FA: 1819 Letter from Sec of Treas. to Senate

On 13 Aug 2006 14:50:02 -0700, "Retire to Italy"
wrote:

ok am I crazy or ahy would anyone want to collect a stupid letter???
check me in to a lunny bin but I think I am right here...
give me a BIG coin anyday''

Julia

Goodbye, Julia

Plonk


Reclining Buddha

The Original Couch Potato!

On 13 Aug 2006 12:26:03 -0700, "prgrmr" wrote:

on ebay, an eleven page letter from the Secretary of the Treasury in
reply to a Senate resolution requesting the US Mint to report on the
circulation of foreign coins within the Union:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=140018361630

It's 187 years old, and looks it. However, the pages aren't brittle,
it's quite readable and a great piece of original US numismatic
history.

Thanks for looking

This was a nice and historical piece of numismatic history, but you do
realize that it wasn't the actual letter from the SoT, don't you? The
actual letter would have been hand written and hand signed. This was
a pamphlet or section from a printed book, similar to the
congressional record. These books were very popular at that time and
distributed to nearly every library in the US.


Reclining Buddha

The Original Couch Potato!

On 13 Aug 2006 17:04:43 -0700, "prgrmr" climbed to
the top of the minaret and sang out:


Retire to Italy wrote:
ok am I crazy or ahy would anyone want to collect a stupid letter???
check me in to a lunny bin but I think I am right here...
give me a BIG coin anyday''

It's not stupid, it's an informative piece of history. The US Mint
wasn't even yet 20 years old, and here they are having to answer to the
Senate about their competition, which was still in circulation
throughout the Union. This is a great companion to an 1819 large cent,
quarter, or half dollar--which were the only small denominations the
Mint produced that year.

You know, that sounded good. I think I'll add that to the auction text.

Thisis definitely NOT stupid. A letter like this is a pretty
interesting numismatic-related item.
It would have been pretty cool to put the letter with an 1819 large
cent as a lot.
---


God wouldn't recognize his own son the way they've got him dressed up
(Ray Bradbury)

Reclining Buddha wrote:
This was a nice and historical piece of numismatic history, but you do
realize that it wasn't the actual letter from the SoT, don't you? The
actual letter would have been hand written and hand signed.

No, that is not true. Do not confuse the --wording-- with the facts.
The Secretary of the Treasury filed reports, answered inquiries, etc.
In the late 19th century, an annual Report became traditional.

How could one person communicate with 100, except by printing? Do you
realize that the day after the Boston Massacre, that Paul Revere was
already distributing engravings of the incident? I just finished
reading a biography of John Adams. As vice president he was President
of the Senate, a job he took seriously. You can find the Congressional
records (plural) online via the Library of Congress.

As for distribution, the House and/or Senate would have copies for each
member, and of course, the Library of Congress would have one and since
it originated in Treasury, there would be that one. One of the
incidents of Adams's presidency was the release of the terms of
negotiations with France. Congress "demanded" to know... so, everyone
got a copy... next day, the newspapers had some of these.

In my estimation, Programmer's "Letter" is genuine as described.

On 14 Aug 2006 15:21:31 -0700, "Mike Marotta"
wrote:

Reclining Buddha wrote:
This was a nice and historical piece of numismatic history, but you do
realize that it wasn't the actual letter from the SoT, don't you? The
actual letter would have been hand written and hand signed.

No, that is not true. Do not confuse the --wording-- with the facts.
The Secretary of the Treasury filed reports, answered inquiries, etc.
In the late 19th century, an annual Report became traditional.

How could one person communicate with 100, except by printing? Do you
realize that the day after the Boston Massacre, that Paul Revere was
already distributing engravings of the incident? I just finished
reading a biography of John Adams. As vice president he was President
of the Senate, a job he took seriously. You can find the Congressional
records (plural) online via the Library of Congress.

As for distribution, the House and/or Senate would have copies for each
member, and of course, the Library of Congress would have one and since
it originated in Treasury, there would be that one. One of the
incidents of Adams's presidency was the release of the terms of
negotiations with France. Congress "demanded" to know... so, everyone
got a copy... next day, the newspapers had some of these.

In my estimation, Programmer's "Letter" is genuine as described.

Yes, it is genuine as described, with a price at least 10 times the
true value, which would leave a naive bidder to believe that it is an
original letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, not a copy made
for mass distribution.

The [67] on each page would normally refer to the position in a book
of some kind (as in, this is to be placed as article 67 in volume
such-&-such of the some book such as the Congressional Record), and
the edge clearly shows evidence of being bound in a larger book, as
evidenced by the six strings which once held the various pages
together at the spine. A letter or small pamphlet would have been too
small to bind by itself in such a manner.

For $149, most would expect that they were bidding on the original
letter, signed by the original government official in his own hand,
not a mass produced copy made for quantity distribution. I collect
newspapers and books from this period, and such a piece would have
normally sold in the under $10 range, if it had not been priced as an
original letter, with no written description detailing the true
nature.


Reclining Buddha

The Original Couch Potato!

Argentina!

"Steve Norton" wrote in message
t...
Mike Marotta wrote:
prgrmr wrote:
on ebay, an eleven page letter from the Secretary of the Treasury ...
it's quite readable and a great piece of original US numismatic ..

I can't believe you are selling it! I would have to have two to let go
of one. I would at least scan the thing and then extract the
information from it for a separate publication. ... but that's me...
and another man's treasure is one man's trash.


Yes, it's interesting, isn't it? Perhaps if the winner is from RCC they
will scan and share it. How many people out there can give the current
name of "Province Rio de la Plata"? (listed on the 2nd image in the
auction.)

Reclining Buddha wrote:
Yes, it is genuine as described, with a price at least 10 times the
true value, which would leave a naive bidder to believe that it is an
original letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, not a copy made
for mass distribution.

You sir, are an idiot. At no point did I claim this to be a
hand-written letter from the Secretary. The piece is entitled "Letter
from the Secretary of the Treasury" and was published as such. Yes, it
is clearly been disbound from a larger volume, as per normal for this
type of government communication.


For $149, most would expect that they were bidding on the original
letter, signed by the original government official in his own hand,
not a mass produced copy made for quantity distribution.

Wrong again. A handwritten piece of numismatic history such as that
would have sold for well over $500 and I wouldn't at all be surprised
if over $1,000.

I collect
newspapers and books from this period, and such a piece would have
normally sold in the under $10 range, if it had not been priced as an
original letter, with no written description detailing the true
nature.

Ah, you are a generalist who thinks his experiences are directly
applicable to a special, narrower area of expertice. You are wrong
about that as well.

It was priced for what it was: a rare copy of a government
communication from the time period indicated. Government published,
numismatic related communications from any time in the 1800s are not
common. And the further back in time you go, the less common they
become. The current numismatic community places a premium on these
documents. As such, I misrepresented nothing, and you are out of line.

--
mark

On 19 Aug 2006 07:59:54 -0700, prgrmr wrote:

Reclining Buddha wrote:
Yes, it is genuine as described, with a price at least 10 times the
true value, which would leave a naive bidder to believe that it is an
original letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, not a copy made
for mass distribution.

You sir, are an idiot. At no point did I claim this to be a
hand-written letter from the Secretary.

Your subject line says "1819 letter", not "copy of 1819 letter".
Maybe to you that's not a distinction, but by giving just a date and the
word letter, you give, believe it or not, the impression that it's a
letter and it's from that date. If you were being forthright, you would
have included the "copy of" in front of "1819 letter", but you did not.
I'm with Buddha on this one.

On 19 Aug 2006 07:59:54 -0700, "prgrmr" wrote:


Ah, you are a generalist who thinks his experiences are directly
applicable to a special, narrower area of expertice. You are wrong
about that as well.

It was priced for what it was: a rare copy of a government
communication from the time period indicated. Government published,
numismatic related communications from any time in the 1800s are not
common. And the further back in time you go, the less common they
become. The current numismatic community places a premium on these
documents. As such, I misrepresented nothing, and you are out of line.

Obviously, you care little for the truth, in both your auctions and
your postings in this group. How much do you feel those 11 pages
ripped from a mass produced book would have been bid to if you had
started bidding at $10 and told the whole story as to what the piece
was, where it was pulled from, and pointed out (or even mentioned) the
fact that it in no way was an original "letter" from the Secretary of
the Treasury to anyone?


Reclining Buddha

The Original Couch Potato!

Dave Hinz wrote:

Your subject line says "1819 letter", not "copy of 1819 letter".
Maybe to you that's not a distinction, but by giving just a date and the
word letter, you give, believe it or not, the impression that it's a
letter and it's from that date. If you were being forthright, you would
have included the "copy of" in front of "1819 letter", but you did not.
I'm with Buddha on this one.

The title of the document is "Letter from...", which is what it is.
The pictures provided ought to be enough of a clue that it's a printed
copy, plus the auction text states "uncut as published" which is being
fairly forthright that it's not a hand written copy.

--
mark