Should museums display only authentic coins and currency?
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
The Washington Post magazine of March 3, 2019 includes an article titled “The Imitation Game” by Menachem Wecker (pp.22-27). The article focuses on how museums identify copies or reproductions that are on display and the implications of possibly misleading viewers. On page 26 this short commentary regarding the Smithsonian Institution’s American History Museum, National Numismatic Collection appears.
“Unlike the typical visitor, I had gone in looking specifically for wording on labels that might indicate something is a copy. But I felt duped at times. As I was leaving a small one-room exhibit, “Stories on Money,” at the American History Museum, which consists of about 100 paper bills and coins displayed in glass cases, I noticed one of the bills bore a “reproduction” label – but if visitors don’t look at it from the right angle, the light obscures that cautionary word. I went back and looked more closely at the others bills and saw the same lettering on about 30 examples of paper money on exhibit; even a $5 bill from 2003 proved to be a reproduction. All of this was ironic given the exhibit’s exploration of counterfeiting….”
Personally, I can think of no reason to display reproductions of either original currency or counterfeits – especially where counterfeiting is a sub-theme of the exhibit – unless these are enlargements of the original items. The NNC web site closes with this notation: “The NNC is a center for rigorous numismatic and historical research that strives to develop innovative approaches to preservation, digitization, and display.”
NNC Curator Ellen Feingold has been contacted about this question.
Comments
Here's the article online:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/02/27/feature/are-museums-being-clear-enough-with-the-public-about-whats-real-and-whats-fake/
Museums seem to do this a lot and you can buy "museum-quality" reproductions of Greek ancients online.
Museums are for education so I guess it would depend on the presentation.
Thanks @RogerB I had to go look at their online catalog again. It is fascinating what great treasures are at the SI/NNC.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/national-numismatic-collection
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/national-numismatic-collection
“United States Mint, Philadelphia. Obverse: Head of Native American Indian facing right, date on shoulder. Reverse: Buffalo standing on mound, facing left. This pattern displays the finished designs on the new, circulating "buffalo" nickel. Seventeen of these patterns were struck in January 1913. The Smithsonian Institution has two. Six were melted, and the other nine are in private hands. [reference no. Judd 1789]”
An interesting thing of note is that some collectors don't want museums to own originals since it takes them off the market.
Taking coins "off the market" for museums, makes the coins available to anyone for research and display. Is "off the market" code for personal greed and control?
If a museum is displaying reproductions, aka copies, counterfeits, fakes, then why do they have so much security? Don't museums contain historic artifacts? If they have copies, then it isn't a museum.
An issue that was mentioned is that many museum owned coins are not displayed and are thus not available to be shared with the public.
I have some things that can possibly go into a museum like the following but I'd prefer it to be displayed. One option is to loan it to a museum:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1011339/a-civil-war-generals-gold-medal-history-in-your-hands/p1
What was the text of Gen. Gibbon's award winning essay?
Coins owned by a museum cane be accessed and studied when not on display. This in a private collection are almost never available. (In a personal example, recently I was refused [multiple times] access to a private collection possibly including unique items, evidently on the whim of the owner. Certainly within the owner's prerogative - but a museum would have had to justify the exclusion and there would have been an appeal process.)
There's a link to it in the thread above the photo. It's available online courtesy of Princeton University and Google Books.
Here's a thread where I asked "When would you donate a unique coin to a museum?" I originally posted thread to cover things like the above and below, but many of the answers were either negative or about tax benefits, not knowledge benefits.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/947822/when-would-you-donate-a-unique-coin-to-a-museum
These are other items that I think could fit in a museum.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/986311/new-rochelle-half-dollar-by-lorillard-wise/p1
Many art museums possess paintings which are fakes and modern forgeries which were not painted by the painter on the label/painting. Similarly, many of these museums do not know whether certain paintings are genuine or not, or have just assumed authenticity based on where they came from (auction, private collection, donation).
Therefore, I see no issue with other museums showing reproductions and copies of coins.
Thanks! I had skipped the link, and am sorry I did so. The essays are both fascinating and embarrassing tomes. How much of that type of thought persists underneath the veneer of political and social discourse and policy?
I will say one thing about museums is that they not only display reproductions but sell them as well. They do this for paintings and have started for coins as well.
So if you donate pieces to a museum, be prepared for reproductions on the market like the following. In this case, Robert Bashlow donated the dies and the Smithsonian had the following made with their initials on the reverse.
Should have complied with HPA.
They can display copy or fake only if they clearly sate that is fake or reproduction. Otherwise I don’t think they should.
I'm not affiliated with the Smithsonian but I'd wager that's what the "SI" initials are for. Since the initials are there, it may be reasoned that they could not be confused with the originals?
The Smithsonian has made a number of repro coins and none of them use the COPY stamp. Typically they'll use the "SI" initials or a denomination like "Double Eagle" or something else.
It's amazing how much is coming to the surface now. I agree these old documents are both fascinating and embarrassing to read. However, they are signs of the times and I'm glad they are available for us to better understand the past.
If I go to a museum, I am expecting to see the real deal, not fakes. Especially if there is an admission charge.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
I can always go to the flea market in order to see reproductions of rare coins.
The famous Sutton Hoo hoard coins are displayed as electrotypes
at the British Museum. The fact is clearly marked, however. I see no
problem with copies of great rarities on display if properly noted.
Perhaps, they can't afford the insurance that would allow them to display the actual items.
I would say, yes. If you can afford an authentic T-Rex skeleton you can afford a few high priced coins.
The Newman Money Museum had a display dedicated to fakes, all of which were identified as such. You really can't treat the history of money without significant discussion of counterfeiting.
Not sure why SI would have to resort to reproductions, given the extensive range of their collection.
The salient point is why use reproductions when the real things are readily available?
(The Smithsonian and similar museum organizations do not have insurance on the specimens, only on liability and loan items.)
You may have the answer in your first post?
"NNC Curator Ellen Feingold has been contacted about this question."
It may indeed be due to insurance purposes....That being said, if the originals cannot be displayed, then they should be given to an institution that can display them.... When authentic items are in possession of a museum, they should be shown, not copies... Cheers, RickO
There is a point perhaps not being considered here. Museums also have
collections which require study in hand for research purposes rather than
just looking at specimens through a glass case. In the 1980s I needed to
closely examine some Imperial Russian coins that were on display at the
Smithsonian as part of the collection originally formed by Grand Duke
Georgii Mikhailovich. Mrs. Stefanelli was kind enough to shut down the
gallery for the half hour or so it took to remove the pieces from display.
I can understand displaying reproductions of artifacts that would be adversely affected by long-term display conditions. You can't treat all paper documents like the Declaration of Independence, taking heroic efforts to display the originals in such a way that they're publicly accessible but protected from fading and deterioration. I was disappointed to see that an Aztec codex on display at the Library of Congress the last time I visited was a reproduction, but I understand that the originals are so rare and priceless that putting them on display in such an exhibit would be far too risky.
But coins? They're essentially the perfect artifacts from a long-term conservation standpoint. The traditional coinage metals, gold, silver, and copper, were among the very first metals to be discovered and used by man - because they were inert enough that after billions of years of exposure to the elements they still existed as lumps of pure metal. Putting coins on display at a museum under moderately protected conditions - such as are available to literally millions of barely trained amateur collectors - will not damage them.
It still might be difficult to properly display numismatic items, but one advantage of coins is that a huge number can be housed in a small area. A small, dedicated gallery, or even a display case or two, with regularly rotating exhibitions, would allow enthusiasts a measure of access to collections that might otherwise languish in storage. Obviously more expert, vetted collector/researchers ought to be able to request closer physical access to the objects, but remember that Dr. Sheldon stole dozens of large cents from the ANA Museum - you can never totally trust anyone.
I spoke with Dr. Ellen Feingold at the Smithsonian NNC this afternoon regarding the display of reproductions versus originals as mentioned in the Washington Post magazine article. She said the display is an old one prepared by Dr. Doty during his tenure. It had been planned for replacement for some time. Multiple changes in administration plus curatorial staff and budget shortages delayed the work. This also affected changing labels as items were rotated in and out of the exhibit. The overall policy is to rotate originals on an annual basis in order to limit exposure of printed materials to light and potential fading. Further, where the NNC has only one original of an item, a reproduction is used in this rotation. The practical result, as in the currency display, is a mismatch between labels and the actual items on display.
Dr. Finegold has submitted a proposal for a new NNC display in the same space and is awaiting an answer. Space allocation is competitive and others at SI would also like to use the present displace space for their purposes.