Very few people are predisposed to numismatic research. Do we put undue burdens on those who are?
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
A lot of us on these boards lament the fact that there is a lot of questionable numismatic research out there. It seems that numis-myths which have been started generations ago, continue to this day, and even when corrective research is presented.
The fact of the matter is, there are relatively few numismatists out there who are good at doing research. To most numismatists, the thought of spending literally days upon days in the dusty stacks of the National Archives, piecing together numismatic history and documentation, is not very palatable.
Does anyone here believe that numismatic research is something that you are either good at, or you’re not? Is there a certain type of person who is generally better at numismatic research than others? Does financial stability have anything to do with it (i.e., if a dealer is fabulously wealthy, he can spend several weeks holed up at the National Archives, without worrying about having enough money to feed his kids)? Do we put undue burdens on those numismatists who are good researchers, because they are the ones that have to essentially carry the entire numismatic community on their backs? What do you think?
The fact of the matter is, there are relatively few numismatists out there who are good at doing research. To most numismatists, the thought of spending literally days upon days in the dusty stacks of the National Archives, piecing together numismatic history and documentation, is not very palatable.
Does anyone here believe that numismatic research is something that you are either good at, or you’re not? Is there a certain type of person who is generally better at numismatic research than others? Does financial stability have anything to do with it (i.e., if a dealer is fabulously wealthy, he can spend several weeks holed up at the National Archives, without worrying about having enough money to feed his kids)? Do we put undue burdens on those numismatists who are good researchers, because they are the ones that have to essentially carry the entire numismatic community on their backs? What do you think?
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
Personally I would love to spend time in the archives. Things that keep me from going include work, kids and lack of funds.
Not sure we are really putting undue burden, the folks who do the research do it because they enjoy it and many enjoy sharing what they have found. In some cases it is enough for them to see a book with all their efforts on the shelf.
<< <i>What do you think? >>
I think you need some help.
<< <i>A lot of us on these boards lament the fact that there is a lot of questionable numismatic research out there. It seems that numis-myths which have been started generations ago, continue to this day, and even when corrective research is presented.
The fact of the matter is, there are relatively few numismatists out there who are good at doing research. To most numismatists, the thought of spending literally days upon days in the dusty stacks of the National Archives, piecing together numismatic history and documentation, is not very palatable.
Does anyone here believe that numismatic research is something that you are either good at, or you’re not? Is there a certain type of person who is generally better at numismatic research than others? Does financial stability have anything to do with it (i.e., if a dealer is fabulously wealthy, he can spend several weeks holed up at the National Archives, without worrying about having enough money to feed his kids)? Do we put undue burdens on those numismatists who are good researchers, because they are the ones that have to essentially carry the entire numismatic community on their backs? What do you think? >>
I think it's not all that different from being a lawyer... during discovery the facts are presented to be tied together to create the story of what happened... the most conviencing story wins..
Are you either good at it or not? Of course, but it's like the newbee sending submissions in and going 0/20 then a year later getting 20/20 on upgrades... your get out what you put in.. You may have been born working for the man and you may die working for the man but I bet your paycheck reflects the fact you're getting better at it..
Ever notice the bigger and better a researcher gets the list of credits also grows on their acknowledgements.... rest easy a new generation is being trained..
<< <i>Or, possibly get hold of their Myers-Briggs scores…? >>
Myers-Briggs claims that I am a "composer". Anyone else have results to share?
As for the OP's question, no, there is no undue burden. Pretty much it is a labor of love, not even QDB himself makes much money on books. One highly respected researcher reported that a recent book (the standard reference for years to come) was a success because "it lost less money than the last one". So if you are mainly motivated by an interest in the subject, you are not going to be beholden to the "unwashed masses"™ who might be looking for a different angle.
Having been in this hobby since 1962, I have found that most of what I learned was not accurate or complete by any means. Then again, I grew up with Breen and Taxay (along with others).
My desire and challenge to learn the real background came from finding out that what I thought I knew wasn't really true. A case in point is the relatively new information which I presented about Joseph Wright being the designer of the obverse of the Libertas Americana medals. It has not even been considered by current writers and may be challenged by some who believe differently. That's fine, as it would make those who believe otherwise present their facts about why they believe the way they do. I'll bet 9 out of 10 people believe the way they do because they have already accepted and believed what was presented to them in the past.
Although there are many who claim to be knowledgable in this field, there are only a small number who actually do the research. The others merely copy the information (right or wrong) and get "respected" for the ability to present something that has already been presented by others.
The lack of funding is a major reason we continue to not have adequate research done in this field. A good geneologist would do wonders with pedigrees, background accuracy (such as life dates), and perhaps some forms of clarification regarding many of the reported stories that we have so much of in American numismatics.
You probably get my drift, so I will close on this for now. I do want to thank PCGS for providing this forum, as we can all share our opinions, feelings, and most importantly, our questions and answers.
Unless one is trained to historical research, one won't be able to wade through sources and evaluate which ones are reliable. First-hand accounts have to be weighed to see if the source had reasons to be less than accurate in his statements, to see how they jibe with other sources, etc. This comes from training.
No matter how good one's research techniques are, however, one should also have an interest in what he's researching so he can stay focused and bring experience with the subject into play. If a foundation hired a researcher with no interest in numismatics to do a project on a particular coin topic, the researcher may come up with an accurate assessment of the sources he consulted. Had he been interested in the topic, perhaps he'd have known to look in related areas that he found through his prior experience.
One also has to be honest to prepare a reliable history. In doing research on why the double-dime was created, I found a piece of legislation that directly contradicted what my previous study had led me to believe. Should I exclude or discount that piece of evidence? If I'm going to discount it I'd best explain the evidence that leads me to do so. If I exclude it from my research so my thesis better appears to hold water I'm being dishonest.
Obscurum per obscurius
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Obscurum per obscurius
<< <i>Myers-Briggs claims that I am a "composer". Anyone else have results to share? >>
I went to some class in Colorado Springs where we spent a week doing all of that sort of stuff. I took a bunch of those tests, and the class involved having a recorded analysis of my results/discussion with some dude who does this for a living (I actually listened to the tapes again about a month ago, and it was pretty funny).
I got pegged as a "visionary" (if I am remembering the term correctly), and I scored off the charts in two areas-- getting things done (execution), and feeling empathy for my colleagues. They said it was highly unusual to see someone who is so driven but then still concerned with how others feel. I guess when they made Longacre, they broke the mold.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I think the empathy part disqualifies you from senior management, also.
Obscurum per obscurius
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/
What Coinosaurus said.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
While I was getting an education, I was too involved with other things.
When I got married, there was definitely no time to do so.
When I retired, we spent a lot of time traveling and giving slide shows of our travels
,gratis, at retirement homes, church groups, women's clubs, travel afficianados, etc.
After that, we weren't spring chickens anymore and I was into genealogy for several
years. I did share a lot of that with relatives.
Finally, at none of these stages in life, did I live close to facilities having the kind of material
necessary to do the research. I just enjoyed collecting, and not just coins, and shared that
enjoyment with others who had no real interest in delving into the history of numistmatics.
I do appreciate the efforts made by others who had the opportunity and interest to do so.
JET
I collect all 20th century series except gold including those series that ended there.