Feeling a bit disinfranchised from CSNS - Convention decision - UPDATE in 1st post - call from CSNS
CoinHusker
Posts: 5,033 ✭✭✭
UPDATE: I received a call from CSNS President Patti Finner last night. Word must travel fast. 
Anyway, she explained to me that 2 months ago in Chicago CSNS polled the major dealers, PNG, and auction houses and no one had any interest in attending a show, or bidding on having an auction in Omaha. As Patti said, "It didn't take us long to discover that a convention in Omaha would be a financial disaster for Central States." Man, is that disappointing. I feel better that it wasn't a CSNS decision to "stiff" Omaha and the western states in its region, it's the eastern perception of Omaha by these groups. I mean, what could CSNS say if no dealers, the PNG and no auction house wanted anything to do with Omaha. They couldn't hold a show in Omaha. That explains why they (auction houses, PNG and major dealers) only want shows in the cities listed in my OP.
One thing I heard last night was the argument that there isn't a large enough population base to host a convention to attract the major dealers, PNG and an auction. Are the dealers kidding? Is most of the money and transactions done dealer to dealer any way? The public activity on the borse is what makes a show? Plus Omaha has a larger % of millionaires per capita than just about any other city. Ask regional dealers and they'll tell you Nebraska has one of the largest collector bases in the country. So, the bias against a place like Omaha is more about eastern perception and bias than facts. IMO
I am still deeply disappointed and I think CSNS is in danger of letting "the tail wag the dog" by letting these groups set its agenda for show locations and leave the collecting base get the left overs. But I do see the practical aspect of their decision as well. But it still is bad for Omaha knowing what we have to offer. I can honestly say, I think it's their loss.
-----------------------------
OP----
Our club has been working to make arrangements with corporate sponsors who have head quarters in Omaha (Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific, Omaha Steaks, PayPal, etc.), the city and state (passage of a sales tax holiday on coins and bullion during a convention), etc., etc. to "invite" a major convention to Omaha.
In an email over the weekend from Central States Numismatic Society, I was told, "The Board has made a decision that we will only be holding our event in the larger cities in the region closer to major population centers, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis."
The ANA I can understand that from, it is a National organization, but from a regional organization. I thought that was the purpose of a regional group? To offer services that a larger, national group won't or can't.
There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region from the hope of ever hosting a convention in my opinion. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri.
Collectors in smaller, less populated states need a regional club, not another ANA, to represent them, and not reject them. that's how I feel right now, rejected.
As a collector involved a number of different levels in the hobby I am deeply disappointed with CSNS convention site selection policy.
What say you? Am I expecting too much? Being unrealistic?
Anyway, she explained to me that 2 months ago in Chicago CSNS polled the major dealers, PNG, and auction houses and no one had any interest in attending a show, or bidding on having an auction in Omaha. As Patti said, "It didn't take us long to discover that a convention in Omaha would be a financial disaster for Central States." Man, is that disappointing. I feel better that it wasn't a CSNS decision to "stiff" Omaha and the western states in its region, it's the eastern perception of Omaha by these groups. I mean, what could CSNS say if no dealers, the PNG and no auction house wanted anything to do with Omaha. They couldn't hold a show in Omaha. That explains why they (auction houses, PNG and major dealers) only want shows in the cities listed in my OP.One thing I heard last night was the argument that there isn't a large enough population base to host a convention to attract the major dealers, PNG and an auction. Are the dealers kidding? Is most of the money and transactions done dealer to dealer any way? The public activity on the borse is what makes a show? Plus Omaha has a larger % of millionaires per capita than just about any other city. Ask regional dealers and they'll tell you Nebraska has one of the largest collector bases in the country. So, the bias against a place like Omaha is more about eastern perception and bias than facts. IMO
I am still deeply disappointed and I think CSNS is in danger of letting "the tail wag the dog" by letting these groups set its agenda for show locations and leave the collecting base get the left overs. But I do see the practical aspect of their decision as well. But it still is bad for Omaha knowing what we have to offer. I can honestly say, I think it's their loss.
-----------------------------
OP----
Our club has been working to make arrangements with corporate sponsors who have head quarters in Omaha (Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific, Omaha Steaks, PayPal, etc.), the city and state (passage of a sales tax holiday on coins and bullion during a convention), etc., etc. to "invite" a major convention to Omaha.
In an email over the weekend from Central States Numismatic Society, I was told, "The Board has made a decision that we will only be holding our event in the larger cities in the region closer to major population centers, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis."
The ANA I can understand that from, it is a National organization, but from a regional organization. I thought that was the purpose of a regional group? To offer services that a larger, national group won't or can't.
There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region from the hope of ever hosting a convention in my opinion. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri.
Collectors in smaller, less populated states need a regional club, not another ANA, to represent them, and not reject them. that's how I feel right now, rejected.
As a collector involved a number of different levels in the hobby I am deeply disappointed with CSNS convention site selection policy.
What say you? Am I expecting too much? Being unrealistic?
Collecting coins, medals and currency featuring "The Sower"
0
Comments
Institutional discontent often spurs people of vision to action. Can we expect a new organization to be chartered?
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
It is the job of CSNS to get the highest attendance at the show. If others feel the same way that I do, then holding it in Omaha isn't going to bring the highest population area to the show, that of the greater Chicago area, Ohio (Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, Cleveland), and Michigan. The population density just isn't in Western Iowa, Nebraska, or the Dakotas. I acknowledge that it sucks for you. I'd be upset that I can't get to a major show without flying. But I hardly feel that it's the CSNS Board's job to accomodate you and hurt the greater majority of the population within their region.
haul to the show.
<< <i>There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri. >>
Does the CSNS represent the 7 other states in other ways?
It's not that have anything against Omaha, they are just facing economic reality in the age of $4+ gas and high air travel costs.
I wonder if there could be an option for a second, perhaps smaller, show each year but held in the western area. If it would be possible to do that without losing money, what reason would the board have to object? If the members in the western area can organize and staff it, it would not drain resources away from the annual convention.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
I can agree that sucks, but given the reality above I can understand the decision.
Members in any organization need to feel valued in order to continue to support that organization.
-Randy Newman
<< <i>Hard to say if it's right or wrong. They have to do what they think is best for the organization.
I wonder if there could be an option for a second, perhaps smaller, show each year but held in the western area. If it would be possible to do that without losing money, what reason would the board have to object? If the members in the western area can organize and staff it, it would not drain resources away from the annual convention. >>
This is an excellent idea, IMO, and a good compromise.
-Randy Newman
<< <i>
<< <i>There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri. >>
Does the CSNS represent the 7 other states in other ways? >>
One reason may be that those states are underrepresented in the CSNS leadership. The following lists the unique cities per state listed on that page. There are 16 contact cities for the club covering 13 states. 14 contact cities are in the acceptable states and only 2 in the unacceptable states. 5 states have no representation on that page.
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood, Logansport, Marion
2) Michigan (3): Delton, Flint, Wayne
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola, Milwaukee, Wausau
4) Illinois (2): Belleville, Naperville
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati, Cleves
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul
8) Missouri (1): Liberty
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0)
I'm not sure if acceptable and unacceptable are the best words but they seem to fit in the context of conventions and the former was used by the OP.
This seems related to how the US Congress is set up. If representation is correlated to size, then the smaller states will be underrepresented. Perhaps something like the US Senate where each state gets equal representation would give these states more attention?
I am sure that Omaha, or Lincoln or even Scottsbluff are lovely places, but compared to more established population centers in the region such as Chicago or St. Louis no city in Nebraska potentially has the massive draw appeal as those two areas can achieve.
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri. >>
Does the CSNS represent the 7 other states in other ways? >>
One reason may be that those states are underrepresented in the CSNS leadership. The following lists the unique cities per state listed on that page. There are 16 contact cities for the club covering 13 states. 14 contact cities are in the acceptable states and only 2 in the unacceptable states. 5 states have no representation on that page.
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood, Logansport, Marion
2) Michigan (3): Delton, Flint, Wayne
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola, Milwaukee, Wausau
4) Illinois (2): Belleville, Naperville
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati, Cleves
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul
8) Missouri (1): Liberty
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0)
I'm not sure if acceptable and unacceptable are the best words but they seem to fit in the context of conventions and the former was used by the OP.
This seems related to how the US Congress is set up. If representation is correlated to size, then the smaller states will be underrepresented. Perhaps something like the US Senate where each state gets equal representation would give these states more attention? >>
Thank you for pointing that out, and it alsocould explain the preference for the states represented. Also, thanks to all who responded with their thoughts, ideas, suggestions and reality checks.
I don't want my OP to sound like sour grapes, honest disappointment, yes, but not sour grapes. I think the idea of a smaller show, at a different time is a great idea and could possibly be held in conjunction with a state show.
I just don't think CSNS and similar organizations realize how cities that normally don't host such events go out of their way to do it right, on a lot of levels where possibly cities who do it routinely take it for granted.
Omaha will host the College World Series for 75 years, we are hosting the Olympic Swim trials this summer, we host Warren Buffet's Bershire Hathaway shareholders annual meeting, we have the 5th rated concert venue in the world, but we can't hold a CSNS convention? It's disappointing.
Maybe the CSNS is too big covering 13 states. After all that is over a quarter of the entire US!
Sounds like an opportunity to start a sub regional society - call it the Western CSNS.
“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!
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri. >>
Does the CSNS represent the 7 other states in other ways? >>
One reason may be that those states are underrepresented in the CSNS leadership. The following lists the unique cities per state listed on that page. There are 16 contact cities for the club covering 13 states. 14 contact cities are in the acceptable states and only 2 in the unacceptable states. 5 states have no representation on that page.
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood, Logansport, Marion
2) Michigan (3): Delton, Flint, Wayne
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola, Milwaukee, Wausau
4) Illinois (2): Belleville, Naperville
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati, Cleves
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul
8) Missouri (1): Liberty
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0)
I'm not sure if acceptable and unacceptable are the best words but they seem to fit in the context of conventions and the former was used by the OP.
This seems related to how the US Congress is set up. If representation is correlated to size, then the smaller states will be underrepresented. Perhaps something like the US Senate where each state gets equal representation would give these states more attention? >>
Allow me to correct you on this - if you're going by those who vote, then here is how it goes:
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood (Wendell Wolka), Logansport (Sec-Treas. Jerry Lebo), and Marion (Ray Lockwood - a true numismatic ambassador)
2) Michigan (3): Delton (Mike Dennany), Flint (Ron Sirna, who is not a board member and thus no voting privileges), Wayne (Current VP Don Charters)
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola (Current prez Patti Finner), Milwaukee (Bruce Benoit), and Wausau (Ex-prez Bill Brandimore).
4) Illinois (1): Belleville (Jack Huggins, Jr.). Naperville (Bruce Perdue was an ex-gov who because of my candidacy was defeated in 2006 - currently Webmaster and has no voting rights)
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati (Paul Padget), Cleves (David Heinrich)
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg (Don Young)
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul (Greg Allen (aka Foodude))
8) Missouri (1): Liberty (Jim Moores)
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0
Collecting:
Conder tokens
19th & 20th Century coins from Great Britain and the Realm
LOL
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Our club has been working to make arrangements with corporate sponsors who have head quarters in Omaha (Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific, Omaha Steaks, PayPal, etc.), the city and state (passage of a sales tax holiday on coins and bullion during a convention), etc., etc. to "invite" a major convention to Omaha.
In an email over the weekend from Central States Numismatic Society, I was told, "The Board has made a decision that we will only be holding our event in the larger cities in the region closer to major population centers, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis."
The ANA I can understand that from, it is a National organization, but from a regional organization. I thought that was the purpose of a regional group? To offer services that a larger, national group won't or can't.
There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri.
It's like CSNS is trying to morph into another ANA. Collectors in smaller, less populated states need a regional club, not another ANA to represent them, not reject them.
As a CSNS life member, President of a local club and editor of a state numismatic publication I am deeply disappointed with CSNS convention site selection policy.
What say you? Am I expecting too much? Being unrealistic?
Cornhusker - You and your club are being very realistic at all. It is Central States that isn't. In their past CSNS had shows in small cities like Peoria, IL. The sad fact is that CSNS is trying real hard to become another ANA, right down to their rules and their shows. And as a regular member of CSNS, I find this particularly disturbing. I believe that CSNS should be at a level between state organization and the national one, but the current leadership has other ideas, and none of them good. And to add insult to injury, the current President is the current VP in the ANA (so if anyone wants to get an idea on what the ANA will be like in a couple of years, one just needs to look at the shanagans going on in CSNS.) There are other things that I can say about the idiocracy going on in CSNS (including their elections) but I will save them for another time.
<< <i>Oooops, my ANA membership expired. I best quit stirring the soup
LOL
Trouble maker!
<< <i>
<< <i>Oooops, my ANA membership expired. I best quit stirring the soup
LOL
Trouble maker!
Sounds like me!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri. >>
Does the CSNS represent the 7 other states in other ways? >>
One reason may be that those states are underrepresented in the CSNS leadership. The following lists the unique cities per state listed on that page. There are 16 contact cities for the club covering 13 states. 14 contact cities are in the acceptable states and only 2 in the unacceptable states. 5 states have no representation on that page.
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood, Logansport, Marion
2) Michigan (3): Delton, Flint, Wayne
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola, Milwaukee, Wausau
4) Illinois (2): Belleville, Naperville
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati, Cleves
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul
8) Missouri (1): Liberty
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0)
I'm not sure if acceptable and unacceptable are the best words but they seem to fit in the context of conventions and the former was used by the OP.
This seems related to how the US Congress is set up. If representation is correlated to size, then the smaller states will be underrepresented. Perhaps something like the US Senate where each state gets equal representation would give these states more attention? >>
Allow me to correct you on this - if you're going by those who vote, then here is how it goes:
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood (Wendell Wolka), Logansport (Sec-Treas. Jerry Lebo), and Marion (Ray Lockwood - a true numismatic ambassador)
2) Michigan (3): Delton (Mike Dennany), Flint (Ron Sirna, who is not a board member and thus no voting privileges), Wayne (Current VP Don Charters)
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola (Current prez Patti Finner), Milwaukee (Bruce Benoit), and Wausau (Ex-prez Bill Brandimore).
4) Illinois (1): Belleville (Jack Huggins, Jr.). Naperville (Bruce Perdue was an ex-gov who because of my candidacy was defeated in 2006 - currently Webmaster and has no voting rights)
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati (Paul Padget), Cleves (David Heinrich)
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg (Don Young)
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul (Greg Allen (aka Foodude))
8) Missouri (1): Liberty (Jim Moores)
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0 >>
Thank you for pointing that out. It is obvious that the balance of power in the CSNS definately tilts east of the Mississippi River.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>There are 13 states in the CSNS. According to the list of acceptible sites sent me, The CSNS boards decision effectively disinfranchises 7 of the member states, all in the western part of the CSNS region. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri. >>
Does the CSNS represent the 7 other states in other ways? >>
One reason may be that those states are underrepresented in the CSNS leadership. The following lists the unique cities per state listed on that page. There are 16 contact cities for the club covering 13 states. 14 contact cities are in the acceptable states and only 2 in the unacceptable states. 5 states have no representation on that page.
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood, Logansport, Marion
2) Michigan (3): Delton, Flint, Wayne
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola, Milwaukee, Wausau
4) Illinois (2): Belleville, Naperville
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati, Cleves
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul
8) Missouri (1): Liberty
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0)
I'm not sure if acceptable and unacceptable are the best words but they seem to fit in the context of conventions and the former was used by the OP.
This seems related to how the US Congress is set up. If representation is correlated to size, then the smaller states will be underrepresented. Perhaps something like the US Senate where each state gets equal representation would give these states more attention? >>
Allow me to correct you on this - if you're going by those who vote, then here is how it goes:
Acceptable states (14):
1) Indiana (3): Greenwood (Wendell Wolka), Logansport (Sec-Treas. Jerry Lebo), and Marion (Ray Lockwood - a true numismatic ambassador)
2) Michigan (3): Delton (Mike Dennany), Flint (Ron Sirna, who is not a board member and thus no voting privileges), Wayne (Current VP Don Charters)
3) Wisconsin (3): Iola (Current prez Patti Finner), Milwaukee (Bruce Benoit), and Wausau (Ex-prez Bill Brandimore).
4) Illinois (1): Belleville (Jack Huggins, Jr.). Naperville (Bruce Perdue was an ex-gov who because of my candidacy was defeated in 2006 - currently Webmaster and has no voting rights)
5) Ohio (2): Cincinnati (Paul Padget), Cleves (David Heinrich)
6) Kentucky (1): Harrodsburg (Don Young)
Unacceptable states (2)
7) Minnesota (1): St. Paul (Greg Allen (aka Foodude))
8) Missouri (1): Liberty (Jim Moores)
9) Iowa (0)
10) Kansas (0)
11) Nebraska (0)
12) North Dakota (0)
13) South Dakota (0 >>
Thank you for pointing that out. It is obvious that the balance of power in the CSNS definately tilts east of the Mississippi River. >>
What is comical about the makeup of the CSNS is that Wisconsin and Indiana has dominance of the board at the expense of the smaller states like Nebraska and Kansas and even larger ones like Illinois and Michigan. But this is the result of those who run for the board and those who are electable. I tried 3 times to get on that board and lost to candidates who, for some, are far from qualified to even be on the board.
<< <i>I think that you are spot on. Regional organizations should support the entire region.
Institutional discontent often spurs people of vision to action. Can we expect a new organization to be chartered? >>
I think that a new midwestern regional numismatic organization would be a good idea. How about the NSM (Numismatic Society of the Midwest)?
<< <i>I think that a new midwestern regional numismatic organization would be a good idea. How about the NSM (Numismatic Society of the Midwest)? >>
Or the PSNA (Prairie States Numismatic Association)?
Being from Minnesota, I would like to see the CSNS in Minneapolis once. Our club is a member club of the CSNS, but that is all we can say, as there isn't anything going on in Minnesota. It is too far for me to travel to Chicago, etc.
And besides, the snow is usually gone by June!
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that a new midwestern regional numismatic organization would be a good idea. How about the NSM (Numismatic Society of the Midwest)? >>
Or the PSNA (Prairie States Numismatic Association)? >>
Hmmm......ziggy, thats a heck of an idea!
But seriously, if CSNS could promise equal representation for all member clubs and states, there wouldn't be a need for a new organization. It just appears the power shift is taking the CSNS focus with it.
I feel it's important to say that CSNS has been good to both Samuel and I. His big exposure to numismatics was through The Centinel, the official CSNS publication. We have numerous friends in the CSNS, I'm a life member, maybe that's why the email I received felt like a punch in the gut.
My biggest complaint is the obscene fees that CSNS charges and the fact that they can't seem to avoid planning the show on passover. Maybe if we can all join CSNS we can get enough votes to can the old boys club... I mean the board (worked for the ANA).
Sounds like an acceptable idea ...
Personally, I wouldn't mind a show in Omaha as it is about the same distance for me as going to St Louis the last time I went to CSNS over there. Still there are a few smaller area shows not that far out of Kansas City that occasionally warrant attention such as Topeka, Wichita, and Pittsburgh in Kansas, Ft Smith, Arkansas and Springfield, Missouri. Anymore about the only St Louis show I shoot for is the Silver Dollar show in October.
Happy Rock Wrens
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova
Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that a new midwestern regional numismatic organization would be a good idea. How about the NSM (Numismatic Society of the Midwest)? >>
Or the PSNA (Prairie States Numismatic Association)? >>
Ok, now you got me thinkin' about the states west of the Mississippi. Let's keep it funny. Remember, if we can't laugh at ourselves...
Flat Land Numismatic Association/Society
Sod Buster Numisamtic Association/Society
Clod Hopper Numismatic Association/Society
Our motto: "Coins ain't the only thing we dip"
<< <i>Our club has been working to make arrangements with corporate sponsors who have head quarters in Omaha (Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific, Omaha Steaks, PayPal, etc.), >>
I think the issue is simply that CSNS doesn't accept PayPal.
Looks like the population within 3 hours of Omaha is a little north of 2 million, which is probably comparable to recent ANA venues in Kansas City and Denver. One could say you're barking up the wrong tree trying to get a CSNS show.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>Our club has been working to make arrangements with corporate sponsors who have head quarters in Omaha (Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific, Omaha Steaks, PayPal, etc.), >>
I think the issue is simply that CSNS doesn't accept PayPal.
Looks like the population within 3 hours of Omaha is a little north of 2 million, which is probably comparable to recent ANA venues in Kansas City and Denver. One could say you're barking up the wrong tree trying to get a CSNS show. >>
You're probably right. Metro Omaha (counting all the burbs) is close to 900,000. However, according to our Convention and Visitors Bureau, the ANA has said in no uncertain terms, "We have no interest in coming to Omaha."
which I don't get. omaha has a rich history with the ANA. 3 past Presidents, runner-up for the ANA headquarters, etc. I think a lot has to do with perception and the "What have you done for me lately?" mentality our culture embraces.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>The future of large coin shows will belong to sharp commercial promoters who don't have the political problems that come with numismatic associations. >>
I hate to admit it (being a higher up in a state numismatic association) but you may be right. Fortunately for us in Illinois (and in ILNA), we don't have that problem.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Our club has been working to make arrangements with corporate sponsors who have head quarters in Omaha (Mutual of Omaha, Union Pacific, Omaha Steaks, PayPal, etc.), >>
I think the issue is simply that CSNS doesn't accept PayPal.
Looks like the population within 3 hours of Omaha is a little north of 2 million, which is probably comparable to recent ANA venues in Kansas City and Denver. One could say you're barking up the wrong tree trying to get a CSNS show. >>
You're probably right. Metro Omaha (counting all the burbs) is close to 900,000. However, according to our Convention and Visitors Bureau, the ANA has said in no uncertain terms, "We have no interest in coming to Omaha."
which I don't get. omaha has a rich history with the ANA. 3 past Presidents, runner-up for the ANA headquarters, etc. I think a lot has to do with perception and the "What have you done for me lately?" mentality our culture embraces. >>
Mitch - it all comes down to good old fashioned cronyism on that board. It was 15 years before Chicago had another CSNS show, and Indy will be getting theirs in 2011. Why not Omaha? Collectors from Nebraska and Iowa would love it. But the leadership in CSNS are in their own world and in a state of something that I cannot put my finger on.
<< <i>It seems as though Minneapolis would have made the cut, it is not exactly a small town and it has decent airport connections (not like Chicago of course). >>
You would think - but leave it to the ANA wannabe to screw things up!
<< <i>One would guess that Minneapolis would be large enough to make the list. However, in this case I believe that there are reasons other than population that keep Mpls off the list.
I remember driving up to Minneapolis for a CSNS show back around 1985 or 86. There were three of us working the table and sharing the driving. The gas was probably 39 cents a gallon.
TD
I wasn't trying to start trouble. I was just having fun with our Buffs to the West.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Seriously, the world of the large coin show is going to change in the next few years.
<< <i>If the world's richest man, who lives in Omaha, could be persuaded to come to a show and spend a million dollars at each table (pocket change for him) I'll bet their attitude would change. (OK, there may be a few larger dealers who would turn up their noses at the thought of a mere million dollar sale.) >>
Because of Warren Buffett, and those locals who initially invested with him 40 years ago, Omaha has the highest percentage of resident millionaires per capita than any other Us city. If these dealers/auction houses want to see the money, we can show them the money.
<< <i>Seriously, the world of the large coin show is going to change in the next few years. >>
I hope you're right.