellent answers! I especially like Dimitri's ending:

<< <i>Collectibles are a luxury and as such they will always be victim to the vanity of those who are involved with them. But it's nice to hear the opposition every now and again, only it's a little bit like ecological parties in politics. We all like their principles but how many of us actually vote for them? >>


And while I agree with most points here, I think the heart of the matter is in sumnom's latest rebuttal:

<< <i>I'm not so sure that coin collecting, coin dealing, and numismatics are one in the same. >>


Certainly they're not. Each must be inspected individually by the observer, but the participants can enjoy them mutually without distinction. The act of collecting, especially those parts of it driven by compulsion as so much is, is best studied through psychology (what drives the collector) and also sociology (being a luxury, what forces allow and shape it? a touch of econ always present here). Dealers may in most cases be explained through simple economics (as econ has enough of other disciplines to explain it all). But numismatics, what is it? It is simply a vast collection of specialized knowledge. Included in that, though, are the effects of the collector and dealer. That's where your number grading comes in. So while there are purely scientific (numismatic) purposes for micrograding, most of it must be understood through those other classes: collector and dealer.

laurentyvan

placing a numerical value on the degree of wear is tangential to the numismatic enterprise. Assigning a grade to a coin does little to help us understand questions of design, variety, composition,

Truer words were ne'er spoken, etc.

In any decent Numismatic reference book I've read, Condition/grade is only rarely mentioned. What's covered by the author are the history
of the countries coins with references to politics of the period, the historical context of the minting, the engraver, relative scarcity, denomionation.

75% or more of Numismatics is everything but the grade. Grading is almost apart from numismatics but give the devil his due: unless a coin is very common, the challenge of any high grade (even more so when it's difficult to find) is an essential part of Numismatics but very much tangential as Sumnom so cogently states.

1jester

I don't exactly know why I got involved in coin collecting back when I was practically a toddler. I think even then I sensed an important link to the past (as it was usually the older coins I tried to pick out from circulation, the wheat pennies and sometimes a silver coin--even then I noticed the older coins were different; I could tell the different composition changes by the look of the pennies even before I read about them in the Red Book). Perhaps this desire to know about the past is what got me deeper involved in this madness. I've always been interested in history, be it old buildings, historical battle sites, archeoligical digs, or what have you. With coins, it goes deeper, since coins are money. Coins are a direct byproduct of people engaged in commerce. People fulfilling the needs of others and receiving money in exchange. So it follows that if you're interested in history, in what has shaped our lives and the lives of infinite generations before us, then you'll be interested in coins. Not only are they not some imaginary or far-off fact in a book, they are real, concrete, and small enough to put in your hand. You can feel the history. You can feel an attachment to the past. You can wonder where the coin has been, who has touched it, what was it exchanged for, why is some scratch or hole in it, or who might have flipped it to determine the outcome of a bet, etc.

Coins are really fascinating.

And I haven't even touched on other qualities associated with them, namely their artistic beauty, design characteristics, wear characteristics, and many other things.

shirohniichan

Coins are a direct byproduct of people engaged in commerce. People fulfilling the needs of others and receiving money in exchange. So it follows that if you're interested in history, in what has shaped our lives and the lives of infinite generations before us, then you'll be interested in coins. Not only are they not some imaginary or far-off fact in a book, they are real, concrete, and small enough to put in your hand. You can feel the history. You can feel an attachment to the past. You can wonder where the coin has been, who has touched it, what was it exchanged for, why is some scratch or hole in it, or who might have flipped it to determine the outcome of a bet, etc.

Yea, verily.

One of Q. David Bowers' books really stirred my imagination. He wrote about not only US 5 cent pieces, but also the machines they were used in. Without arcades, nickel packs of gum and cigarettes, 5 cent music machines, etc., there would not have been the huge demand for nickels that resulted in the popularity of the series. That background helped me to understand why the mintages were so high and what the coins were actually used for. We can forget that coins were usually struck to circulate as a medium of exchange.

sumnom

Grading is almost apart from numismatics but give the devil his due: unless a coin is very common, the challenge of any high grade (even more so when it's difficult to find) is an essential part of Numismatics but very much tangential as Sumnom so cogently states.

Well said.


I haven't had any coffee yet so I will come back to this later