When writing a book about a controversial figure in numismatics, is it best to walk gingerly or writ

Longacre

In another thread, a very prominent member of these boards and prolific author mentioned that he will be writing a book about John Ford. I think this is a great idea, and it is a book that I will certainly buy. This author has obtained a great deal of Ford's original correspondence, which he will incorporate into the book.

Let me be clear-- no one has more respect and awe for the coin dealers than Longacre. However, there are some coin dealers who are low key and mellow, and others that are as flamboyant as rock stars. I have never known Mr. Ford personally, but from what I've read, he seems to tilt toward the flamboyant side of the scale. And with a high profile, comes the media scrutiny that we see in other industries, such as with movie stars. I suppose that coin dealers eventually get used to this glamor.

When writing the book, should this author walk gingerly when discussing the occasional warts which may appear during the tenure of Ford's career? Everyone, including my beloved dealers, has some things in their past that they are not proud of. However, the numismatic world is a small one, and I am curious whether some judicious editing needs to be done when discussing some of the more controversial information. Or do you think that the author should just write openly, trying to avoid passing judgment, and let the reader draw conclusions?

If you were writing the book, what approach would you take, particularly when dealing with such a prominent figure?

MrEureka

The only reason to "walk gingerly" is if the controversial figure (or his estate) has commissioned the book.

charley

No. Respectfully, John Curlis

lope208

There's only one answer to this question IMO. If this is a work of non-fiction, which it seems it should be,
then the story should be driven by first hand accounts and research only, not speculation.

If, as you say, the author has obtained a great deal of Ford's original correspondence, then whatever is
included in those documents, is fine.

Paint the picture of the man with facts, not speculation, wherever that may lead.

MrEureka

If, as you say, the author has obtained a great deal of Ford's original correspondence, then whatever is
included in those documents, is fine.

...but not necessarily true.

ColonialCoinUnion

It is also possible that the desire to sell a few copies of the book might lead any author in one direction or other.

7Jaguars

Uhhh, full story but I think you have to watch the documentation factor (ie Corin Steffan aka "superhead"). You got to be able to prove or else be careful in the naming.

Coinosaurus

The good thing is that dead people can't sue for libel. So no worries there.

Eureka makes a valid point that any given item of correspondence isn't necessarily true.

So in this case it is very important to cite every dot and tiddle, because in addition to the assertion itself, the reader will have to judge for themselves whether the source for the assertion is credible.

Depending on what is in the correspondence, it may be better to publish it straight up with annotations, rather than to launch into a full analysis of material that is dubious to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.

I have no problem pasting someone if the evidence is there, but one has to be very careful to do their homework. If the evidence is at all questionable, then just put what you have and draw no conclusions - let the reader decide.

ANACONDA

"The good thing is that dead people can't sue for libel."

Yes, you are correct. Personally, the truth is clearly best and the more speculation the better as it will lead to more consideration and more likely, other accounts being written which elaborate on evidence in support of insightful speculation.

BlackDiamond

My opinion. Write openly but make sure the information is factual and relevent to the subject matter.

droopyd

<< <i>The only reason to "walk gingerly" is if the controversial figure (or his estate) has commissioned the book. >>



Or has a really good lawyer...

WoodenJefferson

Historically, readers want the dirt, the scoop, the little tidbits...so, throw them a bone. Who in their right mind would want to read an account about Mary Todd Lincoln? But throw in there she was nuttier than a fruit cake, now you have a story. It's human nature.

A recently published book, "The Madness of Mary Lincoln" by Jason Emerson, awarded "Book of the Year" by the Illinois State Historical Society in 2007, examines Mary's mental illness.

keyman64

If the author does not want to focus on the less-than-stellar attributes of an individual that is fine...but at least address the issue with facts, short and to the point...then move on. If the reader then wants to learn more they can go read the details elsewhere. I think just plain leaving out the facts would paint a dishonest picture of the person that is being written about...thus turning the book into a lie. To leave out obvious facts about a person that they are writing about could be bad if the book is meant to be a full picture of the person.

Sonorandesertrat

Much of the controversy concerning John Ford has already spilled into public view within the world of U.S. numismatics. It seems to me that the primary purpose for Karl's forthcoming book is documenting aspects of the controversy using materials directly tied to Ford (i.e., from his personal papers and notes in numismatic literature in his collection---items that were auctioned/sold off after Ford's passing). The reader should expect the author of such a book to express opinions concerning the veracity of various accusations leveled at Ford in the past, using Ford's materials to defend his (Karl's) position.

RWB

Document what you say and let the pieces fall into place.

sinin1

I think presenting both or all sides openly is the best course



I don't think his notes and letters would go into whether

- he actually fabricated rare gold bars to scam investors or how he might have done it if he actually did
- he actually bought great collections at pennies on the dollar from grieving spouses who did not know collection values



many great numismatists have a 'dark side' speculated and the full extent is not really known, even after their deaths

PerryHall

<< <i>My opinion. Write openly but make sure the information is factual and relevent to the subject matter. >>

questor54

A writer with principles has a responsibility to their readers and to history. Write openly, but be sure you have the evidence. Otherwise, identify rumors as such.

questor54

....after all, he discovered Walter Breen.

ColonelJessup

<< <i> ..... others that are as flamboyant as rock stars. >>



There is a camp where that is taught.

You might have come up with the name Camp Leavenworth, it's actually named Fort Leavenworth.

However, the biggest rock stars go to minimum security venues. That great Tea Party icon and visionary Wesley Snipes will likely sing backup and play the cowbell in a coin dealer rock star band, but only if the sauna is closed and the lights on the tennis court are out.

Many coin dealers foolishly skip Rock n' Roll Camp. They buy phony T-shirts made in China and can't even tell the difference.

Then, when they end up playing the triangle next to Wesley, it's too late for regrets.

SaorAlba

<< <i>....after all, he discovered Walter Breen. >>



I could write a book about my memories of Walter Breen, but he was a very offensive person in more ways than mere one. So why bother, everybody knows his quantity, or rather the lack thereof. I listened to him digress tales of his abuse at the paws of Catholic priests once at a coin club meeting.

ANACONDA

"I listened to him digress tales of his abuse at the paws of Catholic priests once at a coin club meeting."

Well, that explains (I didn't say excuses....) his behavior.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>The good thing is that dead people can't sue for libel. So no worries there.

Eureka makes a valid point that any given item of correspondence isn't necessarily true >>



If he lied in his correspondence then that is his problem. If one wants to include it then just publish the entire correspondence. If it is easliy verifiable, I would consider that too.

ANACONDA

<< <i>I could write a book about my memories of Walter Breen, but he was a very offensive person in more ways than mere one. So why bother..... >>



I think you should....I would read it. I'm curious about the man. More about him might shed more light on what he wrote.

We have all heard that he was not credible with regard to specific statements about various coins. I'm curious to know just how credible he was in general.

I only saw him once....he was walking towards me down an isle at a coin show....he was huge....very tall and big man. Wore sandals....his hair flowed behind him like a woman's......he had on a t-shirt with a big multicolored tie-tied design on it. I was very young.....his eyes met mine......


(Sorry, I couldn't resist........everything after "it" is not true. Well, I was very young, once......)

ANACONDA

By the way, many if not most extremely intelligent people are offensive and usually in more ways than one.

John Lennon
Martha Stewart
Hilary Clinton
Rush Limbaugh.....

BillJones

<< <i>Document what you say and let the pieces fall into place. >>



Amen.

Despite the fact that there is a prestigious ANA literary award in his name, David Bowers did not mince words when he wrote about Farron Zerbe’s inflated marketing efforts for commemorative coins in the early 1900s. Nor did he avoid stating that Zerbe’s actions turned off a lot of ANA members during that period.

I never knew John Ford. I only saw him once at a reception at the Massachusetts Historical Society when that body was displaying some of its holdings in a special exhibit. From what I’ve heard from some collectors of his generation, whom I greatly respected (they have now passed on), Ford, as a dealer, was the kind of business person who would beat you if he had the chance. In others words, if he were around today, I’d look at what he was offering, but my guard would be WAY UP.

Billet7

Truth is truth, no reason to sugarcoat it. If you wouldn't sugarcoat his accomplishments then why would you sugarcoat his faults?

Obiwancanoli

Truth. Accuracy. Factual. Honesty. Integrity. Objectivity.

Without these (and a few others), the author is no more than a good story teller.

firstmint

Just saw this thread, and I must say that generally speaking, the replies are right on, with objectivity and reality being the primary focus. There will be no condemnations or support for either side of the controversy that began in the 1950's. Just reality, backed by previously unseen documents and written facts.

The title of the forthcoming book is - John J. Ford, Jr., and the "Franklin Hoard".

Currently, there are several reviewers going over just the text (some 300 pages). This does not include the letters and invoices that came directly from Ford, or the images of items that were marketed by Ford & Franklin.

The book is being assembled at this point, formatting the letters, pictures (most in color), and the hand-written or typed invoices or trade/purchase agreements that Ford made.

If you are not interested in western gold items, you will still learn about pieces in American numismatics since these first appeared in the late 1840's. Even those who are already interested in Private & Territorial U.S. gold will be surprised at what they didn't know about the coins, bars, and ingots that were part of the "Franklin Hoard...and their background.

The book will outline both Ford & Franklin (along with many others), and will cover their involvement with American numismatics. It will cover the PNG arbitration proceedings from the 1960's, along with later pieces such as the S.S. Brother Jonathan gold bars.

You will find out where Franklin got some of the items he sold to Ford, and you find out who he got them from. You will find out Ford's involvement, and who he sold the pieces to. You will find out about the two assayers that were connected with Franklin...and much more.

The contents of the "Franklin Hoard" will be listed for the first time.

Some of the unique pieces in the J.K. Lilly collection (which includes numerous, previously unknown gold bars) will be examined. The Lilly appraisal sheets will be published for the very first time.

You will see the combination of Ford, Breen, and Taxay as they formed a team to discredit Newman and all others who argued against Ford regarding the genuineness of the U.S.A.O.G. pieces.

You will read parts of Taxay's sworn statements he made in New York after having his expenses paid by Harvey Stack and John Ford to attend the final PNG arbitration meeting in Los Angeles in 1968.

The 1999 "Great Debate" with Hodder and Buttrey will be examined, both before and after. This will be a year by year chronicle from before Franklin & Ford got interested in such pieces, and includes background history of American gold strikes and the 1933 gold legislation.

It's a numismatic tale that is unbeliveable; but very true.

It will serve as a biography (of sorts) about Ford, and will be a lesson for all to learn about forgeries, counterfeits, and greed.

Stay tuned.

Edited to add - There is no intention to twist the presentation in order to sell more copies. As was mentioned in another thread about this project, "This book is not for everybody". I suspect no more than 250 copies will be printed.

BigE

Sign me up, I want a copy---------BigE