“The scholarship will cover airfare, tuition for one of the two week-long Summer Seminar sessions in June or July, meals and six nights of dormitory accommodations on the campus of Colorado College, site of the ANA headquarters,” said PNG Executive Director Robert Brueggeman.

“All young numismatists between the ages of 13 and 22 are eligible to enter and are cordially invited to apply for the scholarship. Entrants must submit a short essay outlining why they should be chosen as the 2011 scholarship recipient. The deadline for receipt of the entries is March 31, 2011,” said PNG President Paul Montgomery.

Entries must include the applicant’s name and contact information. The essays can be sent by email to info@PNGdealers.com or by mail to the PNG Executive Director, 28441 Rancho California Road, Suite 106, Temecula, CA 92590.

The two separate 2011 ANA Summer Seminar week-long sessions will be held Saturday, June 25, to Friday July 1, and from Saturday, July 2, to Friday, July 8. Participants ranging from teenagers to senior citizens spend 25 hours taking one course of their choice about specific coins or paper money or the hobby’s technical or business aspects. Additional information about the Summer Seminar sessions can be found on the ANA website, www.money.org.

“We are thankful that the PNG recognizes the value of providing young collectors a chance to realize their full numismatic potential, and offering a scholarship to the ANA’s Summer Seminar is a great start. We want to thank the PNG for generosity in providing this YN scholarship and for promoting the ANA’s education programs,” said Susan M. McMillan, ANA Education Project Manager.

Photo caption: picture taken at the Chase Manhattan Money Museum circa 1945 when Vernon Brown was curator. Image from The E-Sylum

The money to pay for the annual PNG YN Scholarship is administered from PNG’s Gerald Bauman Memorial Fund. Bauman, who died in 2001, served for many years as a prominent coin dealer with Manfra, Tordella & Brookes in New York City.

The PNG is a nonprofit organization composed of many of the top rare coin and paper money dealers in the United States and seven other countries. PNG member-dealers must adhere to a strict Code of Ethics in the buying and selling of numismatic merchandise. For additional information, visit online at www.PNGdealers.com or call (951) 587-8300.

Related posts:

1. Professional Numismatists Guild Announces Sixth Annual YN Scholarship Competition
2. Fourth Annual PNG YN Scholarship Competition
3. Win a Full Scholarship and Free Airfare to ANA Summer Seminar!

America’s coinage has undergone many changes in over two centuries, with frequent modifications to denominations, varieties, metals, and designs. Perhaps the most activity occurred in 1873. After three years of deliberation, the U. S. Congress passed a comprehensive Coinage Act that was signed by President Grant on February 12, 1873. The Act was an effort to reform and consolidate the coinage system. It embraced the gold standard and demonetized silver, fueling the competition between the powerful mining interests. But its results, intended and unintended, caused the Coinage Act to be called the “Crime of 1873.”

Illustration Note: John Gast’s 1872 painting American Progress was an allegorical representation of Manifest Destiny. An angelic Columbia, a personification of the United States, carries the light of “civilization” westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she travels. American Indians and wild animals fl ee—or lead the way—into the darkness of the “uncivilized” West.

As a partial result of the legislation, the year 1873 saw the minting of 20 different coin designs in 13 denominations. Struggles grew between the backers of gold, silver, and nickel coinage. Gold was the winner, so was nickel. Silver lost. New designs were created at the three U.S. Mints when arrows were placed beside the date on three silver denominations to indicate a weight change. Four coin designs were dropped, and a new coin type added. Nine coin designs continued without major change. A dozen coin designs also sport both an “Open 3” and “Close 3” in the date, yielding more varieties. A busy year! Of course collectors may not consider the results as a “crime,” but as a bonanza and a collection challenge. A one-year set of 1873 coins is still a worthy goal for many.

In 1873, Ulysses Grant was beginning his second term as President. The country’s continuing push for “Manifest Destiny” led pioneers across the West to populate the entire continent. The California gold rush was into the third decade of providing material for gold coinage. A new Mint building we now call the “Granite Lady” was about to open in San Francisco, which would make it the world’s largest mint at the time. The three-year-old Carson City Mint was producing gold and silver from Nevada’s Comstock Lode. And that year’s Coinage Act created chaos and confusion, even contributing to a national depression.

The Coinage Act of 1873: Good Intentions, Mixed Results

By the late 1860s, the U.S. coinage system was an illogical mix of denominations, designs, and types. The Mint was producing three-cent pieces in both silver and nickel, five-cent coins in the same two metals, and dollars in two metals: silver and gold. Some versions had clearly become superfluous. As the Government reviewed their coinage system, they concluded that the basic monetary law of 1837, as amended several times, was no longer adequate to serve the nation’s needs. The U.S. coinage laws needed streamlining and strengthening, and a proposal was drafted. The result was a lengthy bill, with mixed consequences.

When the Act of 1873 was passed, few considered it a “crime.” The term didn’t arise until several years later. Then the silver miners and their powerful friends in Washington, disgruntled by a decline in silver coin production, blamed the Act for all their troubles, mainly because it had abolished silver dollars.

Three Weights Changed to “Metric”

As part of the 1873 coinage overhaul, the weights of the dime, quarter, and half dollar were increased by 5% to simplify their value stated in grams. This was part of Congress’ modest attempt to introduce the metric system into the nation’s coinage, following the standard used by European countries. But Mint tolerances were broad enough on all denominations that old planchets satisfied the new standards. There was no way to distinguish new and old planchets, and the weight standardization, then as now, did not improve public support of the metric system.

By the time the Act took effect, the Mint had already produced significant numbers of 1873 silver coins at the old weights. Officials decided to place distinctive arrows alongside the date on the new, slightly heavier coins. The Mint had used the same device in 1853 to denote a slight reduction in weight. This time, the arrows appeared for only two years and were dropped without comment at the end of 1874.

Four Designs Dropped

Four coin designs were eliminated by the Act of 1873, the most ever dropped in any one year. The Act omitted the two cent denomination, introduced in 1864 because of the coin shortages caused by the Civil War. Mintages dwindled after the war when fewer citizens and banks called for the denomination. No protests were heard. Also deleted were two silver coins being minted in parallel with nickel equivalents. Silver three cent coins had been minted along with nickel three cents since 1865, and in the final years many circulation issues were melted. The silver half dime had a similar counterpart: the nickel five-cent piece. Industrialist Joseph Wharton had been promoting nickel for coinage for decades; not surprisingly his empire monopolized nickel production. The writers of the Act of 1873 met his desires by continuing the nickel 3¢ and 5¢ versions instead of the silver ones.

Perhaps the biggest uproar was caused by the abolishment of the silver dollar. The silver dollar, like the silver three cent and half dime, competed with another similar-denomination coin: the gold dollar. Although silver dollars were the foundation of our monetary system, they did not comprise even 1% of circulating silver. The silver discoveries at the Comstock Lode and other mines had lowered the metal’s market value in relation to gold.

In dropping silver dollars from the Mint’s production lineup, the Act of 1873 seemed to declare that large silver coins were seeing little use in the nation’s commerce. Initially, the silver interests didn’t put up much resistance, because the law provided an alternate outlet for their bullion with the newly authorized trade dollar. As the decade wore on, huge supplies of earlier U.S. silver coins, hoarded during the war, returned to circulation from their hiding places abroad. This forced the Mint to curtail production of new silver coins. The drastic reduction in coinage coincided with a dramatic increase in silver-mining activity. The silver interests were squeezed, and they screamed—belatedly but loudly—that a “crime” had been committed at their expense. Their efforts eventually resulted in the Bland-Allison Act in 1878 and the return to bimetallism. The Treasury was required starting in 1878 to purchase large amounts of silver, and Morgan dollars began production in earnest.

Something New: Trade Dollars

The mining interests did get a compromise: the trade dollar. The silver lobby hoped it would provide an outlet for silver, and open trade with the Far East in competition with Spanish and Mexican dollars. The 1873 Act authorized trade dollars at a greater weight— 420 grains—versus the standard dollar’s 412.5 grains. Nearly the entire 1873 mintage went to China, where it was considered better than pesos, and widely chop marked in approval.

To benefit the silver lobby, the 1873 Act gave trade dollars domestic legal-tender status up to $5. When silver prices fell in 1876, this status was revoked. Values fell further, and abuses and misuses mounted. Mintages for circulation lasted until 1878, but proofs of the controversial coin were made through 1883. Walter Breen delicately called the Trade dollar “an expensive mistake—its motivation mere greed, its design a triumph of dullness, its domestic circulation and legal-tender status a disastrous provision of law leading only to ghastly abuses … its recall a long overdue but very mixed blessing, and its collection a source of decades of frustration.” Did he dislike it?

Nine Designs Unchanged

Coins that were continued by the Act of 1873 included the nickel three cent and five cent pieces, which had survived over their silver counterparts, and the Indian Head cent.

Retained also in the 1873 Act were all six denominations of gold coins. The Act had effectively placed the United States on the gold standard, in practice, if not in law. The U.S. did not officially adopt the gold standard until 1900, following years of debate. The 1896 and 1900 presidential elections focused on silver and gold, with victory going both times to the champion of gold, William McKinley. The debates are best remembered by the famous ‘cross of gold’ speech by William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic presidential nominee at the 1896 Democratic National Convention. In his impassioned plea for bimetallism, he expressed his hope, “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

More Changes! The Close 3 / Open 3 Debacle

To add more flavors to an already rich coinage year, varieties in the 1873 date itself were created purposefully by the Mint. Dies had been made in late 1872 for all 1873 coins. But Chief Coiner Archibald Loudon Snowden complained that the final 3 digit in the date (now called the Close 3 or erroneously “Closed 3”) could easily be mistaken for an 8. Mint engravers under William Barber prepared new dies with a different (Open) 3 for all coins. The three new designs “with arrows” all received the Open 3 design. But the old dies were used to produce many Close 3 products, and in the end twelve coin designs struck at Philadelphia and two from San Francisco have
both Open and Close 3s.

In general, the newer Open 3 is more common than the Close 3 variety; the half dollar is a notable exception. Did the Mint know what effect this would have on future collectors?

“The Act” is Called “The Crime” and Leads to “The Panic”

The Coinage Act of 1873 changed the United States policy with respect to silver. Before the Act, the United States had backed its currency with both gold and silver, and it minted both types of coins. The Act moved the United States to a “de facto” gold standard.

The Act had the immediate effect of depressing silver prices. This hurt Western mining interests, who labeled the Act “The Crime of 1873.” The coinage law also reduced the domestic money supply, which hurt farmers and anyone else who carried heavy debt loads. The resulting outcry raised serious questions about how long the new policy would last. This perception of instability in United States monetary policy caused investors to shy away from long-term obligations, particularly long-term bonds.

In late 1873, the American economy entered a crisis. This followed a period of economic overexpansion that arose from an extended railroad boom. It came at the end of a series of economic setbacks that had started with the Black Friday panic of 1869, when Jay Gould tried to corner the gold market.

In September 1873, a major cornerstone of the U.S. banking establishment declared bankruptcy, setting off a chain reaction of bank failures and temporarily closing the New York stock market. Layoffs and depression followed, and panic was felt across the nation. This “Panic of 1873” led to business failures and labor tensions, leading to the Long Depression. See what a few changes to the coinage system can wreak?

The Result: an Array of 55 Varieties

The coinage output of 1873, summarized in the table on the adjacent page, included 17 different designs, plus three more varieties with arrows at date. The Open 3 and Close 3 varieties add 12 more to the list. If a collector wants a coin from each mint and Open/Close combination, 23 more are needed, for a total of 55 coins. But extensive melting of some issues at the branch mints render several issues unique, rare, or unknown to exist. All of this coinage chaos—criminal or not—left 1873 as one of the most colorful years in American numismatics.

Sources:

Bowers, Q. David. The Expert’s Guide to Collecting & Investing in Rare Coins. Whitman Publishing, Atlanta, 2006.

Breen, Walter. Water Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins. Doubleday, New York. 1988.

Sumner, William Graham. The Crime
Of 1873 – The Forgotten Man and Other Essays. 1876. Website: The OnLine Library of Liberty at http://oll.libertyfund.org/

The History of United States Coins.
Website at http://www.coinsite.com/default.html

Yeoman, R. S. (edited by Kenneth
Bressett.) A Guide Book of United States Coins. Whitman Publishing, LLC. Atlanta, Georgia, 62nd Edition dated 2009.

Related posts:

1. eBay seller lists 1873-S No-Arrows half dollar
2. 1834-1844: A Decade of Great Change for U.S. Gold Coinage
3. 1834-1844: A Decade of Great Change for U.S. Gold Coinage

“Originality.” It’s one of the most overused terms in all of numismatics. And it’s one of the most misunderstood as well. Given the choice, I believe that most people would rather own an “original” coin instead of one that has clearly had its appearance changed in recent years. With the help of some good quality images, I’d like to show some of the characteristics that I equate with “originality” and offer some suggestions on how to judge if a coin is original or not.

The first coin that we are going to look at is an 1844-D quarter eagle graded AU55 by NGC. (Disclosure: this coin is currently in my inventory and it is currently for sale. I am not using this coin as an example in the hope that someone will buy it as I am certain someone will and I don’t need to go to this much trouble to sell it. I am using it to illustrate this report because I believe it represents what I believe is complete originality.)

One other quick topic before we review this 1844-D quarter eagle. My definition of an “original” coin is one that appears to have never been cleaned, lightened or in any way altered. I would be quick to point out that the flaw in this definition is that, of course, there is no way to make such a comment without having had access to this particular coin at all times since 1844.

There is always the possibility that, in the 1850’s or the 1860’s (or even the 1960’s), it may have been lightly cleaned. But there are some things to look for on a coin that I think gives a reasonably good assurance that it hasn’t been messed with. The most obvious is hairlines. If a coin has been improperly cleaned at one time, it is going to show hairlines. These may range from subtle to very obvious. If a coin has nice seemingly “original” color but it shows noticeable hairlines, this probably means that it was cleaned years ago and has subsequently retoned. Such a coin may have a natural appearance but, from the standpoint of semantics, it can’t truly be called “original.” You can also look for areas of cloudiness or haze. If a coin has these, the chances are good that something has been applied to the surfaces at one time.

In looking at this coin, there are a few points to note. The first is its depth of coloration. Take a look at the color on the obverse and the reverse and note how the hues in the fields are richer than in the protected areas. On coins with natural color this is generally going to be the case. On a coin that may have been dipped at one time, you are going to see the opposite; the color tends to be lighter at the centers and deeper at the peripheries. Also, note how on this 1844-D quarter eagle there is color present even on the high spots and relief detail. A coin that has been cleaned or dipped typically lacks color on these areas as they are the first places that the original color is lost. Finally, note the depth and intensity of the color. On natural coins, the color is “sharp” in hue and depth. On dipped or cleaned coins, the color tends to be “fuzzier” and less intense.

Secondly, note the patches of dirt or “crust” in the protected areas, especially on the letters in the reverse legend. On coins that have been lightened, this dirt is typically lost.

The third thing to note requires some specific knowledge of a series. This 1844-D quarter eagle has the “right” color for the issue. If you become familiar with the Dahlonega quarter eagle series, you will learn that the original color for the 1844-D tends to be either “bright yellow-gold, light orange-gold or dark coppery-gold.” (this quote is taken directly from my book on Dahlonega coinage, page 98). As you learn more about Dahlonega coins and see more examples in person, you learn what the “right” color is for each specific issue. The color for this 1844-D is as “right” as on any example that I have ever seen.

The second coin that we are going to look at is an 1840-O quarter eagle that is graded AU58 by NGC. This is another piece that is currently in my inventory and the reason that I purchased it was because I thought it had uncommonly attractive and original coloration.

On this coin, note the depth of the color. As they should be, the hues are deeper in the fields than at the borders. The color is very bold in its hue and can be seen with the same degree of intensity on the high spots as in the fields.

On page 52 of my book on New Orleans gold coinage I state that the color of the 1840-O quarter eagle is “a distinctive medium to deep yellow-gold.” The hues on this specific example are, in my opinion, more of a deep green-gold with reddish overtones. Why the discrepancy from the description in my book? This is a hard question to answer but my guess has to do with how this coin was stored. To me, it has the look of a piece that may have been housed in an old manila envelope or even in a leather pouch.

If you do not know this series well, you are probably thinking that this coin exhibits a considerable amount of wear at the centers and that this lightness may, in fact, be signs of an old cleaning. This is incorrect. Many 1840-O quarter eagles are weakly struck at the obverse and reverse center (this specific coin actually has a fairly decent overall strike) and have a slightly “sunken” look as a result. Although it is hard to tell from the image, this coin shows natural coloration even in the vertical shield lines which is another good indicator of its originality.

Coins that are not original often have foreign substances applied to them in an attempt to hide imperfections such as obvious marks or strong hairlines. The foreign substance(s) may not be visible at the time the coin is sent to a grading service but it usually becomes noticeable after time has passed and its chemical composition has changed. Notice on this 1840-O quarter eagle how all the marks on the surfaces are plainly visible and nothing is being “hidden.”

Let’s look at one final coin that I believe is totally original. This is an 1856-S Type Two gold dollar graded AU58 by NGC. This is an issue that is very hard to find with original color and surfaces, especially in higher grades. There is strong motivation to make a properly graded AU58 magically become an MS60 or an MS61 as evidenced by the fact that Trends jumps from $6,500 in AU58 to $12,000 in MS60.

The first thing to note about this 1856-S gold dollar is the depth and evenness of the coloration. There isn’t a coin doctor alive who has figured out (at least yet…) how to make color on a 150+ year old gold coin look 150+ years old. Notice the warmth and the depth of the color that this coin has–that’s something that just can’t be faked. Notice also that there is a good deal of luster peeking out through the depth of the aforementioned coloration. This luster can be seen most easily in the image from around 9:00 to 12:00 on the obverse border, alongside the portrait, at the left reverse and inside the wreath. Notice as well how consistent the coloration is on the obverse and reverse. Often times when someone has recolored a coin, they are lazy and only enhance one side or if they do both sides, one is done better than the other.

If you are not familiar with the strike of 1856-S Type Two dollars, you are probably wondering why the hair around the face appears so flat. This has to do with the design of the Type Two gold dollar and it is the exact reason why this design was discontinued in 1856. The highest spot on the obverse was exactly opposite the highest spot on the reverse and this made it nearly impossible for Type Two gold dollars to be well struck. In fact, this 1856-S is actually very well struck by the standards of the date and the variety and it lacks the pronounced central weakness and heavy clashmarks that are so often seen on examples of this short-lived type.

One last point before I close. I have mentioned time and time again that you can not accurately grade a coin based on an image. But I do think you can get a good idea if a coin is original or not, provided that the quality of the image is as good as the ones on my website or on a few other dealer and auction websites. Please note that this article was NOT intended to try and teach you how to grade. It was intended to give you an idea of what I believe are very original coins and how such coins should look.

Editor: This article by Doug was originally posted on CoinLink in 2008, but the thoughts and insights are as relevant today as they were two years ago.

Related posts:

1. Collecting Strategies – Collecting Key Date Coins in All Series
2. Some Thoughts on PCGS’ New Secure Plus Coin Grading Program
3. Thoughts on PCGS’s New “Genuine” Holders by Doug Winter

Forty-eight ANA members, showing 68 exhibits, competed in this year’s Collector Exhibits program. There also were 6 non-competitive exhibits.

Brett Irick received the Howland Wood Memorial Award for Best-in-Show for his exhibit, “Canadian Coins of 1947-1948.” The Radford Stearns Memorial Award for Excellence in Exhibiting, presented to the first and second runners-up, was awarded to John W. Jackson for “United States Interest-Bearing Proofs” and Simcha Laib Kuritzky for “The Jewish Lion,” respectively.

Richard Margolis won the Thos. H. Law Award for First-Time Exhibitors for “Benjamin Franklin: Early Medals and Medallions.” The Rodger E. Hershey Memorial People’s Choice Award, chosen by convention attendees, was given to Jeffrey Feuerman for “National Bank Notes of Massachusetts.” Feuerman’s exhibit also received the Ira & Larry Goldberg Award for Best Exhibit of Coins that Made History. Zachary Beier received the Derek Pobjoy Award for Best Exhibit of Modern Circulating Commemorative Coins for “Who Would Have Guessed? From a Log Cabin to the White House.”

The ANA presented competitive exhibit awards for Young Numismatists (YN) age 17 and under. The Charles H. Wolfe Sr. Memorial Award for YN Best-in-Show exhibit was presented to Benjamin Gastfriend for “Elongated Coins Featuring John F. Kennedy.”

Cindy Wibker received the Joseph E. Boling Award for Judging Excellence.

The following class exhibit awards were presented:

Class 1: United States Coins – Lelan G. Rogers Memorial

First Place – John M. Frost, “Rarities, Bargains and Neat Stuff”

Second Place – Carl B. Waltz Jr., “Matte Proof Lincoln Cents, 1909-1916”

Third Place – George B. Fitzgerald, “Rarest U. S. Silver Coin Issued for Circulation”

Class 2: United States Fiscal Paper – Sidney W. Smith/William Donlon Memorial

First Place – John W. Jackson, “United States Interest-Bearing Proofs”

Second Place – Robert Rhue, “The Colored Seal Notes of Colonial Georgia”

Third Place – Josh Wadsworth, “It’s All About the Numbers on U. S. Small-Sized Paper Money”

Class 3: Medals, Orders, Decorations and Badges – Burton Saxton/George Bauer Memorial

First Place – Linda Wolka, “95 Medals and Coins Commemorating the Anniversaries of the Birth of the Protestant Reformation in 1517”

Second Place – John M. Sallay, “School Award Medals”

Third Place – Sandra J. Emme, “A Brief History of Ballooning”

Class 4: Modern U.S. Coins and Modern Medals – American Numismatic Association

First Place – Simcha Laib Kuritzky, “Feline Species Type Set”

Second Place – James Zylstra, “Liberty Dollar: Bona Fide or Bogus?”

Third Place – Joseph Abiuso Jr., “The Story and Examples of Modern Military Challenge Coins”

Class 5: Tokens – B.P. Wright Memorial

First Place – Robert Rhue, “Complete Collection of North American Horsecar Tokens”

Second Place – Not awarded

Third Place – Not awarded

Class 6: Casino Chips and Gaming Tokens – Archie A. Black

First Place – Gerald R. Birl, “Chipco Roulettes—A Revolution in Roulette Chip Artwork”

Second Place – Not awarded

Third Place – Not awarded

Class 7: Engraved Coins – Love Token Society

First Place – Rex Stark, “Enameled Morgan and Trade Dollars”

Second Place – Simcha Laib Kuritzky, “A Zulu Love Token”

Third Place – Fred Schwan, “What Happened on December 31st 1877?”

Class 8: Elongated Coins – Dottie Dow Memorial

First Place – Benjamin Gastfriend, “Elongated Coins Featuring John F. Kennedy”

Second Place – Don Berry, “Progressive Dies (Creating a Masterpiece)”

Third Place – Zachary Beier, “Capturing the Past: Virginia’s Historic Triangle on Elongated Coins”

Class 9: Coins Issued Prior to 1500 A.D. – Dr. Charles W. Crowe Memorial

No exhibits

Class 10: Regional U.S. Numismatics – William C. Henderson/Fred Cihon Memorial

First Place – Gene E. Hynds, “Massachusetts Tiffany Commission Scrip”

Second Place – Christopher Marchase, “The Pioneer Mint of Clark, Gruber and Company”

Third Place – Joseph Abiuso Jr., “The History of the Navajo Squash Blossom Necklace and Use of U.S. Coins”

Class 11: Numismatics of the Americas – Henry Christensen/John Jay Pittman Sr. Memorial

First Place – Brett Irick, “Canadian Coins of 1947-1948”

Second Place – T.E. Klunzinger, “Numismatic Delirium: The Three Singular Notes of 1950 St. Pierre & Miquelon”

Third Place – T.E. Klunzinger, “The Mystery of the Wood Cases for the 1932 Colonization Coins of Brazil”

Class 12: Numismatics of Europe – John S. Davenport Memorial

First Place – Halbert Carmichael, “The History of the English Penny”

Second Place – Michael Morrissy, “Tale of a Short Snorter”

Third Place – T.E. Klunzinger, “The Official Bronze Jubilee Medals of Queen Victoria”

Class 13: Numismatics of Africa and the Middle East – Menachem Chaim and Simcha Tova Mizel Memorial

First Place – Simcha Laib Kuritzky, “The Jewish Lion”

Second Place – James Zylstra, “Traditional Money and the Slave Trade: The Red, Black, White Triangle”

Third Place – Not awarded

Class 14: Numismatics of Asia and the Pacific – William B. Warden, Jr. Memorial

First Place – T.E. Klunzinger, “An 1883-84 Calcutta Exposition Commemorative Medal, Its Maker and Its Recipient”

Second Place – Not awarded

Third Place – Not awarded

Class 15: Gold Coins – Gaston DiBello/Melvin and Leona Kohl Memorial

No exhibits

Class 16: Numismatic Errors and Error Varieties – Numismatic Error Collectors

First Place – Zack Kaleky, “Position is Everything When Collecting Off-Center Cents”

Second Place – Richard J. Ziegler, “1982 Doubled Die Reverse Discovery Coin”

Third Place – Fred Wersan, “Wooden Nickel Errors Help Us Learn About the Printing Process”

Class 17: Numismatic Literature – Aaron Feldman Memorial

No exhibits

Class 18: General, Specialized, and Topical – Robert Hendershott Memorial

First Place – Richard Margolis, “Benjamin Franklin: Early Medals and Medallions”

Second Place – Robert Rhue, “1843-44 Scrip from the Islands of Maui, Hawaii and Tokens Related to One Issuer”

Third place – Thomas J. Leib, “Daniel Chester French’s Lost Architectural League Medallion”

Class 19: Convention Theme – Clifford Mishler

First Place – David Menchell, “Medals of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association Struck at the U.S. Mint”

Second Place – John M. Sallay, “Boston School Medals”

Third Place – John R. Eshbach, “The Women’s Auxiliary of the Massachusetts Service Reform Association Medal of 1905”

2010 ANA YN EXHIBIT AWARDS

Class Y1: United States Coins – Edgerton-Lenker Memorial

First Place – Simon Beier, “Jamestown Celebrated in Coins”

Second Place – Not awarded

Third Place – Not awarded

Class Y2: World Coins – James L. Betton Memorial

First Place – Simon Beier, “Coins of Flight”

Second Place – Andrew Hageman, “Foreign Coins Made at the U.S. Mint”

Third Place – Simon Beier, “Cruise Adventure…Creatures of the Sea”

Class Y3: Paper Money – Kagin Family

First Place – Josh Wadsworth, “It’s All About the Numbers on U.S. Small-Sized Paper Money”

Second Place – Not awarded

Third Place – Not awarded

Class Y4: Israeli or Judaic – J.J. Van Grover Memorial

No exhibits

Class Y5: Medals and Tokens – Charles “Cheech” Litman Memorial

First Place – Benjamin Gastfriend, “Elongated Coins Featuring John F. Kennedy”

Second Place – Not awarded

Third Place – Simon Beier, “Riding the Rails”

Class Y6: Medieval and Ancient – Charles H. Wolfe Sr. Memorial

No exhibits

Class Y7: Errors and Varieties – Alan Herbert

First Place – Zack Kaleky, “Position is Everything When Collecting Off-Center Cents”

Second Place – Nicolas Dresmich, “A Clip Clock of the World’s Fair of Money”

Third Place – Not awarded

The American Numismatic Association is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to encouraging people to study and collect money and related items. The ANA helps its members and the public discover and explore the world of money through its vast array of education and outreach programs, as well as its museum, library, publications, conventions and seminars. For more information, call 719-632-2646 or visit www.money.org.

Related posts:

1. SS Central America Shipwreck “Ship of Gold” Exhibit Comes to ANA World’s Fair of Money in Boston
2. Museum Showcase, World Mints Headline Los Angeles World’s Fair of Money
3. Official ANA World’s Fair Of Money Starts Today in Boston Featuring Amazing and Historically Significant Numismatic Exhibits

A highlight of the presentations will be “The Development and Use of the Screw Press for Coin Production,” a two-hour panel discussion Aug. 13 from 3-5 p.m. Led by dealer and early U.S. coinage expert Brad Karoleff, the panel will discuss different aspects of early minting technology in the United States. Panelists include:

* John Dannreuther, author and former ANA Numismatist of the Year
* Dr. Richard Doty, curator, Smithsonian Institution National Numismatic Collection
* Bill Eckberg, noted half cent collector and researcher
* R. W. Julian, prolific numismatic writer and researcher
* Douglas Mudd, curator, ANA Edward C. Rochette Money Museum
* Craig Sholley, author famous for research into the U.S. Mint archives

Other highlights include “Money as a Social Reflection” with David Liu, 2010 ANA Harry W. Bass Jr. Numismatic Intern (Aug. 11, 9 a.m.); and “Engraver & Patriot Paul Revere: The Man & the Medal” with Jamie Franki, professor of art at the University of North Carolina and designer of the official ANA 119th anniversary convention medal (Aug. 14, 4 p.m.).

Below is a complete list of Numismatic Theatre presentations:

Wednesday, August 11

9 a.m. – “Money as a Social Reflection,” presented by David Liu

10 a.m. – “Henry Morgan: Brutal Pirate & Honored Statesman,” presented by Tom Sebring

11 a.m. – “The Liberty Paper Mill: A Cradle of the American Revolution,” presented by Peter Hopkins

12 p.m. – “Coin Grading for Beginners,” presented by William Robins

1 p.m. – “The Story of One 1786 M 5-3-B-2,” presented by Robert Moffatt

2 p.m. – “To Arms! A History of the American Revolution as Seen on Obsolete Bank Notes,” presented by C. John Ferreri

3 p.m. – “The Coin Finds from the Antioch Excavations – Revisited,” presented by Alan Stahl

4 p.m. – “Curious Currency of the World,” presented by Robert D. Leonard

Friday, August 13

9 a.m. – “Mormon Currency,” presented by Douglas Nyholm

10 a.m. – “Kalayaan Kapayapaan Katarungan: Philippine Wartime Medals of José Paciano Laurel,” presented by David T. Alexander

11 a.m. – “Precious Metals in the 21st Century,” presented by Richard Nachbar

12 p.m. – “Find a Fortune in Silver Dollars!” presented by Michael S. Fey

1 p.m. – “Personages of the Mexican Revolution & Their Coinage,” presented by Donald E. Bailey

2 p.m. – “Pictures of the First United States Mint,” presented by Leonard Augsburger & Joel Orosz

3-5 p.m. – “The Development and Use of the Screw Press for Coin Production,” presented by Brad Karoleff, Richard Doty, John Dannreuther, Bill Eckberg, R.W. Julian, Craig Sholley & Douglas Mudd

Saturday, August 14

9 a.m. – “The History of the English Penny,” presented by Halbert Carmichael

10 a.m. – “Massachusetts Copper Mint, 1787-89,” presented by Michael Packard

11 a.m. – “Strategic Philanthropy: From Personal Passion to Family Security & Legacy,” presented by Matthew F. Erskine

12 p.m. – “John Little Moffat: California, Georgia & New York Gold Merchant,” presented by Fred Holabird

1 p.m. – “Collecting & Enjoying U.S. Type Coins,” presented by Frank Van Valen

2 p.m. – “Charles VI of France: The King, His Madness & His Money,” presented by David Sorenson

3 p.m. – “¡Viva la Revolución! Some Mexican Issues, 1913-15,” presented by Ricardo de León Tallavas

4 p.m. – “Engraver & Patriot Paul Revere: The Man & the Medal,” presented by Jamie Franki

The World’s Fair of Money is the nation’s premiere money show. Show hours are 1-5:30 p.m. August 10, and 9:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. August 11-14. Dealer set-up is from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Tuesday, August 10. Admission is $6 for adults, and free for ANA members and children 12 and under. For more information on all of the show highlights, call 719-482-9857 or visit www.worldsfairofmoney.com.

The American Numismatic Association is a congressionally chartered nonprofit educational organization dedicated to encouraging people to study and collect money and related items. The ANA helps its 32,000 members and the public discover and explore the world of money through its vast array of education and outreach programs, as well as its museum, library, publications, conventions and seminars. For more information, call 719-632-2646 or visit www.money.org.

Related posts:

1. ANA Seeking Numismatic Theatre Presentations for Phoenix National Money Show, March 7-9
2. Ponterio & Associates, Inc 2010 Auction Schedule Starts with New York International Numismatic Convention
3. Fall’s Busy Coin Show Schedule