A 1913 Liberty nickel tidbit...Sam Brown

RWB · January 20, 2010 9:48AM

January 27, 1910
From Andrew
To Landis

[Referring to satisfactory shipment of gloves used by the adjusters and others who handle coins. Samuel W. Brown mentioned by name.]

…considering the quality of the gloves accepted by your storekeeper and sent to the Mint at San Francisco the inferiority of which is patent to anyone as per sample returned to this Bureau from San Francisco, I would call to your attention the importance of selecting someone more competent to fill the position of Storekeeper than Samuel W. Brown, the present incumbent.

pakasmom · January 20, 2010 9:56AM

Didn't he last almost another three years? Was that a civil service position?

RWB · January 20, 2010 10:07AM

Not Civil Service. Andrew forgot about it and left in June to become Asst Treasurer.

Coinosaurus · January 20, 2010 10:50AM

This is not the first time I have heard that Samuel Brown was not a good employee, w/reference to Mint records. Not sure where the other discussion was. Probably something in the 1913 nickel book. If not, there should have been.

I was once told that the Nat. Archives had files on specific BEP employees, but if that is true I have not been able to locate them. Similarly have never heard of specific Mint employee records, either.

The cool thing about the 1913 nickel is that Newman, Green, et al, owned all of them at once. Ironically I think they were worth more split up. The same goes for the inverted Jenny, of which Green owned the orignal plate block of 100.

savoyspecial · January 20, 2010 1:12PM

i've always enjoyed the story of how Samuel Brown would take out ads in newspapers of the day offering $500 for an example, all the while KNOWING he owned the only 5 in existance

classic marketing!

RWB · January 20, 2010 11:21PM

Yet Brown was well respected in his home town....

savoyspecial · January 20, 2010 11:32PM

....later elected mayor i believe

coindeuce · January 20, 2010 11:57PM

Mayor of Tonawanda, N.Y.

thebeav · January 21, 2010 2:14AM

<< Mayor of Tonawanda, N.Y.

>>

Is that a fact ?
Currently where I reside......

RWB · January 21, 2010 2:18AM

Maybe you can locate Brown's family papers. In there might be clues to the 1913 Liberty nickel mystery.

Dropdaflag · January 21, 2010 5:03AM

I bet he never thought some one would be looking over his work record a hundred years later. Kind of makes you think! "What will someone in 2110 know about me?"

RWB · January 21, 2010 5:12AM

There's a private company in CT that already know more about you than you can imagine!

pmac · January 21, 2010 5:16AM

<< I bet he never thought some one would be looking over his work record a hundred years later. Kind of makes you think! "What will someone in 2110 know about me?" >>

Nobody would care

.

Coinosaurus · January 21, 2010 5:17AM

<< I bet he never thought some one would be looking over his work record a hundred years later. Kind of makes you think! "What will someone in 2110 know about me?" >>

By then computers will be extinct, and the print archives of the forum will be the best source of information on the collectors of today. The holy grail of numismatic literature collectors will be the hundred volume set first published in 2027.

coolest · January 21, 2010 5:31AM

Well things havent changed much in government, failure is still rewarded.

Analyst · February 7, 2010 1:28PM

<< January 27, 1910
From Andrew
To Landis

[Referring to satisfactory shipment of gloves used by the adjusters and others who handle coins. Samuel W. Brown mentioned by name.]

…considering the quality of the gloves accepted by your storekeeper and sent to the Mint at San Francisco the inferiority of which is patent to anyone as per sample returned to this Bureau from San Francisco, I would call to your attention the importance of selecting someone more competent to fill the position of Storekeeper than Samuel W. Brown, the present incumbent. >>

It would be unfair to draw a conclusion about Brown from this letter. If there was really a problem with a shipment of gloves, it might not have been Brown’s fault. An assistant or supervisor could be to blame. Plus, there could be variables that we will never know. Besides, the writer of the letter might have been angry at Brown for other reasons, or there could have been a personality conflict between these two or between Brown and someone else.

RWB, have you located much information about Brown’s tenure as an employee of the U.S. Mint? Are you going to feed us information one morsel at a time?

Article on the Olsen-Hawn 1913 Liberty Nickel

Coinosaurus · February 7, 2010 2:03PM

There isn't one single place you can go and get every tidbit and morsel about Mr. Brown's employ at the Mint. If there were, it would have already been done.

The Archives are organized in a disparate manner and to get through it all and extract all the information about Mr. Brown isn't possible unless you've got a whole team of researchers and a few years to play with.

I doubt RWB was hunting for Brown. More likely this was material he came across while working on another project.

I do not see any conclusions drawn by the OP.

RWB · February 8, 2010 12:53AM

With the exception of some personnel files, which reveal little except employment dates, finding anything about a specific employee is pure chance. Most archive files are just boxes of correspondence or volumes of correspondence in approximate date order. They have to be searched page-by-page.

With regard to the letter by director Andrew, Sam Brown’s job as Storekeeper required that he examine and approve all material and supply purchases. He was expected to ensure that quality met expectations and to protect the mint from paying for shoddy materials. His role required him to approve materials for the Philadelphia Mint and then ship quantities (gloves in this instance) to the other mints.

It is unusual for a Mint Director to identify by name such a low ranking employee as Brown. But, Andrew was a micromanager and something of a pompous arse. In other memos and letters he seems pleased to be able to lay off workers (a Reduction in Force – RIF – he called it), or happily tells of destroying 200+ of the mint’s finest old pattern coin hubs.

Analyst · February 9, 2010 7:16AM

<< It is unusual for a Mint Director to identify by name such a low ranking employee as Brown. But, Andrew was a micromanager and something of a pompous arse. In other memos and letters he seems pleased to be able to lay off workers ... or happily tells of destroying 200+ of the mint’s finest old pattern coin hubs. >>

So, Andrew might have enjoyed belittling Brown, even if Andrew did not think that Brown had done anything wrong.

Coinosaurus, you inferred far too much from my post than is really there.

I was not implying that it was easy to find information about Brown or any other single individual. I was just curious as to what had been found.

I was not accusing anyone of specifically drawing a negative conclusion about Brown solely from the letter cited above. I was putting forth two subtle points.

First, people are often, in a variety of circumstances, too quick to draw conclusions from documents. It is tempting and easy to take statements literally without considering reasons why a literal interpretation may be false or misleading. Secondly, we both know that some numismatic researchers and coin collectors have concluded that Brown engaged in wrongdoing in regard to the production and dispersal of 1913 Liberty Nickels. Of course, I agree that he might have misbehaved.

I just wonder if there are other explanations. A prominent coin collector, who is also a lawyer, once put forth a case that 1913 Liberty Nickels could have been legally struck in 1912, as dies for the upcoming year were often prepared months before. Maybe RWB or Coinosaurus could enlighten us as to when the law authorizing Buffalo Nickels was passed and whether it prohibited the striking of Liberty Nickels in 1913 or late 1912.

Thanks.

Article on the Olsen-Hawn 1913 Liberty Nickel

Dockwalliper · February 9, 2010 7:25AM

Mayor of NORTH Tonawanda NY. Totally different city, different county.

This was Mayor Browns home on Goundry Street in North Tonawanda. I would love to go thru the yard with a metal detector.

coindeuce · February 9, 2010 7:45AM

Thanks for the correction Dockwalliper. Yes, Tonawanda, in Erie County, was/is primarily occupied by industrial plants, including fume belching iron foundries that were associated with the automotive industry in the mid to late 20th century. I presume North Tonawanda is in a more rural part of Niagara County.

RWB · February 9, 2010 7:53AM

First, people are often, in a variety of circumstances, too quick to draw conclusions from documents. It is tempting and easy to take statements literally without considering reasons why a literal interpretation may be false or misleading. Secondly, we both know that some numismatic researchers and coin collectors have concluded that Brown engaged in wrongdoing in regard to the production and dispersal of 1913 Liberty Nickels. Of course, I agree that he might have misbehaved.

The documented association between Brown and 1913 Liberty nickels only begins when he first introduced the coins to collectors. Anything prior to that is assumption.

I just wonder if there are other explanations. A prominent coin collector, who is also a lawyer, once put forth a case that 1913 Liberty Nickels could have been legally struck in 1912, as dies for the upcoming year were often prepared months before. Maybe RWB or Coinosaurus could enlighten us as to when the law authorizing Buffalo Nickels was passed and whether it prohibited the striking of Liberty Nickels in 1913 or late 1912.

Dies for 1913 Liberty nickels were made in the normal course of business during the latter portion of 1912. The law authorizing the new Buffalo/Indian design was the Coinage Act of 1890 – the Mint Director with approval of the Secretary of the Treasury selected and authorized new designs. Secretary MacVeagh informally approved the new design in August 1912, but official acceptance and approval for testing did not come until December 18, 1912, and final production approval was granted on February 15, 1913.

Superintendent Landis raised the question of destroying 1913-dated Liberty nickel dies on February 24:

“ Now that the new design five-cent nickel piece has been approved, would it not be well to destroy the dies and hubs of the 1912 design. The Engraver has on hand a lot of working dies made for this mint and those sent to San Francisco and returned. He also has in possession the pattern dies made in 1909 and 1910 for the five-cent piece with bust of Washington.
“ If it is your opinion that these dies and hubs should be destroyed, I would thank you for authority to have this done.”

There would have been no logical reason to strike any coins from 1913-dated Liberty nickel dies. The new design had been in progress for months and all mint officials knew about it. Striking coins prior to the year on the die was prohibited. Striking any after approval of the new design in December 1912 would have been contrary to mint regulations.

(The five examples, in this writer’s opinion, were struck from a soft steel die that had been polished. Deterioration in surface characteristics, from mirror-like to dull, parallels that seen in 1916 silver patterns, also likely made from soft dies.)

[Sources: “Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915,” additional research in NARA RG 104; examination of the five extant 1913 Liberty nickels; conversations with Eric Newman; others.]

firstmint · February 9, 2010 1:31PM

"Apparently, only five specimens of the Liberty Head type were struck in 1913, and only two were in Proof condition, the others were Uncirculated". Louis E. Eliasberg, 1956 (citation from April 1996 Eliasberg catalogue by Bowers & Merena).

The quote above came from background information provided by Eric P. Newman, who owned all 5 examples at the same time.

Even the Eliasberg Proof-66 example has been altered, by having the obverse rim nick expertly repaired after Jay Parrino purchased the coin from the Elaisberg sale and offered it in his fixed price list a year or so later.

Having seen all 5 examples together at the Baltimore ANA show in 2003, I agree with what Newman stated. There were obvious differences in the strike and lustre.

One wonders exactly how much magnification it took, on each example, to determine a double striking? The writer of the article in this thread also states that" none of the 5 pieces were exceptionally well preserved".

One wonders what supporting evidence the writer has to make such a claim, especially in light of a Proof-66 designation seen on the Eliasberg example. It would be appropriate to learn what the writer knows of how these were not exceptionally well preserved which he does not relate in his article.

Dockwalliper · February 10, 2010 10:17PM

You must be thinking of the Town of Tonawanda. The City of Tonawanda is a bedroom community of about 16,000 on the shores of the Niagara River and I wouldn't call North Tonawanda rural either.

Analyst · February 17, 2010 1:59PM

Analyst <A prominent coin collector, who is also a lawyer, once put forth a case that 1913 Liberty Nickels could have been legally struck in 1912, as dies for the upcoming year were often prepared months before. Maybe RWB or Coinosaurus could enlighten us as to when the law authorizing Buffalo Nickels was passed and whether it prohibited the striking of Liberty Nickels in 1913 or late 1912.>

RWB <<Dies for 1913 Liberty nickels were made in the normal course of business during the latter portion of 1912. The law authorizing the new Buffalo/Indian design was the Coinage Act of 1890 – the Mint Director with approval of the Secretary of the Treasury selected and authorized new designs. Secretary MacVeagh informally approved the new design in August 1912, but official acceptance and approval for testing did not come until December 18, 1912, and final production approval was granted on February 15, 1913. ... Superintendent Landis raised the question of destroying 1913-dated Liberty nickel dies on February 24>>

RWB <<There would have been no logical reason to strike any coins from 1913-dated Liberty nickel dies. The new design had been in progress for months and all mint officials knew about it. Striking coins prior to the year on the die was prohibited. Striking any after approval of the new design in December 1912 would have been contrary to mint regulations.>>

An act does not have to be logical to be legal. Supposing the five 1913 Liberty Nickels had been struck in January 1913, how would such an act <<been contrary to mint regulations>>, and, if discovered, what would have been the consequences of the lack of compliance with such regulations?

Article on the Olsen-Hawn 1913 Liberty Nickel

Thread about 20th Century Gold Club article

tradedollarnut · February 18, 2010 12:57AM

Even the Eliasberg Proof-66 example has been altered, by having the obverse rim nick expertly repaired after Jay Parrino purchased the coin from the Elaisberg sale and offered it in his fixed price list a year or so later.

This is absolutely speculation and should not be presented as fact. It's irresponsible to do so.

RWB · February 18, 2010 1:12AM

"...official acceptance and approval for testing did not come until December 18, 1912..."

Any Liberty nickel struck after that date, except for current 1912 production, would not have been legal tender because the design was no longer current.

I have no response for your other questions since they are circular, and thus unanswerable.

firstmint · February 18, 2010 1:20AM

TDN - Do you happen to know where the rather noticeable rim nick went?

It is a fact that it is no longer present.

tradedollarnut · February 18, 2010 1:30AM

<< TDN - Do you happen to know where the rather noticeable rim nick went?

It is a fact that it is no longer present. >>

No, it is NOT a FACT that it is no longer present. What is a FACT is that when the coin was pictured in the holder, the rim nick no longer showed as prominently - because the holder hid a portion of it from sight. This led to much unwarranted speculation and misstatements of supposed fact.

When I owned the coin I examined as best I could the area in question through the holder and saw no signs of repair. I also asked David Hall about the speculation and he dismissed it out of hand. His statement to me when I asked him if it had indeed been repaired was that "the coin is fine".

Those are the FACTS.

RWB · February 18, 2010 2:19AM

..."the coin is fine".

Geeee...I thought it was uncirculated.

TwoSides2aCoin · February 18, 2010 2:39AM

<< January 27, 1910
From Andrew
To Landis

[Referring to satisfactory shipment of gloves used by the adjusters and others who handle coins. Samuel W. Brown mentioned by name.]

…considering the quality of the gloves accepted by your storekeeper and sent to the Mint at San Francisco the inferiority of which is patent to anyone as per sample returned to this Bureau from San Francisco, I would call to your attention the importance of selecting someone more competent to fill the position of Storekeeper than Samuel W. Brown, the present incumbent. >>

I wonder what Landis wrote back.

RWB · February 18, 2010 3:29AM

I wonder what Landis wrote back.

Haven't found the reply - yet. Much of the exchange of letters from about 1895-1916 could be correlated, but it takes a lot of research time to do.

firstmint · February 18, 2010 2:37PM

TDN- Thank you for the claification of an "in-hand" through the holder examination. I apparently stand corrected.

However, when it was first pictured after the Eliasberg sale (Parrino's "The Mint" FPL), the lower rim nick was not evident. The next offering of the March 8, 2001, ANA sale by Superior (front cover coin showing a fully rounded rim) indicates that image must have been shot directly overhead as there is no shadow visible from it being in a holder. Again, the nick is not evident as it was when it was illustrated in the 1996 Eliasberg sale catalogue, which was taken before the coin was encased in plastic.

I didn't see the nick at the 2003 Baltimore ANA display of all five pieces when I saw them when they were displayed together. However, I will defer to your comments.

tradedollarnut · February 18, 2010 3:28PM

<< TDN- Thank you for the claification of an "in-hand" through the holder examination. I apparently stand corrected.

However, when it was first pictured after the Eliasberg sale (Parrino's "The Mint" FPL), the lower rim nick was not evident. The next offering of the March 8, 2001, ANA sale by Superior (front cover coin showing a fully rounded rim) indicates that image must have been shot directly overhead as there is no shadow visible from it being in a holder. Again, the nick is not evident as it was when it was illustrated in the 1996 Eliasberg sale catalogue, which was taken before the coin was encased in plastic.

I didn't see the nick at the 2003 Baltimore ANA display of all five pieces when I saw them when they were displayed together. However, I will defer to your comments. >>

The Superior 2001 image was taken with the coin inside an NGC holder - I viewed and bid on the coin at the sale. The B&M 1996 image was taken raw of course - and the tilt of image is such that the rim flaw is quite evident. Personally, I believe that the flaw itself is quite a bit on the rim and not so much on the edge - thus it is mostly hidden by the holder itself.

As far as repairing a 1913 Liberty Head nickel with a minor rim flaw, I can honestly say that the concept is just nuts. What is there to gain? Do you think PCGS wouldn't call it a 66 because of a rim flaw that can't even be seen in the holder? Seriously? Heck, there's a 67 1804 dollar out there with a scratched out spot in the field! Mess up that repair job and you lose a million bucks - that's just silly from a risk/reward standpoint.

A 1913 Liberty nickel tidbit...Sam Brown

Comments

Leave a Comment