Book Review: Colonial and Early American Coins by QDB

Whitman and Q. David Bowers continue to add to the treasury of
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

Mike Marotta wrote:
Whitman and Q. David Bowers continue to add to the treasury of
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

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

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.

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."

Mike Marotta wrote:
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

On Apr 4, 7:15�am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
Mike Marotta wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:52 am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

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."

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

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

Bob wrote:

[my previous pontification snipped]

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?)

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

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

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

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.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Bob wrote:
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

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

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
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