Should the Smithsonian follow Doug Winter's advice and sell one of their 1822 $5 Half Eagles?

Longacre · October 25, 2006 1:23AM

I was taking a look at the Doug Winter site. He has an article on "Fat Head" half eagles. I provided a link below. Having just read the Virgil Brand book, I quickly scrolled down to the 1822 half eagle section. Here is what Winter wrote about this date:

"The 1822 half eagle is one of the great rarities in all of American numismatics. There are just three examples known to exist. Two are housed in the Smithsonian Institution and are off the market while the third is in the Pogue collection and was obtained for $687,500 back in 1982 when the Eliasberg collection was auctioned by Bowers and Ruddy.

Time for an Editorial: I have always thought that one of the best ways to solve the never-ending cash crunch at the Smithsonian in relation to the National Numismatic Collection would be to sell one of the 1822 half eagles in the collection. Here’s a coin that would fetch $5 million or thereabouts in the open market and which would focus tremendous attention on the collection. Does the Smithsonian really need two examples of this coin?"

*************************
What do you think of his idea for the Smithsonian to sell one of the 1822 half eagles? Would it be "worth it" to the museum, meaning that in the grand scheme of things, $5 MM is a mere pittance and it would just go into some general fund and probably wouldn't help the National Numismatic Collection. Would there be a way to designate the profits as going directly to the National Numismatic Collection? What do you think of this idea? Personally, although I think that the idea of additional funding for the collection is a good one, I think we would start down a slippery slope if the Smithsonian starts to sell off items in order to make its budget. What do you think? Here is a link to the full article:

Fat Head Article

RYK · October 25, 2006 1:24AM

In principal, I agree, but then, why stop there?

Mark · October 25, 2006 1:27AM

I think the Smithsonian should definitely sell at least one of its 1822 half eagles. Of what possible use is a duplicate to a museum that recently removed its exhibit of coins? I think the answer to that question is simple: "It's of absolutely no use." Selling the coin would both free the coin to actually be displayed once in a while (even if only in an occasional auction catalog) and would give the Smithsonian some added funds to use as it wants.

Mark

SmallSizedGuy · October 25, 2006 1:29AM

I agree with RYK - why stop there? Sell other duplicates.

But, why stop with the Smithsonian. Other government organizations have items that could be sold.

Federal Reserve Banks have incredible collections of paper money. Sell them too.

ziggy29 · October 25, 2006 1:34AM

I might worry about the slippery slope, but as long as the policy was a strict one of selling *only* duplicates, I think it's a good idea.

RWB · October 25, 2006 1:37AM

The Smithsonian NNC is a combination of the Philadelphia Mint collection, the Smithsonian’s own original collection and many subsequent donations and acquisitions. This has produced a collection of incredible depth that has hidden within it many undiscovered varieties. (My own discovery of the irregular edge $10 gold patterns of 1907 – two completely unsuspected and unknown patterns in the NNC – suggests that much more awaits careful examination.)

While selling duplicates from an institutional collection is sometimes a good idea, it usually does little to solve funding problems. The key to maintaining and getting the most from a major collection is consistency of staffing. In most cases this can best be accomplished through an endowment designed to pay the salaries of the curator and staff. Auction proceeds usually end up in the general operating budget, and quickly dissipated.

Selling duplicates can also introduce problems. Part of the difficulty is maintaining a historical link between individual specimens and their provenance. Another is that the institution may sell examples without complete and accurate information on what they are selling. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts and quite a few others sold as duplicates or “not significant” piece that later proved to be of much greater value and importance. I still am attempting to locate the lone pattern $5 of 1908, which may have been errantly included in a New England museum’s sale as an ordinary 1908 half eagle. (Ditto for the only 1908 trial $2.50.)

MrEureka · October 25, 2006 1:40AM

I'd advise against, for two reasons.

First, redundancy enables two displays in two locations. Granted, that's in the future, but the future matters.

Second, the current generation of numismatists cannot be trusted to protect the coin. If the coin were sold, odds are it would get messed with, again and again, so that it could be maxed out at the TPGs.

seanq · October 25, 2006 1:48AM

<< Second, the current generation of numismatists cannot be trusted to protect the coin. If the coin were sold, odds are it would get messed with, again and again, so that it could be maxed out at the TPGs. >>

Wow, that's pretty damning, that you think the Smithsonian would treat a coin better than a collector.

Sean Reynolds

Longacre · October 25, 2006 1:49AM

<< 

<< Second, the current generation of numismatists cannot be trusted to protect the coin. If the coin were sold, odds are it would get messed with, again and again, so that it could be maxed out at the TPGs. >>

Wow, that's pretty damning, that you think the Smithsonian would treat a coin better than a collector.

Sean Reynolds >>

Yes. Personally I would rather have the coin hidden away in a musty old drawer in the Smithsonian, than in a slab after being dipped out and puttied (and possibly oranged).

lloydmincy · October 25, 2006 1:51AM

The "damning" is the DEALER and/or collector trying to get that upgrade, polish it per say to get it upgraded - would negatively effect the coin before the Smithsonian would ever come close to protecting it in a (lesser) manner.

Doug Winters is dreaming. None of those things will be sold, including the 10 new 1933 double eagles.

segoja · October 25, 2006 1:55AM

I'm with Andy on this one.

If I had donated an item, then only to find out they sold it, I would be VERY disappointed.

If it was cash they were after, then it seems better to give cash.

291fifth · October 25, 2006 1:55AM

The Smithsonian should probably sell 90% plus of its numismatic collection. Don't hold your breath, though, the museum business moves as slowly as a glacier in pre-global warming times.

Keyrock · October 25, 2006 1:58AM

Since there are three coins and the appearance is known, I doubt it would be manipulated (i.e. puttied, dipped). I'd rather see it at a show, or atleast know it is part of great collection. The Smithsonian could easily establish a rare coin board to evaluate holdings and provide an action plan.

291fifth · October 25, 2006 1:59AM

<< I'm with Andy on this one.

If I had donated an item, then only to find out they sold it, I would be VERY disappointed.

If it was cash they were after, then it seems better to give cash. >>

Museums rarely dispose of donations from living donors. After the donors are dead, however, "aquired by exchange" becomes much more common. Museums should do much more of this.

lloydmincy · October 25, 2006 2:06AM

I doubt it would be manipulated

One of the "gem" 1894-S dimes had changed color mysteriously over a five-year period.

Remember, Johns Hopkins University sold the Garrett collection in 1979 for financial needs. The donator/owner of the 1822's has passed.

But...

Hope is nothing but a Dream...

numisma · October 25, 2006 2:11AM

I think that the Smithsonian should sell all duplicates on eBay (0.01 and no reserve).

Barndog · October 25, 2006 2:27AM

I think a giveaway is in order!

TheRaven · October 25, 2006 2:28AM

It is not a terrible idea, but one I don't see happening at any time in the near future.....

Aren't they putting together an updated list of all there holdings? Wasn't that in a recently passed coin bill?

Julian · October 25, 2006 2:40AM

I have been after the SI, and other museums for that matter, to market all of their duplicate coins and add new material to the existing collections with the proceeds.

I would ammend this to include all different die varieties and die states, if you wish, but all of the excess should be marketed to produce the means to add missing items.

Unfortunately, in the SI's case, there would have to be a law passed to enable to proceeds to remain with the numismatic collection. Otherwise, the proceeds would go back to the general museum fund.

Other museums are probably in a better situation to de-access their duplicates.

mrearlygold · October 25, 2006 2:53AM

Second, the current generation of numismatists cannot be trusted to protect the coin.

But the government can be trusted?

Ha!

gemtone65 · October 25, 2006 2:57AM

The notion that the owner of a $5 million coin is more likely to damage while it is in his possession, compared to an employee of the mint with the coin in his possession, seems patently absurd. Indeed, I suspect that all those shiny silver pieces in the National collection got that way through Smithsonian "conservation," not through ill-advised attempts by previous owners to get them upgaded or to raise their value. It's hard to imagine any owner of such a coin quite stupid enough to think that his almost unique $5 million coin is worth the risk of attempting to raise it's grade by a point through any cleaning method.

As for the wisdom of selling such a duplicate, suppose all funds received from sale would have to be earmarked for use in acquiring other rarities, not simply to cover operating costs. Wouldn't that likely result in a net gain to both the institution and the public?

Longacre · October 25, 2006 2:59AM

<< The notion that the owner of a $5 million coin is more likely to damage while it is in his possession, compared to an employee of the mint with the coin in his possession, seems patently absurd. Indeed, I suspect that all those shiny silver pieces in the National collection got that way through Smithsonian "conservation," not through ill-advised attempts by previous owners to get them upgaded or to raise their value. It's hard to imagine any owner of such a coin quite stupid enough to think that his almost unique $5 million coin is worth the risk of attempting to raise it's grade by a point through any cleaning method.

As for the wisdom of selling such a duplicate, suppose all funds received from sale would have to be earmarked for use in acquiring other rarities, not simply to cover operating costs. Wouldn't that likely result in a net gain to both the institution and the public? >>

I hear what you're saying, but I could almost guarantee that the coin will be flipped several times almost immediately and will almost certainly be dipped at the first opportunity.

CalGold · October 25, 2006 3:12AM

What is Mr. Winter thinking? Doesn't he realize that if that coin were to be sold at auction it would be subject to public viewing! And then the new owner might display it at national coin shows! No, better that it be locked away in a vault in the SI's musty basement, safe from the prying eyes of the public.

CG

RichieURich · October 25, 2006 3:16AM

<< I have been after the SI, and other museums for that matter, to market all of their duplicate coins and add new material to the existing collections with the proceeds.

I would ammend this to include all different die varieties and die states, if you wish, but all of the excess should be marketed to produce the means to add missing items.

Unfortunately, in the SI's case, there would have to be a law passed to enable to proceeds to remain with the numismatic collection. Otherwise, the proceeds would go back to the general museum fund.

Other museums are probably in a better situation to de-access their duplicates. >>

I agree with Julian. All of the complaining the Smithsonian has done about the National Numismatic Collection and the funding for it could be basically eliminated if they sold the duplicate 1822 half eagle and the duplicate 1933 double eagle. This doesn't even consider the 10 additional 1933 double eagles and the legal case surrounding them.

tradedollarnut · October 25, 2006 3:26AM

Yes, they should select certain rarities and return them to the marketplace. This is a win win for the Smithsonian and numismatics in general. The Smithsonian gets much needed funds in order to enhance the display of the National Coin collection, collectors once again have the opportunity to hold and cherish a privately owned specimen and the publicity will add value to the hobby as well.

The idea that the coin would be messed with in order to 'max it out' is silly .... when only one specimen of a coin is available, the number on the plastic hardly matters.

lloydmincy · October 25, 2006 3:42AM

No reason to sell any. The Smithsonian gets funding from all kinds of sources, and thus COULD enhance the National Coin collection, but it's not a priority for them. (Though I was told from the insiders/curators, the coin exhibit generated the most interest) in that building. And I disagree with private ownership vs. the Smithsonian, in terms of # of viewers able to see the coin(s). I, like many, have seen the two Smithsonian 1822's. I, like many, have NOT seen the Pogue 1822.

RWB · October 25, 2006 4:21AM

A "model" for the NNC may be the Smithsonian Postal Museum.

Regarding preservation, many of the NNC coins have been cleaned or otherwise altered over the years. Recent work has taken place to reverse the worst effects, but identifying a coin with the NNC does not mean it is "pristine."

It is true that most of the collection is not viewable by the public. However, any legitimate researcher can get access to almost anything - something that is not the case with a privately owned collection.

There is a clear advantage to selling duplicates of common material, provided the proceeds offer direct, long-term benefit to the collection.

Also, on the use of funds to enhance the NNC: this was done to a small extent in 1912-13 when the Treasurer’s hoard of gold coin was given to the curator, then the pieces sold at a premium to dealers. The effect was to triple the curator’s acquisition fund for a couple of years.

Bochiman · October 25, 2006 4:25AM

<< In principal, I agree, but then, why stop there? >>

I agree with RYK....the "why stop there" part if what I don't like. It wouldn't stop there. There would ALWAYS be a need for money and selling coins would get to be a habit. Screw that! It does not NEED to be in an individual's hands....let both of them stay where they are.

I think Doug Winter's is not talking like a collector but definitely the dealer he is to say that. It would be great, for a dealer, to broker that kind of a deal. And, once out there, it would likely be sold back and forth within the next few years.

Nope...I say "keep them where they are" and let those that can go visit but not afford them, go to see them. I don't care if it is 1, 2, 5, 10 of them. They are there, they can stay there.

Bochiman · October 25, 2006 4:27AM

<< I think that the Smithsonian should sell all duplicates on eBay (0.01 and no reserve).

>>

Been buying up that ebay stock?

Unknown · October 25, 2006 4:51AM

This content has been removed.

Lakesammman · October 25, 2006 5:10AM

Tough choice. In principal, my gut says sell, but my brain says it will be spent on worthless middle-management or consultants rather than on long term improvements.

Keep the coins where they are.

Julian · October 25, 2006 5:14AM

The key to making this a success is that the money raised MUST be used to add coins to the collection or possibly to insure that the collection will be on permanent display.

This can be done by the same law that will need to be passed to get the coins auctioned.

bidask · October 25, 2006 5:53AM

I think they should donate it to the new MONEY MUSEUM at Washington University, St Louis. That way more people can view it geographically.

Should the Smithsonian follow Doug Winter's advice and sell one of their 1822 $5 Half Eagles?

Comments

Leave a Comment