Opening of article about US pattern distribution and circulation coin restrikes - collector opinions
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Following is a draft opening paragraph for a very long research article - or very short book - about distribution of patterns and production of restrikes from about 1834 to 1885. I would appreciate the opinions of collectors on whether this paragraph is both informative and suggestive of what might follow. [This is all copyright material, and posting here does not constitute publication.]
"II. Collecting and Trading
While difficult to imagine in today’s large U. S. Mint organization, nearly all officers of the early Philadelphia Mint were to one extent or another, coin collectors. There was no recorded opposition to formation of a numismatic collection of coins and medals. In fact, it was uniformly encouraged and in 1839 Congress provided $1,000 for acquisition of specimens. This view of a “Philadelphia Mint Cabinet of Rare Coins and Ores” was ample support for actions to acquire specimens by purchase, donation, trade, and sale/exchange of newly-made reproductions. In the nearly universal opinion among Treasury and Mint officers, anything that benefited the Mint Cabinet was permissible so long as there was no personal profit. Employees of the carpenter’s shop made cabinets and cases. The blacksmith made metal brackets and locks. The Chief Coiner made copies of medals both from original dies and electrotype copy dies, and restrikes from production and pattern dies; all on government time and with government materials."
Comments
I would love to read the rest of this article/book.
Partner @Gold Hill Coin
It's all a work in progress, but it helps to have opinions of collectors: do the first lines invoke interest or sleep....?
There is more than a year of work to be completed before a good draft is ready.
It's a little confusing. You say that they were all collectors, but it's not clear if you mean they were all collectors because they were all working on behalf of the Mint collection, or because they had their own personal collections, or both.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Good point.
The personal collections of Mint personnel would be interesting to read about in their own right, but perhaps a bit off-topic in this context.
Roger:
The first sentence doesn't really fit with the rest of the paragraph. Except for the first sentence the paragraph talks about the Mint Cabinet. But the first sentence talks about the numismatic proclivities of the mint officials, which, as far as the rest of this paragraph is concerned, has nothing to do with the Mint Cabinet. I think you need another first sentence.
I have a personal interest in the 1850 Double Eagle by virtue of owning one that was once in the personal collection of its designer, James Longacre. That has prompted me to do some research regarding him. What is suggested in the offered paragraph is certainly true for Longacre. He also kept three of the CAL Quarter Eagles for which it is believed that he added the CAL designation. Also on point, he is known to have designed some items of private mintage while on the Government's dime.
I find it interesting. I do agree with Andy and Mark... adjustments there would help. It has, even in this form, made me want to read more. Cheers, RickO
I should drop this as IMHO it adds nothing to the subject you are going to write about: "Employees of the carpenter’s shop made cabinets and cases. The blacksmith made metal brackets and locks."
Then I should add something about the sale, trade, etc incorporating the part - either at the end or beginning: "The Chief Coiner made copies of medals both from original dies and electrotype copy dies, and restrikes from production and pattern dies. The mint sold ..."
At the end of some examples, add: "All this was done on government time and with government materials."
Thanks for sharing!
All of those subjects and more are explained and documented in the article. But I understand your comments. Thanks!
Just for fun, here's the expanded first sentence of the original draft. It is now a brief paragraph. The balance of the draft was also revised to make it clearer and logically tighter.
Thanks for the suggestions, all!
While difficult to imagine in today’s large U. S. Mint organization, nearly all officers of the early Philadelphia Mint were to one extent or another, coin collectors. Some, such as Adam Eckfeldt and William DuBois, had examples of most coins and patterns struck at the Mint. Others, including the directors, had scatterings of pieces kept as personal mementos of their service. In a new nation without official titles of nobility and social stature, job titles substituted as marks of distinction and products served as badges of accomplishment.
I like the part that it was acceptable to do on government time.
What is the current theory on why this was stopped?
It's interesting that George W. Pratt, Winslow Lewis, Henry Davenport and Isaiah Colburn of the Boston Numismatic Society wrote a letter on this. Pollock responded that the practices had been stopped already, but it's not quite clear if it was stopped before or after receiving the Boston letter.
Was this stopped due to complaints from the Boston Numismatic Society and other collectors?
@RogerB Except for one thing, I really like the paragraph you posted in italics. What I did not like is the fact that it's only one paragraph and doesn't keep on going. That little point is quite irritating, so quite shirking and get to work finishing the article or book!
More seriously, that paragraph does capture all of my attention,
I clearly get it and agree with @Mark 's comments about the expanded first sentence.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Mark, Sparky64, et al. Thanks for the encouraging comments and helpful suggestions.
Completing the research and putting it all together is at least a year in the future, but it's important that the opening statements are clear and begin to define contemporary conditions and the subject. From time-to-time I might post other small pieces for collector comments. After all, this project is aimed at collectors and should communicate clearly to them.
Zoins -- "Was this stopped due to complaints from the Boston Numismatic Society and other collectors?"
Nope. What has been published is largely speculation, collections of isolated comments, and assumptions. I think Rittenhouse mentioned some of this in his posted remarks about the "Midnight Minters" tales.
My approach is to do the research without assuming any of the "standard story" is true - that is, begin with a clean slate. I then let the data go wherever it leads (kind of like a bloodhound on a trail), and I follow along looking and listening for the escaped convict. Many trails lead to dead ends; but others lead to new, interesting, and maybe idea-changing results.
That's in the next paragraph. Since it was all for the benefit of the Mint, doing the work on government time was not an issue, so long as normal work was not impeded. It also helped to keep people busy during slow periods.
"II. Collecting and Trading
"it was uniformly encouraged", 'In the nearly universal opinion among Treasury and Mint officers",
Establish the assumption at the first paragraph.
It's why I stopped purchasing your books.
It's assumption city.
epcjimi1 -- sorry you feel that way, but your thoughts are appreciated. Please follow the hundreds of footnotes - which no one else provides - and build your own version of events.
Every work of research or history includes certain presumptions and preexisting conditions. These apply to both the subject and the reader. An opening paragraph, such as the one objected to, is there to state certain premise - never to present the supporting data. Data comes later as appropriate to the story.
Further, history of a time for which we have limited data must be assembled from available facts, previously established conclusions, and reasonable connections between the data. That is all one can do, and by including source references, any reader who wishes can go to the source materials, assemble them, and draw their own conclusions.
More specifically, the quotes "it was uniformly encouraged", 'In the nearly universal opinion among Treasury and Mint officers," are supported by original documents and sworn legal testimony presented in the body of the article, and by actions of the Treasury and Congress.
(The above "assumes" a reader is not operating under rules of official audit text were nearly every sentence and idea must be footnoted, making for a nearly unintelligible report. As one PhD in Educational Research commented, "Hardly a noun escapes alive!")