When a numismatic researcher stumbles across some info outside of his research area, what should he

Longacre

I am not a numismatic researcher, but I assume that when a researcher is combing through the National Archives or doing other research, he frequently comes across new or interesting information that is not specifically related to the topic he is researching. For example, say someone is writing a book on Morgan dollars and happens to stumble across some really interesting documents related to half dollars. What is the proper course of action regarding this new material? Should the researcher keep it to himself, in the hope that someday this ground-breaking information can be used in a future article? Should the researcher share it with one of the "grand-daddys" of the numismatic world, with the idea that they will keep it close to the vest? Should the researcher seek out a person who is either currently researching half dollars or plans to research them, and give the information to that person?

Does anyone here have any specific experience with this dilemma?

SilverEagles92

If I were in this situation, I would pass the information on to an expert in the particular field, or at the very least notify said expert that the information was out there.

timcoin

<< <i>If I were in this situation, I would pass the information on to an expert in the particular field, or at the very least notify said expert that the information was out there. >>



Ya, but not before I purchased a good supply of said coin. Hey, if this new information was going to create collector buzz, might as well get a little of a head start.

So, what did you find out? Or, are you just asking out of curiosity?

RWB

This kind of thing happens all the time when you’re digging through the rat-infested archives, swatting at bugs and wiping decomposed leather from your brow. First, most of my research is done with primary sources and involves collecting basic facts about events and operations. Very little involves date/mint information or anything that would be a die variety. Second, I have a fairly wide range of interest in numismatic subjects.

When I run across off-topic things that seem to be of interest, I either make copies or at least note the subject and location on my note sheets for that visit. The difficulty with passing this on to others is that it is usually only isolated bits and pieces of topics. Further it is not uncommon for the information to be outside of the interest range of specialists. (Quite a few specialists focus on die varieties – something very rarely mentioned in original documents.) Other times, when the subject is of interest, and I collect copies and transcribe material for future use. The extensive descriptions about pattern coin hubs being destroyed in 1910 was discovered when I was researching the Lincoln cent for Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915.

In another example, while doing research on George Morgan’s introduction to the US Mint and his pattern coin designs, I noticed some folded up papers in one of the boxes. These turned out to be letters from the Superintendent and Coiner of the Philadelphia Mint describing extensive use of gold dollars in jewelry over the previous 15 or more years. The letters verified a lot of assumptions about why so few gold dollars from that period were available. Based on the letters, some additional research and after having a draft reviewed by David Akers, I submitted the article to Coin World where it was published.

Other subjects are infrequently encountered, so they are saved over many years research in the hope of building a coherent picture of what occurred. Good examples are information on clashed dies (“blanked dies” as the engravers called them), die repair, and production errors.

(Edited to add stuff …)

Whenever information is located that I know to be of interest to someone, I try to contact them and either give them the material or, if it’s extensive, point them to the place where they can find it.

Coinosaurus

I always pass it on to the right researcher or collector if I know who it is. It's just good karma.

DaveG

Not only is it good karma, it's a lot of fun to share!

firstmint

Previously unknown numismatic information is a difficult subject to address, whether you have an interest in it or not.

One of the things that gets in the way, is the people who want to be the first to publicize it. If a person passes along new information to another, seldom do all the people involved receive any credit for their participation in the research.

Then there is the issue of validity. Even though a letter or notation is found, is it accurate? There have been numerous articles presented based on a small amount of source materials.

When presiously "un-remembered" things are brought forth from a long absence, the initial reaction by most people is to reject the assertions. This happened to me with my Henry Voigt book which came out last year.

I had one JRCS member come up to me the day after he purchased a copy and told me of an error, even though it wasn't numismatically related. He told me that Blanchard couldn't have used hydrogen in his balloon as it "would blow up like the Hindenburg". I thanked him and told him I had used 1793 newspaper accounts for that information and would check it when I returned home.

According to what he knew, I was completely wrong. Yes, it's true that an ignitor would blow up the balloon if it was filled with hydrogen, but he was mis-applying today's hot air balloon methods to the 1790's. Yes, it was filled with hydrogen.

Another remark that was challenged by a respected cataloguer, was my mentioning that David Rittenhouse nearly fainted after seeing the transit of Venus. Since there was no footnote for validation, this person assumed I was making it up. When I replied to his comment, I informed him that this citation was taken from an 1769 eye-witness account by Rittenhouse's doctor, Benjamin Rush (later Mint Treasurer) who was there in Philadelphia with Rittenhouse that day. It turns out that Rittenhouse had been ill the previous week, and the strain of waiting to see if his 1768 calculations were correct took a toll on him. I related that this was mentioned in the 1964 Brook Hindle book about David Rittenhouse.

The foregoing information is not really important in regards to numismatics, but it is entirely accurate.

The more accurate information we can find that relates to American numismatics, no matter how trivial, should be presented.