Options
For the professional researchers-- when do you abandon the search for info that can be critical to
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I was reading Burdette’s Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 book, and in it he tells the story of Mint Director Andrew’s decision to destroy all pattern dies and hubs, thereby robbing future generations of numismatists access to these works or art and history. I must have looked silly on the train last night with tears streaming down my face as I read this story.
In the book, Burdette writes,
“It is likely he [Andrew] was also aware that hubs and dies could have been placed in the mint collection under the protection of Louis Comparette, and there retained for the benefit of future artists and collectors. If he had other motives for destroying the pattern hubs, they may remain forever unknown. … Correspondence in mint files concerning pattern and experimental pieces ends abruptly with Andrew’s promotion. Unfortunately, his assistant secretary’s files, which might contain further insights, have not been located.
Footnote in text: if these files still exist, they should be in Record Group 56 in the NARA-College Park, Maryland facility. The author has not been able to locate them.”
*********
For the professional researchers in the house, at what point do you give up on the search for information that might be relevant to a question you are researching. In the instance above, some further elaboration on Andrew’s actions might have been available, but after a diligent search the secondary files could not be found. How does that affect the conclusions that you might draw about the issue you’re working on? Is it standard practice to indicate that there may be other files out there that provide more information, but that they cannot be located, or should you just not refer to the potential additional information at all?
In the book, Burdette writes,
“It is likely he [Andrew] was also aware that hubs and dies could have been placed in the mint collection under the protection of Louis Comparette, and there retained for the benefit of future artists and collectors. If he had other motives for destroying the pattern hubs, they may remain forever unknown. … Correspondence in mint files concerning pattern and experimental pieces ends abruptly with Andrew’s promotion. Unfortunately, his assistant secretary’s files, which might contain further insights, have not been located.
Footnote in text: if these files still exist, they should be in Record Group 56 in the NARA-College Park, Maryland facility. The author has not been able to locate them.”
*********
For the professional researchers in the house, at what point do you give up on the search for information that might be relevant to a question you are researching. In the instance above, some further elaboration on Andrew’s actions might have been available, but after a diligent search the secondary files could not be found. How does that affect the conclusions that you might draw about the issue you’re working on? Is it standard practice to indicate that there may be other files out there that provide more information, but that they cannot be located, or should you just not refer to the potential additional information at all?
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
As for when to quit looking, it's a lot like software development. At the end of a project the rate of defects begins to trail off and you hit a point of diminishing returns in terms of investing resources to uncover further defects. Same for doing research, if you invest a steady amount of time and effort you get to a point where the "hits" start coming pretty slowly. That's a good sign that the project needs to be wrapped up, or needs a strategic change in the way it is being executed.
<< <i>It's best to be transparent. If you have a hunch that something is out there that you haven't found yet, it is good practice to include that in the notes (as was done here).
As for when to quit looking, it's a lot like software development. At the end of a project the rate of defects begins to trail off and you hit a point of diminishing returns in terms of investing resources to uncover further defects. Same for doing research, if you invest a steady amount of time and effort you get to a point where the "hits" start coming pretty slowly. That's a good sign that the project needs to be wrapped up, or needs a strategic change in the way it is being executed. >>
Sounds kinda like a criminal investigation. The case remains open, but unless further leads present themselves, unresolved.
Where it is evident that significant sources of information are absent, the conclusions are less well supported. We have a lot more now about Andrew and the patterns than a few years ago, particularly the US Mint documents and a letter from the Ford archive. But, in the example given, the following significant sources are known to be missing: 1) nearly all of Andrew’s correspondence with William Woodin regarding patterns and the solution to the half union gold coin problem; 2) A. Loudoun Snowden’s correspondence with anyone about the half unions; 3) Andrew’s treasury dept. files; and, 4) Andrew’s personal letters which might have said something about the issue.
This is why my scenario about what occurred is labeled “speculative.”
Is it standard practice to indicate that there may be other files out there that provide more information, but that they cannot be located, or should you just not refer to the potential additional information at all?
Some researchers publish possible locations of missing material, some do not, and sometimes it depends on what seems to be most important at the time of writing. Some authors prefer to keep closely held so they can mine it for future articles.
I prefer to state what I found and could not find (as best I can without making the book or article into a huge index), then encourage others to keep digging. (Jeff Reichenberg did that to some extent with my 1916-1921 book’s references to the William Ashbrook diaries – and he found a pile of really interesting stuff that I had overlooked.)
As a researcher, I wanted to uncover all that I could find that would pertain to a certain person or event. This was done as much as possible for the Henry Voigt book. It is very difficult to find out the facts after 200 years. Unfortunately, there are far more unanswered questions than there are answers; and regrettaby, most of what we have for answers is not accurate or complete.
One item I wanted to locate, or at least verify that it still existed, had to do with the first coin catalogue made in America by Reverend William Bentley, who was our first coin dealer. He catalogued Samuel Curwen's coin collection in October 1795 to sell to Judge James Winthrop. I tracked both of the Winthrop and Bentley libraries to Allegheny College after Winthrop's death.
In 1823, the college published a comprehensive listing of the 7,000 or so publications that were contained in both of these libraries, but unfortunately, the coin catalogue by Bentley was not included.
It's the little things like that, which cause a researcher to go on to the next "dig", which is what researchers and archeologists do. To me, that first coin catalogue, made in 1795, is no less important than the first dollar made in 1794 (even though it would sell for much less).
BTW, to clarify the heading, there is no "professional researcher" in this particular field of endeavor. It's all done out of dedication and personal interest. Those who actually write numismatic books to help others, end up spending a lot of money to get them printed, advertised, and mailed; not to mention all the time, effort, and money that it took to do the research to begin with.