Book Review: Colonial and Early American Coins by QDB
Mike Marotta
knowledge with another authoritative guide.
WHITMAN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COLONIAL AND EARLY AMERICAN COINS by Q. David
Bowers, Forward by Kenneth Bressett, 2009, 332 Pages, $49.95.
From the New England threepence, sixpence and shillings to 19th
century copies and fantasies, this comprehensive presentation is a
narrative catalog of our nation's earliest numismatic artifacts.
* The process of minting
* A history of the collecting of colonials
* Grading, authenticating and certification
* Prices over time
* Varieties
* Broader focuses on deeper issues of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Fugio and Wood's issues.
* A new comprehensive numbering schema
* Prices by grade
Keeping up with Whitman's series of lavish, yet afforable guides can
be a challenge. Nontheless, this book is one that will grace the
library of the dedicated collector,
“I’ve always thought that if a man doesn’t own one coin, but has the
knowledge that is in the books, then he’s a real numismatist.” --
Aaron Feldman
Mr. Jaggers
While I agree that the book in question is a magnum opus, you have neglected
to mention that it contains many errors. For example:
The picture on page 169 labelled Maris 56 is actually a duplication of the
picture of Maris 55, and, more seriously, the verbal description for 56-n on
page 183 is that of a coin that does not exist, although it is supposed to
be describing the famous "camel head" variety of a New Jersey copper. Ray
Williams, the president of C4, is compiling a list of reported errors, and
once he has verified them, will send them on to QDB. Such errors are not
likely the fault of Bowers himself, but he necessarily must be embarrassed
by them, to the point where we can expect a second, corrected edition of
this title sometime in the near future.
In spite of the fact that for Jersey coppers, the Redbook makes a big and
confusing deal out of "narrow" shields, "plain" shields (a term which has
never been defined by any author, and which even PCGS seems not to
understand), and "large" planchets, Bowers fails in this title to clarify
any of that.
Readers should also be advised that Bowers takes a more "strict
constructionist" tack than most (certainly much more strict than does the
Redbook, which is arguably the first refuge of a newbie to Colonial
collecting) in terms of what is to be legitimately classified as a Colonial,
or Early American, coin. In his Chapter 11, titled "Unrelated Foreign Coins
and Tokens" he groups together many of the coins that have been in the core
of "Colonial" collections for decades, if not centuries. If I had just
invested five figures in a Sommer Islands shilling, I would certainly not be
pleased to see it poo-pooed as "unrelated" to the topic at hand. Likewise
are the Hibernia and Voce Populi pieces relegated to this "back of the book"
treatment. He is, of course, technically correct on all this, but then,
what's he doing including a section on the "End of Pain" Conder farthings
and halfpennies in an earlier chapter?
That said, I hope that one day soon the term "Early American" that Bowers
uses in his title will catch on and eventually supplant "Colonial" as the
term of category for these eminently fascinating pieces of numismatic
history.
James
Mike Marotta
> While I agree that the book in question is a magnum opus, you have neglected
> to mention that it contains many errors.
... only because I did not know about them. That is why the hobby
belongs to the collecting amateur. Thanks for all of the pointers.
I'd love to see your mark-up of the book. It is too bad, really, that
you did not post your own review first -- or perhaps wrote your own
book. Too often, people keep their knowledge to themselves.
> In his Chapter 11, titled "Unrelated Foreign Coins
> and Tokens" he groups together many of the coins that have been in the core
> of "Colonial" collections for decades, if not centuries. If I had just
> invested five figures in a Sommer Islands shilling, ...
> ... Hibernia and Voce Populi pieces ...
That was obvious, even to me. The "early American" and "colonial"
labels would narrowly apply to just those coins (and tokens, etc.)
that originated in places that became the USA. The Woods issues were
always problematic. Sommer Island, ("Hogge" money) and Castorland
also were appended to the general corpus in an arbitrary way.
Similarly, it is hard to see why all those "Washington" pieces would
be considered anything other than jetons, interesting ad hoc
commemoratives, more akin to Hard Times and Civil War tokens.
About all that can be said is that based on his experience, Bowers
made his choices. As Harlan Berk said about his _100 Greatest
Ancients_ also from Whitman, "You write for your worst critic."
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Uncritical."
Mr. Jaggers
> On Apr 4, 5:52 am, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>> While I agree that the book in question is a magnum opus, you have
>> neglected to mention that it contains many errors.
>
> ... only because I did not know about them. That is why the hobby
> belongs to the collecting amateur. Thanks for all of the pointers.
> I'd love to see your mark-up of the book. It is too bad, really, that
> you did not post your own review first -- or perhaps wrote your own
> book. Too often, people keep their knowledge to themselves.
It is incumbent upon one who would write a book review to have thoroughly
examined the content of that book and to be equipped with detailed expertise
in the subject matter to a degree that qualifies him as a critic in the
first place. I did not write my own review first because I do not possess
that detailed expertise, nor have I had the time to thoroughly vet the book.
Instead, in my post I reported anomalies that I have discovered in my failed
attempts to use the book for attribution of some items in my own collection,
then indicated that people whose knowledge is far superior to my own have
found many more. There has been voluminous discussion of this book in the
Yahoo group colonial-coins. You may be interested in joining that group to
read all the comments for yourself.
>> In his Chapter 11, titled "Unrelated Foreign Coins
>> and Tokens" he groups together many of the coins that have been in
>> the core of "Colonial" collections for decades, if not centuries.
>> If I had just invested five figures in a Sommer Islands shilling, ...
>> ... Hibernia and Voce Populi pieces ...
>
> That was obvious, even to me. The "early American" and "colonial"
> labels would narrowly apply to just those coins (and tokens, etc.)
> that originated in places that became the USA. The Woods issues were
> always problematic. Sommer Island, ("Hogge" money) and Castorland
> also were appended to the general corpus in an arbitrary way.
> Similarly, it is hard to see why all those "Washington" pieces would
> be considered anything other than jetons, interesting ad hoc
> commemoratives, more akin to Hard Times and Civil War tokens.
If one took your suggestion to its extreme, eliminating also those items
that were made without any kind of official sanction, the collection would
fit in a binder page, the book about them would become a pamphlet, and the
whole affair would just not be very interesting anymore. The opposite
extreme, of course, is to conclude that a "colonial" is anything that anyone
has ever collected as a colonial anywhere, at any time." I guess I'm enough
of a romantic that I tend toward the latter. Part of the romance of
collecting and studying coins can be compared to daydreaming about sailing
with pirates and roaming with brigands without getting cold and wet or
having to smell any of those people.
> About all that can be said is that based on his experience, Bowers
> made his choices. As Harlan Berk said about his _100 Greatest
> Ancients_ also from Whitman, "You write for your worst critic."
The "100 Greatest" series is necessarily arbitrary in its editorial content.
No two collectors would come up with the same lists, obviously. But in my
view, a book that is touted as an "encyclopedia" should be a compendium of
all there is to know, not an attempt to alter the paradigm of collecting in
a field that has been around for a long time.
If all the errors of fact in Bowers' book can be rectified, it will become a
most valuable reference. For the time being, though, it needs work. And
Bowers needs to use words less offensive than "unrelated." Even Breen knew
better than that when he wrote his "encyclopedia."
James the Unabashed Librarian
Bob
> most valuable reference. �For the time being, though, it needs work. �And
> Bowers needs to use words less offensive than "unrelated." �Even Breen knew
> better than that when he wrote his "encyclopedia."
>
> James the Unabashed Librarian
As a contributor to this book, perhaps I can add a few comments. No,
I had nothing to do with errors in the descriptions of the varieties
of the coppers, since I do not collect them by variety--but these
sections were thoroughly gone over (several drafts) by specialists in
the series. I have no idea what went wrong here, unless perhaps two
versions of the text were somehow conflated. My contribution (one
sentence?) is confined to the economic history material.
But I agree with most of Dave's choices as to scope, and was glad to
hear his plans when he first contacted me about it. The U.S.
"Colonial" series was basically frozen at the inception of U.S. coin
collecting: the list of Colonial and Early American coins in W. C.
Prime's Coins, Medals and Seals (1861) is very little different from
that in the 1947 Red Book. About the only changes are that the Danske-
Amerikanske series (Danish West Indies) has been dropped and stuff
like the Northwest Company and Texas jola tokens have been added. In
other words, the dubious (and posthumous) Franklin Press token,
imported from England in large numbers in the 1850s and 1860s, was
bolted on to the series, while the pro- and anti-Thomas Paine pieces
with their reference to an actual Declaration of Independence hero
were omitted. Rosa Americana pieces too scarce and expensive? Just
import the commoner Woods Hibernia pieces from Ireland as fillers.
And Bermuda is not part of the United States (and I write this as an
owner of a Sommer Islands shilling, the Loye L. Lauder small sails
variety).
Even more to the point, much of the real money of Colonial America
isn't even listed, and for that you have to go to Mossman and articles
in the Colonial Newsletter. The Colonists used mostly Spanish-
American silver and Portuguese-American (later Spanish-American) gold,
with a sprinkling of gold coins from other countries (England, France,
even Turkey), and copper coins from all over. An unusual feature of
18th-century American currency is cut silver coins, but my efforts to
add them to the Red Book have not so far met with success. And even
this was swamped by paper money and warehouse receipts for tobacco.
And for James the Unabashed Librarian, my contributor's copy has a
brass plate with a facsimile signature of Q. David Bowers on it--
STICKING UP 1/16" INCH from the cover! How am I supposed to shelve
this, I want to know? This plate will slice cuts in whatever book on
Colonial coins I might have next to it. So right now it is just
laying on top of other books. (Perhaps this was a foulup with the
Chinese binder?)
Bob Leonard
Mr. Jaggers
[my previous pontification snipped]
Thanks, Bob. Truth to tell, I do not fancy myself as an authority at all in
the field of Colonials. But the publication of Will Nipper's book, plus
this new Bowers book, has spurred me on to finally crack open all the other
books that have languished on my shelves since I bought them. So out have
come the Mossman, the COAC books, Crosby, Vlack, Newman, Ryder, Carlotto,
and so forth, to provide the textbooks for a self-assigned crash course.
Add to this Lou Jordan's excellent website at Notre Dame U. and I feel that
I have at least become conversant with the entry-level stuff.
In the past two weeks I have added to my collection a New Jersey copper and
a Connecticut copper, the Bowers listings for both of which are defective,
even I can tell. I've also had email exchanges with both Nipper and Ray
Williams regarding some of the Redbook listings for New Jersey coppers,
particularly the 1787s, but that's another story. What is needed, I
believe, is a thorough editorial re-evaluation of the front material of the
Redbook, as it seems to have accumulated a large number of free radicals
over the years.
Last summer at a show I was talking with Dave Wnuck and John Agre about the
idea of my writing an article which inventories the Redbook listings for
Colonials from the first to the current editions. Do you think there would
be any interest in that? In C4? In EAC?
I have another question for you, but that can wait for the next post.
James
Bob
> a Connecticut copper, the Bowers listings for both of which are defective,
> even I can tell. �I've also had email exchanges with both Nipper and Ray
> Williams regarding some of the Redbook listings for New Jersey coppers,
> particularly the 1787s, but that's another story. �What is needed, I
> believe, is a thorough editorial re-evaluation of the front material of the
> Redbook, as it seems to have accumulated a large number of free radicals
> over the years.
>
> Last summer at a show I was talking with Dave Wnuck and John Agre about the
> idea of my writing an article which inventories the Redbook listings for
> Colonials from the first to the current editions. �Do you think there would
> be any interest in that? �In C4? �In EAC?
>
> I have another question for you, but that can wait for the next post.
>
> James
James, I for one would be interested, but I think that you should
extend this summary to include the lists in Prime, Crosby, and the
Standard Catalog (18 editions). Seems like a lot of work, but you
would do this in tabular form with the coins listed vertically and the
catalogs horizontally, with checks to show which items are listed in
each catalog. I would further simplify this by lumping all Sommers
Islands, all NE, etc. together. In more recent years, the Red Book
has expanded the number of varieties it includes, so a separate Red
Book table for later editions would be needed too.
Bob
Reid Goldsborough
> The picture on page 169 labelled Maris 56 is actually a duplication
of the
> picture of Maris 55, and, more seriously, the verbal description for
56-n on
> ...
Now this is good book review, knowledgeable about the subject matter and
laudatory or critical when appropriate, not written as if it were a
press release from the publisher. The best book reviews, with
non-fiction anyway, add to the corpus of knowledge, as this one did,
rather than merely communicating, "I read this book." You might consider
submitting this, or a slightly fleshed out version of it, to the
Numismatist or similar publication that hasn't already assigned or
accepted a review of the book.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Mr. Jaggers
>> In the past two weeks I have added to my collection a New Jersey
>> copper and a Connecticut copper, the Bowers listings for both of
>> with both Nipper and Ray Williams regarding some of the Redbook
>> listings for New Jersey coppers, particularly the 1787s, but that's
>> re-evaluation of the front material of the Redbook, as it seems to
>> have accumulated a large number of free radicals over the years.
>>
>> Last summer at a show I was talking with Dave Wnuck and John Agre
>> about the idea of my writing an article which inventories the
>> Redbook listings for Colonials from the first to the current
>> ?In EAC?
>>
>> I have another question for you, but that can wait for the next post.
>>
>> James
>
> James, I for one would be interested, but I think that you should
> extend this summary to include the lists in Prime, Crosby, and the
> Standard Catalog (18 editions). Seems like a lot of work, but you
> would do this in tabular form with the coins listed vertically and the
> catalogs horizontally, with checks to show which items are listed in
> each catalog. I would further simplify this by lumping all Sommers
> Islands, all NE, etc. together. In more recent years, the Red Book
> has expanded the number of varieties it includes, so a separate Red
> Book table for later editions would be needed too.
I'll give that some thought. It's a study I've wanted to read, but nobody
has written it.
Please, I'm not familiar with Prime or Standard Catalog, can you elaborate?
And I've already forgotten what the other question was going to be. 8>(
James the Forgetful
Mr. Jaggers
> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>
>> The picture on page 169 labelled Maris 56 is actually a duplication
>> of the picture of Maris 55, and, more seriously, the verbal
>> description for 56-n on ...
>
> Now this is good book review, knowledgeable about the subject matter
> and laudatory or critical when appropriate, not written as if it were
> a press release from the publisher. The best book reviews, with
> non-fiction anyway, add to the corpus of knowledge, as this one did,
> rather than merely communicating, "I read this book." You might
> consider submitting this, or a slightly fleshed out version of it, to
> the Numismatist or similar publication that hasn't already assigned or
> accepted a review of the book.
As I mentioned in another post, I lack the cachet necessary to produce a
proper review, nor I have looked at the book macroscopically, in terms of
finding all errors of omission and commission. I will say this, though:
The new Bowers book is a welcome addition to the literature, with the caveat
that it be soon revised and corrected.
I believe I also mentioned that Ray Williams, the president of the Colonial
Coin Collectors Club (C4) is currently serving as a clearinghouse for errata
that are found, and will eventually submit them to QDB directly for whatever
action. I, and I presume several others, have notified Ray of these
shortcomings. As Bob indicated in one of his posts, it is unknown how these
problems occurred. Once they are found, though, they can be solved.
James
Reid Goldsborough
> As I mentioned in another post, I lack the cachet necessary to produce a
> proper review, nor I have looked at the book macroscopically, in terms of
Disagree. I know you weren't going for false modesty, and I'm not going
for false puffery. You don't need cachet, whether it's an academic title
or previous publication credits -- to write a book review. I know that
some publications prefer this, but there are plenty that don't require
it. Mostly what you need is knowledge about the subject matter, which
despite your denials you have, a critical, discriminating mind, and an
ability to put your judgments in words with a modicum of fluidity.
Writing book reviews, along with journal articles, is the way a number
of published numismatic book authors, perhaps most, get started. You
don't need to know everything on the topic (though it's not very savvy
to pretend to be an expert able to judge others). You also don't need to
point out every error. Readers are mostly looking for whether or not
it's worth their money to buy the book and their time to read it, or in
this case, apparently, that it would be best to await the next edition,
and why.
Mr. Jaggers
Aw shucks, Reid, what can I say?
I guess I can say thanks for the kind words, and if the Muse visits me, as
s/he occasionally does (normally at around 0300), I will consider putting
together a critical review of the work in question. Watch this space, and
it may be a while. I do have a few dozen journal articles in print already,
so who knows?
James the Scrivener
Bob
> > extend this summary to include the lists in Prime, Crosby, and the
> > Standard Catalog (18 editions). �Seems like a lot of work, but you
> > would do this in tabular form with the coins listed vertically and the
> > catalogs horizontally, with checks to show which items are listed in
> > each catalog. �I would further simplify this by lumping all Sommers
> > Islands, all NE, etc. together. �In more recent years, the Red Book
> > has expanded the number of varieties it includes, so a separate Red
> > Book table for later editions would be needed too.
>
> I'll give that some thought. �It's a study I've wanted to read, but nobody
> has written it.
>
> Please, I'm not familiar with Prime or Standard Catalog, can you elaborate?
>
> And I've already forgotten what the other question was going to be. �8>(
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
James, W. C. Prime's Coins, Medals and Seals was one of the first
books for coin collectors published in the United States. It is not
particularly rare and is lavishly illustrated (with woodcuts). You
should be able to borrow it from the ANA Library, or pick up a copy
for around $50 or so. Prime supplied estimated values, plus a section
on auction prices realized for U.S. coins. In addition to a list of
U.S. coins, he included Colonial coins (not sure what he called this
section, but could look it up if needed), and medals of American
interest.
The Standard Catalog of United States Coins (title varies somewhat
with some editions) was the first popular priced catalog of United
States coins, published by Wayte Raymond beginning in the mid-1930s.
(There was an article about it in the Asylum recently, giving full
details, but I don't remember the date of the first edition.) It was
issued in standard book size, printed on coated paper, and illustrated
with photographs of outstanding uncirculated coins. It was priced at
$4 in the 1940s, so the Red Book at $1.75 provided stiff competition
and finally killed it off. Raymond cut the price to $3, but still
couldn't compete. The last edition, 18th, in 1952, was mainly the
work of John Ford and Walter Breen. I still refer to it for material
not readily found elsewhere.
Bob
Mr. Jaggers
>>> James, I for one would be interested, but I think that you should
>>> extend this summary to include the lists in Prime, Crosby, and the
>>> would do this in tabular form with the coins listed vertically and
>>> the catalogs horizontally, with checks to show which items are
>>> all Sommers Islands, all NE, etc. together. ?In more recent years,
>>> the Red Book has expanded the number of varieties it includes, so a
>>> separate Red Book table for later editions would be needed too.
>>
>> nobody has written it.
>>
>> Please, I'm not familiar with Prime or Standard Catalog, can you
>> elaborate?
>>
>> And I've already forgotten what the other question was going to be.
>>
>> James the Forgetful- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> James, W. C. Prime's Coins, Medals and Seals was one of the first
> books for coin collectors published in the United States. It is not
> particularly rare and is lavishly illustrated (with woodcuts). You
> should be able to borrow it from the ANA Library, or pick up a copy
> for around $50 or so. Prime supplied estimated values, plus a section
> on auction prices realized for U.S. coins. In addition to a list of
> U.S. coins, he included Colonial coins (not sure what he called this
> section, but could look it up if needed), and medals of American
> interest.
>
> The Standard Catalog of United States Coins (title varies somewhat
> with some editions) was the first popular priced catalog of United
> States coins, published by Wayte Raymond beginning in the mid-1930s.
> (There was an article about it in the Asylum recently, giving full
> details, but I don't remember the date of the first edition.) It was
> issued in standard book size, printed on coated paper, and illustrated
> with photographs of outstanding uncirculated coins. It was priced at
> $4 in the 1940s, so the Red Book at $1.75 provided stiff competition
> and finally killed it off. Raymond cut the price to $3, but still
> couldn't compete. The last edition, 18th, in 1952, was mainly the
> work of John Ford and Walter Breen. I still refer to it for material
> not readily found elsewhere.
Yikes, I just checked Abebooks, and a brand new print-on-demand copy of
Prime is available from several vendors for under twenty bucks! I'm going
to order one out tomorrow. Thanks for that tip.
As for the Standard Catalog, my mind was fixated on the Krause catalogs, and
the Wayte Raymond only occurred to me a couple of hours after I read your
post. I have two different editions of it in my library, and looked over
the Colonial sections in both of them just recently in my quest for yet
another viewpoint. Yes, I did see the Asylum article, and in fact scanned
it to my hard drive so that it wouldn't get away from me. The last time I
saw Orville Grady at a show I asked him how difficult it would be to
assemble a complete set of the SC. He said, "Pretty difficult."
Ah, yes, my second question was if one can get a complete set of Colonial
Newsletter. I know part of the backfile is on CD, but not all of it. I've
also seen a stray issue of it scanned online. What's the story on this?
I think I'm finally going to spring for an ANS membership. Will you be at
EAC to sign me up?
James
Bob F.
news:gr92p...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I think I'm finally going to spring for an ANS membership. Will you
> be at EAC to sign me up?
Are you going to join the RCNA also?
Mr. Jaggers
Details, please.
James
Bob F.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Mr. Jaggers
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:gr948...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Bob F. wrote:
>>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>>> news:gr92p...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>>> I think I'm finally going to spring for an ANS membership. Will
>>>> you be at EAC to sign me up?
>>>
>>> Are you going to join the RCNA also?
>
> http://www.rcna.ca/index.php
Great website! It'll definitely give me something to look over and think
aboot - er, I mean, about.
I've always had a desire to attend a coin show in Canada, a real hardcore
one, to see both similarities and differences. Have you ever experienced a
Canadian show?
Right now my only pursuit in Canadian numismatics consists of a handful of
colonial tokens that I don't have that might still be reasonably affordable.
It seems that the spigots supplying such material to me were turned off
tightly some years ago. I haven't added a Canadian colonial copper to my
collection in ages.
James
Mike Marotta
"The picture on page 169 labelled Maris 56 is actually a duplication
of the
picture of Maris 55, and, more seriously, the verbal description for
56-n on
Thanks for the facts. I printed out that post and placed it in the
book. My mention here was ahead of my publications in print coming
next quarter. I will follow up by reading the Yahoo group, as well,
before I submit my manuscripts.
> It is incumbent upon one who would write a book review to have thoroughly
> examined the content of that book and to be equipped with detailed expertise
> in the subject matter to a degree that qualifies him as a critic in the
> first place.
I see the matter differently. Last year, I published a couple of
reviews that were lukewarm. I hit on the highlights and strengths and
defined the shortcomings as nicely as I could. I looked at the books
not from the viewpoint of an expert showing off to cast someone else's
ego into shadow, but from the perspective of a coin collector with a
certain level of knowledge, seeking to enhance their understanding of
the subject and appreciation of the hobby. Those reviews were for
general interest, US Numismatics books, an area where I have a general
interest only. (See below.)
I took the same tack with two recent reviews in _The Celator_. Since
1994, I placed about a dozen major features there and many letters and
smaller submissions. So, this is an area where I have some specific
interest. I find it much more satisfying to quote other people than
to assert my own opiniions. Not only is it safer in the long run, I
am just not that sold on my own opinions, oddly enough. I did that
for the new book on advanced collecting of ancients by Dr. Paul
Rynearson and Harlan J. Berk's "100 Greatest."
> I did not write my own review first because I do not possess
> that detailed expertise, nor ...
Now you are being falsely modest. Perhaps you just do not like taking
the risk of initiative and find it easier to criticise. Whatever your
motives, they are your own, and you have a right to them, but you
clearly demonstrated an abiding expertise here that more than
qualifies you to an opinion.
> > ... As Harlan J. Berk said about his _100 Greatest
> > Ancients_ also from Whitman, "You write for your worst critic."
> The "100 Greatest" series is necessarily arbitrary in its editorial content.
> No two collectors would come up with the same lists, obviously.
Not even close, there, Mr. J. The problems with that tome had nothing
to do with the title, but were more on the order of the glitches you
found in this book. Again, my views of the problems came first from
HJB himself who pointed me to the others who vetted the book.
Interviewing them, I gained other insights. On some of those points,
I had my own opinion, having already published at length. The purpose
of the review was to write about the new book by HJB, not to recap the
works of Mike Marotta.
While we all have our passions, I am pretty much a generalist when it
comes to numismatics. I could care less about narrow shields,
overpunched dates and all that. I could go on at length about how
uninteresting all of that is to me -- though I grant you your right to
your own passions, of course. For me, the salient fact is that New
Jersey struck so many of these, with so many dies that there are many
varieties of interest to aficiandos, but the sheer volume alone speaks
to the fundamental economics of the time and place. In short: the
governrment of New Jersey was monetized on copper.
The same is true of the Massachusetts silvers. That there are
"delicate punches" or whatever is not as interesting as the fact --
stated by Michael Hodder, elsewhere, but not investigated in this book
-- that Massachusetts was consciously taking a perogative of
sovereignty. Their coinage went along with their invasions of Maine
and New Hampshire. (Maine, they kept. New Hampshire they withdrew
from.) Within one generation, the colonists were already seeing
themselves in a new light, as something other than Englishmen living
just a bit farther from London.
The downside, of course, is that a lot of details escape me. You
can't win em all. I prefer to drill deep for important facts that
illuminate broad truths. I am a researcher, not a collector. I do
buy material when I write about a subject. I have to know what I am
writing about. (The one recent exception was a feature a few years
back on Proof Double Eagles. That was vicarious.) But I don't hang
on to the stuff. Books I keep.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Buy the books and you won't need the coins."
Bob F.
> I've always had a desire to attend a coin show in Canada, a real
> hardcore one, to see both similarities and differences. Have you ever
> experienced a Canadian show?
I went to a TOREX show a few years ago and was amazed at the quantity
and quality of the Canadian material available there.
Bob
> Newsletter. �I know part of the backfile is on CD, but not all of it. �I've
> also seen a stray issue of it scanned online. �What's the story on this?
>
> I think I'm finally going to spring for an ANS membership. �Will you be at
> EAC to sign me up?
>
James, practically the entire run of the Colonial Newsletter (lacking
the issues of the last year and a half or so) is available on CD.
Issues 1 through 103 have to be ordered from Bill Spillman (I think)
and the remainder from the ANS. On my CD of 1-103 I don't see any
ordering information, but I paid around $48 as I recall. This CD also
has a searchable index. For ordering information on the CD from issue
104 on, see http://www.numismatics.org/CNL/CNL.
Bob
Mr. Jaggers
>> Ah, yes, my second question was if one can get a complete set of
>> all of it. ?I've also seen a stray issue of it scanned online.
>> ?What's the story on this?
>>
>> I think I'm finally going to spring for an ANS membership. ?Will you
>> be at EAC to sign me up?
>>
>> James- Hide quoted text -
>
> James, practically the entire run of the Colonial Newsletter (lacking
> the issues of the last year and a half or so) is available on CD.
> Issues 1 through 103 have to be ordered from Bill Spillman (I think)
> and the remainder from the ANS. On my CD of 1-103 I don't see any
> ordering information, but I paid around $48 as I recall. This CD also
> has a searchable index. For ordering information on the CD from issue
> 104 on, see http://www.numismatics.org/CNL/CNL.
Thanks. Can you supply contact info for Bill Spillman? I'd really like to
get this purchase in motion.
James
Mr. Jaggers
That's what I figured. Just once I'd like to attend a show where most of
the coins offered are not slabbed and are not Morgan dollars. Guess I
better get my passport renewed so I can go to such a show before I cross the
Chilly River. And I don't mean the St. Lawrence.
James
Mr. Jaggers
Oh, but I DO need the coins!
In any event, my concept of a book review may be formed (deformed?) by the
kind of reviews I read in Scientific American and Free Inquiry, where the
reviewers essentially make of their product a monograph that could almost
stand alone.
I shall look forward to seeing you on the Yahoo group. You'll see all the
discussion relating to the errata in Bowers' book.
James
'cherishing the Bowers book, warts and all'
Ed. Stoebenau
<lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
>Ah, yes, my second question was if one can get a complete set of Colonial
>Newsletter. I know part of the backfile is on CD, but not all of it. I've
>also seen a stray issue of it scanned online. What's the story on this?
Jim Spilman has posted online CNL issues 1-103 (up to around
1995).
Follow the link in the E-sylum newsletter below (about a third of
the way down):
http://www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_esylum_v10n11.html
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
Bob F.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Well there weren't too many Morgans but ICCS and, to a lesser extent,
CCCS, PCGS and NGC certified coins were in abundance.
I came THIS close to buying a mint state 1948 dollar but the dealer
wouldn't budge on his price and neither would I. Oh well.
With all the counterfeits coming out of China, I usually won't buy a
coin that isn't certified, except lower grade common stuff I'm putting
together for my circulated Canadian type set.
Mr. Jaggers
Got 'em all downloaded to my hard drive! Ed, I owe you for this, bigtime.
That saved me some hassle, as well as, perhaps, half a C-note. Now all I
have to do is read all those issues. Then get the CD for issue 104 on.
Lots of activity in my hobby again, which is why I do this in the first
place. Coin life is good!
Thanks again for that link. I'll bet that several RCC people go there and
do some downloading, so I hope the host server doesn't object.
James
Frank
> As I mentioned in another post, I lack the cachet necessary to produce a
> proper review, nor I have looked at the book macroscopically, in terms of
> finding all errors of omission and commission. I will say this, though:
> The new Bowers book is a welcome addition to the literature, with the caveat
> that it be soon revised and corrected.
>
>
> James
Reviews by actual users of these references are much more valuable
then editorial
reviews whose writers seldom spot errors that are glaringly obvious to
those who actually
collect the series.
--
RARE COIN AUCTIONS NO RESERVES www.frankcoins.com
http://myworld.ebay.com/frankcoins Texas Auction License
11259, Board member of Texas Coin Dealers Association,
Member TNA, ANA, PCGS, NGC - Full Time Since 1991
Jud
Mr. Jaggers wrote:
> That saved me some hassle, as well as, perhaps, half a C-note.
Would that be an L-note? All these posts, and no flames or off-
topics...until now! 8-)
Mr. Jaggers
Young Man, report immediately to the Principal's office. He will show you
his collection of fine hardwoods.
James the Pedagogue