Should National Museums keep their duplicates?

Klif50

It occurrs to me, on a fairly regular basis that it cost a whole lot of money to fund the National Museum. The museum and many like it, have a multitude of duplicate material stored away, also at great cost and in the case of the National Museum the cost is borne by the tax payer. Should the museums be caused to break out the items that are exact duplicates, be they coins, stamps, spinning wheels, automobiles, etc. and return those items to the market place so that once again these treasures can be retuned to the people.
Would this be a cause that the ANA or other august group take up perhaps for legislative review. Think of the millions of dollars that could go back in to the national coffers and the tremendous treasures that would again see the light of day. I, for one, would be bidding in that auction.
Cliff

mozeppa

sounds a-ok to me.

you sellin'?

Michigan

Does the Smithsonian really need two 1822 half eagles? With only three known it seems that one could be returned to the marketplace
via auction and the museum could get some much needed money.

boiler78

I think it is a great idea and to take it a step further they should use the proceeds to add missing items to the collection and fund a proper display area. They could get a panel of experts to determine which items to keep (at least on the high value items like the 1822 half eagles Michigan mention) The idea is very logical and probably makes too much sense for government work.

Some might say that the original donors would object but I think they would object even more to having their collections locked away in storage for eternity.

I think the real obstacle is it literally takes an act of congress to get-er-done and congress can't seem to agree on anything these days!

STONE

I would love to see a lot of these coins returned to the market. Some coins you just never see being auctioned, for instance the 1822 Half Eagle. This would give a who other market to coin collecting. You could even christen the coin "National Treasure" if you want.

Writersblock

It may cost a lot to fund the museum but most of the expense is for buildings, maintainance, and salaries. A much smaller amount is for updating displays and often less than that for acquiring new materials. One thing museums often do with duplicates is use them for trading purposes with other museums for items they need for their collections (gets around the lack of funding for new items.) And then there is an advantage to having multiple specimens for comparison purposes when doing research.

Finally there is the question of whether or not two items are truly duplicates. For example it would be possible to have almost 150 1798 large cents and all of them are different (46 dies varieties with an average of three die stages per variety)

Having said that, if there are items that are truly duplicates that are not potential trade bait, I would not be adverse to seeing them sold. There might be less than you would expect though. Since most items are acquired by donation, and the museums have limited storage space they will often decline donations that would be duplicates. You might also find that a lot of the duplicate material really wouldn't bring that much money. Sure some coins might, but how much for a pile of animal pelts? Extra insect or bird specimens?

boiler78

The ex. Smithsonian pedigree would likely carry a nice premium as well.

291fifth

The Smithsonian should probably sell off 99% of the items in its numismatic collection, keeping only the most important items. That done, its collection would probably still contain about 4-5000 specimens.

It won't happen. Bureaucratic inertia.

LostSisler

Or... The ANA could display the Smithsonian collection in it's new DC Museum.

PerryHall

The Smithsonian needs to adopt the box of 20 concept. Keep the best 20 coins and sell off the rest.

ricko

Museums and governments are bureaucracies. The driving compulsion of bureaucrats and bureacracies is SELF PRESERVATION. Therefore they layer themselves with regulations, employees, turf (physical and organizational) rhetoric. Removing anything from the bureaucrats preserve will always be met first with endless reasons why it would be bad and then ferocious defense of territory, no matter how inconsequential it may seem. So while the suggestion may have significant merit, it will never happen. Cheers, RickO

Longacre

Check out Doug Winter's website, where he blogged about this issue. I am against the coins coming back into the marketplace. These coins will almost certainly get dipped and stripped and ruined forever. I would rather that they be kept under museum-like conditions, even if they only come out for public viewing every once in a while.

PerryHall

<< <i>Check out Doug Winter's website, where he blogged about this issue. I am against the coins coming back into the marketplace. These coins will almost certainly get dipped and stripped and ruined forever. I would rather that they be kept under museum-like conditions, even if they only come out for public viewing every once in a while. >>



Plenty of coins get ruined by museum staff. Look at the 1849 Liberty double eagle in the Smithsonian. It was heavily hairlined by one of their staff when they polished it many years ago.

mrearlygold

It costs money to fund these museums. The money is taken from citizens in the form of taxes ( force ). If it were a free country, the coins as well as monies used to fund and maintain these museums would all come from voluntary contributions.

It's not a free country. Therefore force is necessary to keep this property away from private ownership and people like doug winter can have their way.

tradedollarnut

It's a numismatic crime that the Smithsonian has multiple examples of rarities - thus denying collectors the opportunity to own such specimens. Duplicates should be sold off and the proceeds utilized to enhance displays for the National Collection. It's a win - win!

Zoins

Do some museums loan out parts of their collection for exhibits at other locations? That could be one way to get some of these pieces out in the open. If the two additional ANA museums become reality, the Smithsonian could loan out parts of their collection to the three ANA museums.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>Duplicates should be sold off and the proceeds utilized to enhance displays for the National Collection. It's a win - win! >>



NAH!! Its like some here who sell coins to pay bills. In 2 days they have neither the coin nor the $$$.

dbldie55

Should National Museums keep their duplicates?

Yes. If they do not want them, they should return them to the donor.

tradedollarnut

<< <i>

<< <i>Duplicates should be sold off and the proceeds utilized to enhance displays for the National Collection. It's a win - win! >>



NAH!! Its like some here who sell coins to pay bills. In 2 days they have neither the coin nor the $$$. >>



So - where's the downside even in this? It's not like the duplicate sitting in the museum is accomplishing anything. And a rare coin is returned to the marketplace to enhance yet another collection...

BAJJERFAN

The downside is that the Government is not very wise in how they spend their money so I'm afraid a lot of the proceeds would get squandered with little to show for it. With a Government that squanders billions a day in Iraq a few million for some coins is chump change.

291fifth

Has the Smithsonian ever "deacessioned" any coins? I've never heard of them doing so. All I've ever heard is complaints about them not having enough money to do this or that.

They have vastly more than they need or can ever display, yet they never make any moves to rectify the situation.

It's called bad management.

BAJJERFAN

Let em sell a few million and they will still have bad management.

Pistareen

<< <i>Yes. If they do not want them, they should return them to the donor. >>



In the vast majority of cases, there is no "donor."

The best parts of the cabinet (at least the US part of the cabinet) come from the Mint Cabinet, formed by Adam Eckfeldt beginning in 1838 and merged into the SI in 1923, and the J.K Lilly Collection, that was essentially purchased by the US Government in the 1960s, since it was accepted in lieu of taxes.

This is how there are two 1822 $5s in the collection -- one is from the Mint Cabinet (probably plucked when it came back to the Mint for assay and conversion to New Tenor after 1834) and one is from Lilly.

Most of the stuff that was given to the SI falls into two categories: absolute junk (think VG large cents with corrosion) or dramatic rarities (like the 1783 Chalmers Rings Shilling given by the Norwebs, the unique copper 1794 dollar, things like that).

In terms of duplication, the US stuff has nothing on ancient/foreign and paper (there over 1 million pieces of Confederate currency in the collection -- the bales and bales that were captured in Richmond at the end of the war). In terms of marquee duplicates, I can only think of a few:

The 1822 $5s
The 1933 $20s
The MCMVII Ultra High Reliefs

Selling an 1822 $5 might make sense, but there is not THAT much duplication in the US series. I've rooted through the drawers and actually wished there was more -- some stuff could use an upgrade.

291fifth

If a museum wants to get itself into money trouble very quickly it can start accepting encumbered donations of objects. The museum gets stuck with the cost of insurance and display, but never really owns anything.

Smart museums decline such "donations" since they aren't really donations at all, just attempts by the "donors" to achieve immortality.

RWB

A subtle but practical problem with deaccessioning museum collections is that frequently, the museum does not know what they have. Years ago the Connecticut State Library sold duplicates and so did the Boston Fine Art Museum. Both inadvertently sold coin with pedigrees to notable people because the curators had not had the resources to properly research the coins. Further, the Boston folks may have accidentally sold the only pattern 1908 $5 Indian gold piece in existence., but no body knew about it back then.

The NNC has a huge number of “black hole” coins – pieces that have never been accurately examined. During research for my 1916-21 book I identified previously unknown varieties of the 1916 patterns. During 1905-08 research, I identified the irregular edge $10 pattern coins – completely unknown at the time and then verified them via documentation.

So I think that any museum that is considering selling duplicates, should be very careful to understand what they have and where it came from before disposing of donations.

291fifth

<< <i>A subtle but practical problem with deaccessioning museum collections is that frequently, the museum does not know what they have. Years ago the Connecticut State Library sold duplicates and so did the Boston Fine Art Museum. Both inadvertently sold coin with pedigrees to notable people because the curators had not had the resources to properly research the coins. Further, the Boston folks may have accidentally sold the only pattern 1908 $5 Indian gold piece in existence., but no body knew about it back then.

The NNC has a huge number of “black hole” coins – pieces that have never been accurately examined. During research for my 1916-21 book I identified previously unknown varieties of the 1916 patterns. During 1905-08 research, I identified the irregular edge $10 pattern coins – completely unknown at the time and then verified them via documentation.

So I think that any museum that is considering selling duplicates, should be very careful to understand what they have and where it came from before disposing of donations. >>



Yes, a very dangerous area. If proper checks and balances are not in place the museum could easily end up being fleeced by individuals of questionable moral standing (both employees and outsiders with the "right" contacts.)

CaptainRon

Kinda related, the American Numismatic Society, just sold off in January 101 Select Die Duplicates. If I remeber correctly they were all Gold.

Here is a link to the Auction that was hosted by Stack's, You can then verify for sure if it was just all gold or not. Auction Link

ttown

I don't thin National Musems should accept coins they don't need, there are plenty of musems out there that would love some of these coins. I would be pissed if something I gave to a museum was sold for profit, if you don't need it don't take it there's a number out there that would love many of these coins.

RWB

Two other sources of the NNC material are the old Money of the World collection from the Chase Manhattan Bank. (NCG/NCS helped to preserve many of these items a couple of years ago), and the original Smithsonian coin cabinet that was merged with the Philadelphia Mint cabinet in 1923.

Except for 1912/13, when the Philadelphia cabinet curator had access to the Treasurer’s hoard of gold coins and sold them at market prices, the cabinet never got more than about $500 a year for acquisitions. Most of the coins Comparette purchased were ancients, but the quantity is miniscule in a huge area of study.

Longacre

<< <i>A subtle but practical problem with deaccessioning museum collections is that frequently, the museum does not know what they have. Years ago the Connecticut State Library sold duplicates and so did the Boston Fine Art Museum. Both inadvertently sold coin with pedigrees to notable people because the curators had not had the resources to properly research the coins. Further, the Boston folks may have accidentally sold the only pattern 1908 $5 Indian gold piece in existence., but no body knew about it back then.

The NNC has a huge number of “black hole” coins – pieces that have never been accurately examined. During research for my 1916-21 book I identified previously unknown varieties of the 1916 patterns. During 1905-08 research, I identified the irregular edge $10 pattern coins – completely unknown at the time and then verified them via documentation.

So I think that any museum that is considering selling duplicates, should be very careful to understand what they have and where it came from before disposing of donations. >>




Very good point, RWB.

RichieURich

<< <i>It's a numismatic crime that the Smithsonian has multiple examples of rarities - thus denying collectors the opportunity to own such specimens. Duplicates should be sold off and the proceeds utilized to enhance displays for the National Collection. It's a win - win! >>





<< <i>In terms of marquee duplicates, I can only think of a few:

The 1822 $5s
The 1933 $20s
The MCMVII Ultra High Reliefs

Selling an 1822 $5 might make sense, but there is not THAT much duplication in the US series. I've rooted through the drawers and actually wished there was more -- some stuff could use an upgrade. >>



with both TDN and Pistareen. There is no good reason I can think of for the Smithsonian to have duplicates of these coins, especially when they aren't available for viewing!