Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
The Newsletter of Medal Collectors of America
Volume 13 Number 3 March 2010
Board MembersJohn Sallay, President, [email protected] Menchell, Vice President [email protected] E. Bentley, Secretary, [email protected] D. Tayman, TreasurerBenjamin Weiss, WebmasterJohn W. AdamsDavid T. Alexander, [email protected] F. Fritsch, [email protected] Hofer, [email protected] Lopez, [email protected] Miller, [email protected] Rezak, [email protected] Scarinci, [email protected] Turrini, [email protected]
John W. Adams, Editor99 High Street, 11th floorBoston, MA [email protected]
Barry Tayman, Treasurer3115 Nestling Pine CourtEllicott City, MD [email protected]
Benjamin Weiss, [email protected]
Website: medalcollectors.org
Editor of Collectors’ Guide, Dick Johnson([email protected])
Dues: $30.00/Year $50.00/2 years
What’s New on Our Website!
CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE EVERY MONTH
From the Editor 3
President’s Message (by John Sallay) 3
Admiral Rodney MedalNot in Betts (by John W. Adams) 4
Sacrificing Quality vs. LoweringStandards (by Lev Tsitrin) 6
Letters to the Editor 11
Calendar for 2010August 12th Club meeting 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. atMassachusetts Historical Society, Boston. AnneBentley and John Adams to speak
2
3
From the Editor
We have lacked “Betts” material for somenumber of issues, but now our cup runneth over.Ye editor has contributed a piece on a rare Rodneymedal that is not listed in Betts and moreover, thatbrings to mind another dozen Rodney medals notlisted in Betts. David Menchell will return to ourpages in the April issue with a blockbuster of anarticle on medals commemorating the Peace ofBreda (1667). This treaty was extremely importantin the development of colonial affairs, such that allBreda medals bear inclusion in a Betts revision.
Frances Gardiner Davenport compiled a fourvolume work that provides English translations forall of the major European treaties between (1455)and (1815). It was John J. Ford, Jr. who coined thephrase “Davenport medals,” by which he meantmedals commemorating treaties that had materialrelevance to the Western Hemisphere. A list ofsuch treaties would include:
1596 – Triple Alliance1609 – Spain and United Netherlands1648 – Treaty of Munster1654 – Treaty of Westminster1667 – Peace of Breda1668 – Triple Alliance1678-1679 – Treaty of Nymegen1697 – Peace of Ryswick1713 – Peace of Utrecht1748 – Peace of Aix-la-chapelle
Hopefully, members will be inspired to runto their “van Loon” or to their Pax in Nummis togive us an inkling of the riches that lie in wait.
President’s Message…
What is a Medal? (by John M. Sallay)
Fair warning – I’m not going to attempt toanswer this question here. Rather I’d like to tee up adiscussion, or maybe even a debate. Some of youmay wish to express your own views in the pages ofThe Advisory in the next few issues. Perhaps wecan continue the discussion in person at our Augustmeeting in Boston.
The question has come up a couple of timesover the last month or so. I recently had an e-mailfrom a collector looking for “correct nomenclaturefor what the true numismatic medals arecalled…round, metallic (like a disc, and shaped likea coin or a token); though it can have a small loop-link on top, but that is it in terms of shape andstructure; and regardless whatsoever of what themedal is issued on behalf…[not] irregular shaped(or at least non-circular), or made up of severalindependent pieces adhered together…”
Separately, you may have seen the item byDavid Schenkman in the January issue of TheNumismatist (page 55) about the Admiral Deweymedal that had a hanger and ribbon and thereforewas not a “so-called dollar”, even though the exactsame item without the ribbon would be collected assuch. I agree with what he politely implied, whichis that this notion is somewhat absurd. Individualcollectors should collect whatever they want tocollect. But really, how could any serious collectorpass up a better, more complete collectible objectjust because it is more complete and original?
Many books and articles have taken a crackat this question. The best example I can rememberis the first chapter of Chris Eimer’s book “AnIntroduction to Commemorative Medals”, entitled“What is a medal?” – very much worth reading oreven re-reading. In his recorded MCA Oral Historyinterview, available on our website, Dick Johnsonexpressed his very firm views on the definition of amedal. But I’m not sure we’ve completely nailed it.
So here are a few questions to consider:
Shape – Does it matter if it is perfectlycircular? What about oval (e.g., some Indian Peace
4
Medals)? If oval, why not other successively non-round shapes, such as many modern art medals orother non-round shapes such as many earlyAmerican hand-engraved award medals? If onlyperfectly round, what about something donutshaped?
Composition – Does it have to be made ofmetal, since after all, the dictionary definition andorigin of the word “medal” imply they are closelyrelated? What about porcelain or other ceramics(Nini and Wedgewood medallions), wood (whichwas sometimes stuck into medal-like objects), BoisDurci, hard rubber, or any number of othermaterials? What if something everyone wouldagree is a “medal” is inherently attached to orimbedded in something else (e.g., a wooden stand,the top of a jewelry box, a block of Lucite, etc.)?
Manufacturing Method – We tend to thinkof medals as being struck or perhaps cast, but whatabout items created by engraving, electrotyping(e.g., the Declaration of Independence and Waterloomedals), repousse (Christ’s Hospital Bluecoat Boymedal) or recently by more exotic techniques (e.g.,laser) or combinations of various techniques? Whatif it started as a coin and was shaved down orengraved to be made into an award medal?
Hanger or other Accoutrements – We’dprobably agree that a medal with a small hole is stilla medal, but what if it has a ring? What if that ringis attached to a ribbon or hanger with a pin? What ifthe pin is soldered onto the back? What if the itemwas originally made to be a pin? What if the thingreally looks like a medal but was originally,inherently a decorative element of a larger item likea silver tray or trophy?
Issuer and/or Reason for Issue – Our bylawsand website refer to art and historical medals, butwhat about prize medals, advertising items,souvenirs, pieces of decoration or jewelry, or dailyusage items such as game pieces. If you saw astruck, round coin-like object with the portrait of amonarch on the obverse and some historical sceneon the reverse, that looked exactly like an historicalmedal, but then someone told you it was a gamepiece, would that change your answer?
You can keep asking questions to push theedge of the envelope. On one hand, you could throwup your hands and say that only struck or cast,
circular items made of metal, about the size of acoin and only made for certain purposes are medals.Or, on the other hand, you can keep expanding thedefinition until you get all the way to somethingthat is obviously not a medal, like a ribbon. Maybethis suggests that definitions can sometimes beblurry rather than precise.
But if we’re the Medal Collectors ofAmerica, what exactly are we collectors of?
Admiral Rodney Medal--Not inBetts (by John W. Adams)
Milford Haven has this to say about theevent being commemorated by the medal depictedbelow:
“On April 12, 1782, Admiral Sir GeorgeRodney with 36 ships of the line attacked andcompletely defeated the French fleet of similarstrength off the island of Dominica in the WestIndies. On this occasion, the British Admiraldeveloped an entirely new system of tactics, inbreaking through the hostile line in three placeshimself leading the central attack with theFormidable, 90. The French Commander-in-Chief,Comte de Grasse, in his flagship the Ville de Paris,120, the finest man-of-war afloat, was takenprisoner and four other ships captured. Rodney wasraised to the peerage for these services, but it wasthought, especially in the Navy, that if haddisplayed greater energy in immediately followingup his success, he could have inflicted still greaterlosses on the enemy.”1
The medal depicted above was lot 4714 inStacks Americana Sale of January 26-27, 2010.The only other specimen recorded is in the BritishMuseum. This extreme rarity explains, no doubt,why the piece was not described by Betts, as well aswhy it was lacking in Ford. It is listed in BritishHistorical Medals as #243 as well as in MilfordHaven as #390.
The last campaign of Admiral Rodney’snaval career was marked by three signal victories:Gibraltar (1780), St. Eustatia (1781), and Dominica(1782). Gibraltar is, of course, beyond the
1 Milford Haven, British Naval Medals, p. 198.
5
geographic reach of “Betts.” The capture of St.Eustatia, along with 150 Dutch ships and acornucopia of stores on their way to Washington’sarmy is marked by Betts as his number 579 and580.
Milford Haven lists 9 varieties of the St.Eustatia medal. John J. Ford, Jr. had five in hiscollection;2 this writer owns ten. If Betts is to berevised, the authors will have to decide how manyvarieties to include. Were listings given to them all,some future writer might be inspired to do aspecialized study. In any event, collectors would beprovided with a swath of inexpensive targets, thestudy of which would enrich ones understanding ofcommercial and diplomatic aspects of theRevolutionary War.
Milford Haven lists but four varieties of the1782 Rodney medal, all of which—including thesubject at hand—appear to be quite rare. The battleof Yorktown had been lost by the British in 1781such that even the signal event of capturing the
Obverse
Legend: SR ∙Geo. B (interrupted by hat) RODNEY. │Below: PERFIDI AE: ULTOR (Avenger of treachery)
2 Ford XIV, May 23, 2006, Lots 236-240.
enemy’s flagship was perhaps considered but asidebar. Sidebar or not, it is clear that the Rodneymedals belong in Betts and that Rodney himselfshould be considered a more worthy opponent thanhas hitherto been the case.
Reverse
Legend: IN THE GLORIOUS VICTORY/OVER DEGRASSE 12 APRIL 1782 │Above, FRENCH INSULTSREVENG ‘D & BRITAIN’S HONOR’S / RECOVER’D BYTHE BRAVERY OF RODNEY
35.2mmAER-8
19.82gmsWhite Metal
6
Sacrificing Quality vs. LoweringStandards (by Lev Tsitrin)
Recent issues of the Advisory featuredsome excellent thoughts on good medallicdesign; and while the criteria suggested byMessrs Shagin and Muhl are unquestionablyhelpful in judging artistic quality of a piece(and offer good guidance for an artistembarking on creating a new piece), theiranalysis does not address a different problem –the one that faces a purchaser of an older castmedal. “Is this a satisfactory example?” is aquestion he or she has to ask.
While pertaining to the quest of artisticquality, this is a somewhat different questionthan that discussed in the above-referredarticles. Old medals that are around today are,to a great extent, after-casts – that is, not theexamples produced by the original artist for theoriginal patron, but casts taken from theoriginals later in time – years and, for thatmatter, centuries later. When are theyacceptable, and when not?
As one who finds himselftemperamentally un-inclined to sticking to astraight and narrow path of admitting onlystrictly original, superb-quality pieces (and, inpurely monetary terms, unable to do so), I findthis question fascinating. Not to say thatexcellent advice from experienced collectors islacking. The preface to the SigmundMorgenroth collection of Renaissance medalsand plaquettes advises a collector to be satisfied“with a ‘good’ specimen without asking manyquestions;” and Dr. Stephen Scher, in hisindispensable “Connoisseurship of the Medal”(published in issue 23, 1993 of The Medal)articulates the way to tell such “good”specimens (which, incidentally, entails asking agood many questions indeed.)
And yet, my question is rather different.For in several instances I knew for a fact that amedal in question was definitely not a “good”example, yet I still wanted it – because to me, itjust looked good. Is that acceptable?
One serious objection to this mode ofcollecting (apart from the obvious folly of“wasting” money on a “poor” piece where oneshould “invest” in a “good” one) that wasoffered in conversation by a very prominentexpert in the field of the Renaissance medal – isthat such pieces do not represent the artist’sintentions, and, therefore, are artisticallybeyond the pale. This, however, is not aconvincing argument – for several reasons.First of all, respect for an artist as a final arbiterof what is artistically valid and what is not isanachronistic. Marcel Duchamp could get awaywith exhibiting a urinal and declaring it a workof art only because he lived in the twentiethcentury. Michelangelo, who worked in thesixteenth, would not have been able to pull thisoff. Back than, it was the patron who decidedwhat was worthwhile and what wasn’t; thebeauty was in the eye of the person whocommissioned the art, not that of the artist.Only that was admired which was made well.Back then, the work bespoke the artist, not theother was around as it is nowadays. And sincewe are talking here of the old pieces, it is thementality of those times that should apply inour judgment, not the present-day one.
Second of all, in actuality no one caresabout old artists’ intentions – neither thecollectors, nor the museums, nor, for thatmatter, the artists themselves. A striking case inpoint is Rembrandt’s etched portrait of Dr.Ephraim Bonus: the doctor stands in astaircase, his right hand resting on a banister, aring with a large diamond on his finger. AsRembrandt works on his printing press, printingone impression after another, he noticessomething odd as he peels off the third onefrom the copper plate – the diamond is comingoff black. “Darn it!” – quoth he (in the originalDutch of course) – “Darn it! This is not inaccordance with my artistic intentions! Thediamond should be white, not black!” Herushes to his workbench, grabs a burnisher andpolishes the burr off the plate where thediamond is. “Now, that’s good!” we hear himsay as the next, artistically improved (and
7
approved), impression showing the diamondshining with white light is off his press.
Now, what happened to three badimpressions that were not in accordance withRembrandt’s artistic intentions? DidRembrandt, in a fiery fit of fine artistic fury, ripthem to pieces? Or did he, as a properlyphlegmatic, practical Dutchman use them towrap herrings in? None of the above. Not onlydid they survive, but they kept changing handsat enormous sums – many times the pricescommanded by those impressions which werefully in accordance with Rembrandt’s artisticintentions – until they came to rest in theworld’s most prestigious public collections. Itwould be interesting to suggest to the curatorsof print rooms of the British Museum, theRothschild collection of the Louvre, and theAmsterdam’s Rijksmuseum to discard their“black-ring” impressions of Dr. Bonus, alongwith other suchlike unapproved states ofRembrandt’s etchings as unworthy of such fineinstitutions, and to proudly display only the“artist-approved,“ final states. I suspect wewould hear some uncharacteristically energeticlanguage. Artist’s intentions? Who cares!
Concerns for “artist’s intentions”disposed of, let us see how an obviously notgood example of a medal could be foundworthwhile. Consider, for instance, this cast ofthe obverse of Niccolo Fiorentino’s medal ofNonnina Strozzi (Hill 957). Not only is itmerely uniface while the original is two-sided;but the lettering is weak and watery instead ofstanding up square and sharp; and, confirmingwhat is obvious via this initial observation, thediameter is a mere 86 mm to the requisite 90-91. On top of that, two bronze screw bolts aresoldered to the reverse; and the edge, at 6o’clock, has stamped into it either a foundry ora collector mark which seem to read somethinglike “HORWITZ” and appears to be struck overanother, much shorter mark. And as if this wasnot enough, the after-caster, pitying the lady’slack of jewelry, got into a generous mood andadded some peals to her cap, necklace, and thestring from which the “cameo of a laureate
head right,” as we are informed by Hill (youwon’t be able to see that in this cast) issuspended. Well-intentioned, but not well-performed: the pearls are not of uniform size,and are far too few and far too loose to makeany sense – were it an actual necklace, theywould all slide down, leaving most of the stringbald. And to top it all, the good fellow failed tonotice that the string runs on her left hand-sidetoo, and added no pearls there, creating a ratherasymmetric, and altogether ridiculous piece ofjewelry. And he altered her dress, adding anextra seam which runs to the bottom of the saidcameo. (He meant well, and is forgiven).
While there can be no doubt that thepiece is not “good,” there are two reasons whyit is perfectly acceptable – one reason having todo with this piece itself, another with qualitiesof a the properly “good” example (though itappears from the entry in Hill that there are nocontemporary casts – of the three he lists, theLondon and the Berlin one (illustrated herefrom a plate in volume 5 of BerlinerNumismatische Forshungen – Die ItalianishenMedaillen dr Renaissance und des Barock), hesays are not contemporary, and illustrates thecast in Florence – but a quick comparison of apicture in Pollard’s catalog to the Berlin onereveals that the Florence and the Berlin medalswere cast from the same prototype, if not in the
8
same mold – the identical size and the identicalmold crack marks on both the obverse and thereverse, caused apparently by a knock on theright side of the locked mould before the metalwas poured, make that unmistakably clear). Asfar as this piece is concerned, what is essentialis there – the outline of the profile is clear andsharp; the glance is alert; the portrait proper isentirely satisfactory, dominating as it does thecircle of the medal. And how much, other theportrait itself, is good in the “good” piece? Thereverse is, if not outright ugly, is less than well-modeled; ditto the lettering – ill-spaced, ill-executed. If the artist focused on the portraitonly, doing it really well, while not caring onestraw for the reverse and for the lettering – whywould I? All that matters in this medal – theportrait – is well-preserved and present in thiscast. Hence, as far as I am concerned, the pieceis all right – thought unquestionably not“good.”
(It is worth noting, in a “by-the-way”way, that this medal is another clear-cutexample of an artist’s disregard for “artist’sintentions.” Did Niccolo really decide, when hegot the commission from Nonnina’s husband,“my artistic intention is this: the portrait shouldbe done well, but the lettering should be ill-spaced, and the reverse ugly”? I suspect he didnot – he wanted the piece to be elegant through
and through – nice portrait, nice lettering, nicereverse. It did not work out that way though,the final product being not in line with the“artist’s intentions.” It didn’t bother him – nor,again, should it bother us. And as a second “by-the-way,” this sloppiness perhaps explains thehigh productivity of the artist. Graham Pollardobserved, in his entry on Niccolo in TheCurrency of Fame, “A total of 148 medalshave been either attributed to him or identifiedas related to his style. … For an Italian medalistof the fifteenth century this is an absurdly largegroup.” But what’s so absurd about thisnumber? In the entry on the medal of PietroBembo by an unknown artist, the very sameCurrency of Fame tells us that BenvenutoCellini made a wax model for the portrait sideof his own Bembo medal which took just atwo-hour-long sitting. Now do your own math.If only nominal amount of care (and thereforetime) is bestowed on lettering and the reverse –a la Niccolo Fiorentino – then mold-makingand casting are the only other time-consumingtasks. So why be surprised that Nicollo wasable to satisfy so many patrons’ wish to beimmortalized in bronze? Even if he made justone medal a week, it would have taken him amere three years to complete the medalsascribed to him. Clearly, it was the number ofpatrons, rather than the difficulty of the task athand, that limited his oeuvre. Eventually, theynumbered to around 148. Isn’t that all there isto it?
But getting back to the question ofacceptability of “bad” examples of a medal,consider this example of the posthumously-produced medal of Cosimo de’ Medicicommemorating him as “Pater Partiae,” thefather of his fatherland. Recognizable at aglance as an after-cast – an extra raised circlenear the edge betrays its descent from a smallerexample, while extreme thickness of the flan(close to 5 mm) and the very extensive,meticulous, slanted filing of the edge suggeststhat the casting was not contemporary, whilecomparison with a photo of a fine example inthe Kress collection shows disappearance of
9
wrinkles on the brow and around eyes, ofdetails of sagging skin on his cheeks and neck,of the outline of the pupil of the eye – and yet,despite the missing details, the powerfulpresence of an introspective, wise, crafty, oldman is, somehow, still there. The profile,although reduced to a near-silhouette, isperfectly sharp, and the brooding expression iscaught to perfection. And then, one wonderswhat is a proper way to commemorativelydepict a person who has passed out of this lifeand into the memory and the legend of a “PaterPatriae.” Should such a posthumous depictionbe a detailed, warts-and-all, police mug shotmade at a particular moment? Or should it bean idealized portrait, the broad summary offacial features that smoothes out the detailsobserved at the moment of the sitting for thesake of a generalized statement on the man’scharacter and on his impact on the world? If weaccept the latter, then “the artist’s intention”ought to have been to produce a look present inthe late after-cast, rather than the original; theafter-cast is then closer to the proper “artist’sintention” than what the artist (whose identityis debated) had actually produced. It is,therefore, perfectly legit – at least for me.
(And, on a purely technical note, thismedal confirms Dr. Scher’s warning in hisabove-mentioned article on medalconnoisseurship that medal’s diameter taken
alone “has serious limitations” in determiningthe after-cast: in this one, diameter of the innercircle that came from the edge of the medalfrom which this cast was taken, is a respectable76 mm (while the Kress example is 78, mostother examples listed by Hill are 76 or 77; andthe example in Florence which he describes as“good” measures a mere 72). But despite itsreasonable diameter, this piece is clearly anafter-cast.)
And finally, while on the subject ofconnoisseurship, this obviously very recent castof the obverse of medal of John Paleologus,emperor of Byzantium, originally made byPisanello when the emperor came to Italy insearch of alliances to help him repel theMoslems from Byzantium and keep theOttomans from the gates of Constantinople,offers a highly instructive cautionary tale. Ibought it both because I wanted to have at leastsome version of the piece that created a new artform, that of the cast medal, and because it wasa reminder, in our post-9/11 world, that historyis not just words in a book but that somethreats, while dormant for a while, do not reallygo away.
When viewed on the screen, thelettering looked straight and sharp, and theportrait reasonably good; so deciding that itwas cast from a good example, and therefore
10
was as close to a nice piece as I was ever likelyto get, I ordered it.
The actual piece turned out not to be toosharply defined (which was to be expected inan after-cast), and had a somewhat spiky, ratherthan smooth surface; but what really surprisedme was that, going clockwise from about 8 to 4o’clock it was, all things considered, rather allright; but from 4 to 8 it was anything but. Therewere doubled lines in the lettering; extrabuttons on the emperor’s kaftan; and somethingwas off with the tip of his nose and his lips.There could be only one explanation for this:when the medal that was used as a model wasbeing removed from the mould, its lower partslipped a bit, slightly shifting and dipping backinto the wet sand of the mould, thus producingghost lines in lettering, extra buttons,lengthening the tip of John’s nose, andelongating his lips, making them stretched as iffor a kiss. Well, things happen, so I let thematter slip – until I looked up the medal in Hill(his number 19). That was a shock, for lo andbehold! The piece he illustrated was messed upin the exact same way! However, Hill’s arephotos of plaster casts, not of the medalsthemselves (back in the 1920s and 30s,photographic equipment was bulky and veryexpensive, and Hill could not afford toillustrate his Corpus with photos of actualmedals.) But now at least I knew the exactorigin of my piece – someone made a bronzecast of the plaster cast used by Hill; andwhoever made the plaster cast in the Victoriaand Albert museum (for it was the V&Aexample that Hill illustrated) was not carefulenough. So far so good – until, for somereason, I wanted to see what the latest andgreatest art encyclopedia – a massive 30-some-volume “Dictionary of Art” published byGrove has to say about Pisanello. The sectionon his medal-making authored by Pollard wasillustrated – guess what! – with the actualpicture of the V&A example of the Paleologusmedal (captioned as “struck” in Florencethrough editorial oversight). And this one hadevery “4 to 8 problem” I saw in my piece!
Wherein lies a lesson inconnoisseurship, for the cast of connoisseurslinked to the V&A example of this medal wasanything but unremarkable. First (so far as Iknow) comes George Salting, the man ofenormous wealth and exquisite taste who didnothing in life but collect objects of art, buying,as per the contemporary account, “nothing butthe best and the rarest,” renaissance smallbronzes being one of his specialties. After hisdeath in 1909, in accordance with his bequestthey passed to the nation, the bronzes going tothe V&A.
The reputation for unmatchable qualityof Salting pieces may have caused Hill, thegreatest connoisseur of the medal at the turn ofthe century, to choose the V&A example forillustration in his Corpus as the best example ofthis medal, even though he already used asuperlative British Museum example toillustrate his 1905 monograph on Pisanello.And then, Hill’s successor in the field of medalconnoisseurship, Graham Pollard, fell into thesame trap and chose the V&A piece torepresent Pisanello’s achievement in medal-making to the non-specialist public that is theuser of the Grove Dictionary of Art. They allmust have been so mesmerized by the pedigree(Salting himself included, for he may havegotten it from a highly distinguished Spitzercollection) that they forgot to look at the medalitself, and so did not notice that it was a verypoor-quality example, fit perhaps for a small-fry collector who has little hope of getting abetter example, but not to a whale of a collectorthat was George Salting. Not that their logicwas at fault: since Salting had impeccable tasteand the medal came from Salting, it wasperfectly logical that this was an impeccablepiece. And yet they all were wrong. That such adistinguished group of connoisseurs as Salting,Hill and Pollard could all fall victim togroupthink is bizarre, yet does have aneducational value, “a teaching moment” if youwill. The grand lesson is – look not at thedescription and pedigree of a piece, but at thepiece itself.
11
And as you look, you will notice notonly that many an after-cast of a great medal isthoroughly unappetizing, and has no power toattract at all, nonetheless there are instanceswhen a clearly non-“original,” “late,” “poor”medal may nevertheless have great artisticmerit. Moreover, even in the technically bestexample of a medal, this merit may be presentin only one aspect of it. In the very same piece,a portrait may be good, but the lettering poor;the obverse fine, but not the reverse. And whenseeking out an acceptable piece, it hardlymakes sense to demand technical excellence inthose aspects of the medal in which artisticexcellence is lacking.
To be attractive, a medal does not needto be sharp “throughout,” but only where itmatters. Ignore poor quality in casting oflettering where in the finest of examples thatlettering is merely ugly. Forget about indistinctreverse where you wouldn’t want to look at iteven if it were exceptionally sharp. Incollecting Renaissance medals, bending therules should be the main rule; adhering to“standards” should not be. Sacrificing qualityof that which has no real quality anyway, is nolowering of standards at all. A “bad” piece mayafter all be quite all right.
[Lev -- this is a truly outstanding piece!!—Ed.]
Letters to Editor
Good Morning John,I hope you had a good weekend! It was
good to see you at the ANS Gala and theNYINC. I have a question about a medal I justfound in a drawer. It is a US Grant Medal,about the size of a quarter, copper, Grant'sportrait surrounded by "Ulysses S Grant". Thereverse has what I believe is the city seal ofPhiladelphia surrounded in two lines with thislegend:
"STRUCK AND DISTRIBUTED INTHE MUNICIPAL PARADEBY THE EMPLOYES OF THE US MINTPhila. Dec. 16, 1879"
Yes, EMPLOYES was misspelled onthe medal. This is all I could find out about theparade:
December 16. Grand public reception ofgeneral U.S. grant upon his return toPhiladelphia and the conclusion of his journeyaround the world. military and civic processionwhich required four hours and 40 minutes topass a given point. It was 6-1/2 miles in length,and was estimated to have been participated inby 40,000 persons and seen by 350,000spectators.
Can you tell me anything about this? Isit scarce/common. I don't collect anything thisnew and was considering placing it on ebay for$20 to start, but if it has no value or is veryvaluable, I might do something different.
Thanks,
Ray Williams
John,I'm away from home, but I'm pretty sure
this item is about the size of a hard times tokenand is brass. if I'm not mistaken, it is a U.S.Mint medal listed in Julian and there were amonumental number of them struck. I believeit is very common, probably worth in the $20-40 range depending on condition, but Joe
12
Levine would be a better judge of that. EBaymight be the best way to go.
John Sallay
Hi Ray,From your excellent description, the
piece is Julian's CM-18: "On December 2,1879, the director of the mint gave hispermission for the employees of the mint to bein a parade honoring former President Grant.The medals were actually struck in brass duringthe parade and passed out to the crowds alongthe way. They were never sold by the mint. Thenumber struck is unknown, but may haveexceeded 10,000 pieces." Kudos to you for thequestion and to John Sallay for the answer.
My best,
John W. Adams
Good Morning,
I was reading "The Numismatist" and saw thearticle on page 23. I have a ROTY medal andhave taken it to shows and even contacted adescendant of Roty to find out more about it.
Peraps you could fill in the blanks. It isshown in the collection sections of RotyFoundation, listed in the article.
It is the medal celebrating 100 years ofthe Bank of France. I would like to know whenit was made, how many produced, what metals,historical info, etc.....
I would appreciate any help you canprovide.
Thanks,
Scott Vogel
Roty Medals Important
I am not an expert on foreign medals. Itwould be far better to ask, say, French medalauthority Richard Margolis, for moreinformation on this medal. However since Iwas asked I will chime in with my comments.
Asking the quantity struck for a medaltells us far more about the inquirer than onemight imagine. It is of less importance to amedal collector than a coin collector. Sincecoin collectors start collecting (generally)filling albums with quantity struck printedunder the port holes, or reading the Red Bookwith quantity struck on every line, this subjectis imbedded in every coin collectors' psyche.Not so for medal collectors.
A million quantity struck of acirculating coin might be considered rare. Amedal with a quantity struck of one millionwould flood the market for decades.
Identifying the date of the medal inquestion is easy. Wikipedia states the Bank ofFrance was established in January 1800. Thus acentennial medal would be issued in 1900. Thisfits in with Roty's work, he was very active atthat time. He was probably commissioned tocreate this medal a year or two in advance ofthe centennial year.
In 1910 the American NumismaticSociety held an international exhibition ofmedallic art, inviting artists from all over theworld to exhibit in New York City. Of the 194American and foreign artists who exhibitedLouis Oscar Roty showed more than any otherartist -- 83 pieces! That tells you somewhat ofhis importance. Second in number of pieces onexhibit was Roty's student, American VictorDavid Brenner with 69 pieces.
Roty's Bank of France Medal was notincluded. Don't read too much into that.Perhaps he thought it would not be of that greatof interest to American viewers. Or it was toocommercial. Or for whatever reason, he hadbeen so productive up to that time he hadhundreds of medals to choose from.
13
I do have a suggestion for collectorScott Vogel--make this medal the keystone fora new collecting specialty, add to it! Rotymade a medal with the female figure "TheSower." Buy that medal. Then Roty wascommissioned to prepare a coin design. Hechoose "The Sower" again and it appeared ofFrench coins. Acquire some of those coins foran interesting association between coins andmedals.
Finally, I mentioned V.D. Benner wasRoty's student. Brenner modified Roty's Sowerand submitted that as his first choice for thereverse design of the Lincoln Cent when hewas commission to create a new coin design.This design was not accepted but illustrationsof that design have been pictured in books. Geta photocopy of that illustration.
Now Scott, you have the basis of aprize-winning exhibit. How, perhaps, a Bankmedal led to the creation of a coin design. Andthe tie-in to the American Lincoln Cent. Wow!Or should I exclaim "Viola!" You just won ablue ribbon at the next coin show!
Dick Johnson
Dear JohnWhat is it about collectors that they
have lost the ability and need to touch?Everything now needs to be encapsulated andthe drive towards that end leaves the joy ofcollecting far behind. Even comic books arenow sealed in plastic and graded on a scale of10. But then, glory be, there on pages 12 and13 of the February MCA Advisory, is thewonderful George Bullock cabinet.
This cabinet has to have been made forMatthew Robinson Boulton, son of the greatMatthew Boulton, who ordered volumes offurniture from Bullock, much of it in oak andholly, Bullock's 40+ page invoice still existsand it would be worth checking. The cabinetwas not included in the Christie sale of thecontents of Boulton's house at Great Tew onthe 27th - 29th May, 1987. I would guess the
sizes in the pierced trays would fit Soho mintproducts and might explain why there are notall that many spaces.
Only the small matter of $275,000prevents me from rushing to buy the cabinet.In the meantime I think there is plenty of scopefor Anthony Stuempfig to do some furtherresearch.
Kind regards
Daniel Fearon
Dear Dave [Bowers],I wonder if you can help. For a long
time I have tried, unsuccessfully, to find thesculptor and or the engraver of a medal I haveand cherish. I have a bronze and silverspecimen of the 1907 Jamestown TercentennialExposition Medal.
I have found facts, but not these factsfrom articles that are on the internet and in the“So-called Dollar Book” my local coin dealershared with me. The Pocahontas obverse &ship reverse are beautiful but not credited.Even in an article from “NumismatistMagazine,” it told more of the Exposition thanof the medal. If you could help I would reallybe thankful.
Sincere regards,
John A. Mead527 North Cushing St.South Bend, Indiana 46616
[Thank you, Dave, for steering John’sinquiry our way. Ed.]
14
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Date: ......................................................................................................................................Name: ....................................................................................................................................Mailing Address:Street: ....................................................................................................................................City: .......................................State: .....................................Zip code: ...............................Telephone (Work):...........................................................................(Home): .............................................................Email: ....................................................................................................................................
QUESTIONAIRE
How did you learn about the MCA?
What are your collecting interests?
What would you see highlighted in MCApublications?
For volunteers: I am willing to devote timeto the following MCA projects:
DUES: $30.00 PER CALENDAR YEAR (Includes a subscription to monthly publications of theMCA advisory)
Please send completed application and payment to:
Medal Collectors of Americac/o Barry Tayman
3115 Nestling Pine CourtEllicott City, MD 21042
Or email completed form to: [email protected] WEBSITE: http://www.medalcollectors.org
