Apr 23, 2012 | commentary, eBay, grading
When I wrote “eBay to ANACS and ICG: You Lose!” it was based on the release eBay provided to sellers. This was not the complete story as reported by CoinNews.
According to the release published by CoinNews, eBay worked with John Albanese to develop the standards that will be used for graded coins. Albanese is the founder of the Certified Acceptance Corporation, a third-party grading verification service, and Numismatic Consumer Alliance, which calls itself a numismatic protection corporation. Albanese is one the the original founders of Numismatic Guarantee Corporation, one of the leading third-party grading services.
On the surface it may look like a good idea to work with someone of Albanese’s alleged stature to set these standards. However, if you look at Albanese’s business interests, Albanese is not working for the ordinary collector.
The standards eBay is adopting are almost aligned with the submission policies of the CAC which Albanese is president. The difference is that modern coins (coins struck after 1964) and bullion coins graded by the acceptable third-party grading services can be listed as graded. Any other coin is considered a raw coin and cannot be listed or described as graded. While a picture of the coin in the holder is allowed, the listed cannot name the grading service or the numerical grade.
I have never met John Albanese and have been told that he is respected by those who know him. I do not know him and only know of his current efforts with the CAC. The CAC is a company owned by high end dealers who had complaints with the work of the grading companies. While a verification service is good, the CAC and its partners are working hand-in-hand to buy, sell, and trade these coins which, in essence, drives up the prices of the coins.
It is part of the CAC business model only to accept coins graded by NGC and PCGS for evaluation. It is part of the CAC business model not to accept modern coins with the exception of certain Lincoln Cent errors. And up until the last year, collectors could only submit coins through CAC affiliated dealers. The business model skews to higher-end coins with the partners creating their own trading market based on the CAC opinion.
Let’s look at the business model of the CAC using a different market. A stock broker buys a series of loan interests he wants to valuate based on a criteria held by those who are not happy with the current valuation services. Rather than look at everything, they start with a series of loan shares whose valuation are certified by certain services because they have a biased opinion against other services. They evaluate shares, put their seal of approval on it, bundle them and trade them amongst themselves create a new market that is currently not existent. Once these shares are traded in this closed market, their value is set then traded to the public. If this sounds like the derivatives market that crashed the economy in 2008, you would be correct. It also parallels the rise of the CAC and its creation of an artificial market.
If the CAC was working as an independent organization without its market-making activities, there would be nothing wrong with what it is doing. However, its market-making activities leaves open questions about its objectivity.
In the securities business, there are laws against artificially building up the price of a stock and then selling them for profit. It is called “pump-and-dump.” Those not in the securities business cannot collude to artificially fix or advance prices, as the airlines have been accused of doing. This is a potential violation of the antitrust laws of the United States. Specifically, it can be alleged that their practices are violations of the provisions of The Clayton Act. The purpose of The Clayton Act is to protect against price discrimination by using influence over markets using exclusive dealing agreements and tying arrangements. Recent cases involving antitrust applies the law to the manipulation of markets to create exclusivity.
Rather than find a better solution to cover the entire market, eBay spoke with someone who has an economic stake in the market for which eBay is trying to regulate. Thus, the new rules adopted by eBay is an attempt to influence the market and create a tying arrangement to manipulate the market to the business model and agenda supported by Albanese, the CAC, and its investors.
Coin collecting is more than the market promoted by Albanese and the CAC. Ebay, Albanese, the CAC, and those who support the CAC do not think in the context of the average collector. I am amongst the average collector. I am the one who sees ICG holders signed by the artist of the New York State Quarter and has to add it to his specialized collection of New York items. If I decide to divest this collection, I would not be able to mention anywhere in the listing the grading service or the numerical grade assigned by ICG. While I can include a picture, I would have to create a listing that would border on being fraudulent for not being able to disclose the actual details of what I was selling.
I am for sensible guidelines that would be inclusive of the ordinary collector as well as protection for those buying higher end coins. However, the route eBay has used to consult with someone who has a fiscal agenda in the market appears to be shaping the market into that agenda that will leave the rest of collecting community behind.
If you think that eBay has gone too far, I urge you to contact their customer support and express your opinion. I also call on the American Numismatic Association to step in on behalf of its member, not all are rare coin collectors, to work as an independent organization to protect the seller against an agenda-based policy. Finally, if you feel that this is the beginning of a restraint of trade violation by eBay, I urge you to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and ask them to look into hampering the sale of legal collectibles.
Apr 19, 2012 | auction, commentary, eBay, grading
This week, eBay sent a message to sellers who listed coins and currency for sale on the site to announce new listing policies for coins.
As coin collecting continues to grow and thrive on eBay, customers have told us time and again that knowing they can buy and sell with confidence is important. “We’ll be updating eBay’s Stamps, currency, and coins policy to help foster that confidence—this update may impact your coin listings,” read eBay’s note.
Starting May 30, all new listings and relistings in coin categories will need to meet the following requirements:
- First, listings for coins will be allowed to include a numeric grade in their listing title or item description only if the coin grading company meets certain objective standards.* Coins that haven’t been graded by these companies will be considered raw or ungraded. Currently, eBay has determined that only the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC) and the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) meet these standards.
- Second, for US Coins only, grading by companies meeting these standards will now be required for all coins listed with a Buy It Now, reserve, or start price of $2,500 and above.
A footnote for the asterisked line says, “These standards will be posted on eBay’s website shortly.” The policy page has not been updated to explain the standards which the decision is based.
By this rule, coins certified by ANACS and ICG have now been reduced to second class status even though there may be nothing wrong with them. Nice coins still in old PCI holders with J.T. Stanton’s signature are also reduced to “irrelevancy” becuase of eBay’s undisclosed decision.
This is not the first time eBay has made arbitrary decisions about coin collecting based on questionable advice. In January, eBay banned the sale of replica coins where they said they worked in conjunction with the Professional Numismatic Guild to come up with a policy.
“We’ve heard from both buyers and sellers that they’d like to see more coins on eBay graded by companies who meet high standards,” read the eBay release. “These new requirements are an important step toward meeting these marketplace demands.”
As both a buyer and seller, I have never been asked.
By making this statement, eBay and not experts or the numismatic public is telling the marketplace that they know better. By making this statement, eBay will not allow me to search for or buy that old ANACS photo holder or the ICG graded error coin verified by CONECA because ANACS and ICG cannot be used in the title and description.
Rather than managing its market place, eBay has now turned themselves into an enforcement bureau making policies that could be considered a restraint of trade by telling independent sellers what they can or cannot sell that would be legal elsewhere.
Ebay has a right to limit the type of item sold on via its service. Ebay has extensive policies regarding prohibited and restricted items as well remedies for violating these policies. Now, eBay has branched out from prohibited and restricted items to practically banning LEGAL products because they do not meet arbitrary and capricious standard that they have yet to divulge.
Restraint of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. By eBay telling me and other sellers that we cannot properly list and sell any other coin but those encapsulated by PCGS or NGC is restricting my freedom to conduct business. Ebay will not let me sell or advertise the ICG graded error coins or the artist signed state quarters also slabbed by ICG. In other words, I would be restrained from appropriately advertising LEGAL inventory by contractually restricting my freedom to conduct business.
If there is an alternative to eBay for selling legal coins, I would like to know. The extra coins from the divesting of part of my collection will be listed there. Ebay is no longer a viable outlet to sell collectible coins.
Apr 18, 2012 | coins, commentary, grading
In a late press release on April 17, it was announced that after two years, the members of the Professional Numismatists Guild approved a three-point definition of “coin doctoring.”
“This is a complex issue, but we needed to have a concise definition to help combat the deliberative and unacceptable alteration of coins in an effort to deceive,” said PNG President Jeffrey Bernberg.
As the hobby has grown and the ability to sell coins have become easier, the problem of coin doctoring has been one of those issues simmering just below the industry’s radar. But as the prices of key and semi-key coins have risen, the temptation by some to cash in has caused coin doctoring to be a more significant issue.
“We’ve been working on this for over two years with Numismatic Guaranty Corporation and Professional Coin Grading Service as well as a committee of dealers and collectors to formulate an industry-acceptable definition,” said PNG Executive Director Robert Brueggeman.
According to PNG, coin doctoring refers to the alteration of any portion of a coin, when that process includes any of the following (emphasis added):
- Movement, addition to, or otherwise altering of metal, so that a coin appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be. A few examples are plugging, whizzing, polishing, engraving, “lasering” and adding or removing mint marks.
- Addition of any substance to a coin so that it appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. The use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids, such as Jeweluster, by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring.
- Intentional exposure of a coin to any chemicals, substances, or processes which impart toning, such that the coin appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. Naturally occurring toning imparted during long-term storage using established/traditional methods, such as coin albums, rolls, flips, or envelopes, does not constitute coin doctoring.
While much of this makes sense in the current environment, there are some things that the collecting public must remember. First, not all doctored coins are an effort to deceive. One example are Buffalo Nickels that have been treated with a chemical to make the date readable. These “acid coins” are easy to detect since the chemical leaves a stain where used and, in the vast majority of cases, are advertised as being altered coins.
Another issue is that at one time coin doctoring was an accepted practice. People did not want ugly coins, so dealers would use various methods to polish he coins to make them look better. It was also common for some to use the same abrasive copper polish that was used to clean copper cookware to clean older copper coins to try to make the coins look mint red. Others embraced the natural oxidation of copper that turned them brown and coated them with lacquer to preserve its rich, dark color.
When blatant altering of the surface fell out of fashion, dipping the coins in chemicals to improve the surface continued, especially for copper coins. While not as easy to detect, it is possible to find better and semi-key Indian and Lincoln cents that were dipped a long time ago when the practice was acceptable. An experienced eye can tell if a coin was once dipped, but it is not easy. If you have any question, either ask that coin be graded by a third party or do not buy the coin.
One item that is objectionable is in the second definition where it says, “the use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids… by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring.” What this says is that if I have coins that have been contaminated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from being improperly stored, I cannot buy acetone to rid the coins of the damage. Rather, it appears that NGC has preserved the business of its sister company, Numismatic Conservation Service by saying only NCS can do the job and a vigilant collector is a coin doctor.
Dear PNG: I am going to continue to carefully remove the deteriorated foam from a set of improperly stored 1939 World’s Fair tokens using olive oil and acetone. Just because I do not work for NCS does not mean I am doctoring these coins.
A collector who uses a dilute or neutral acid that does not alter surfaces like acetone to remove PVC, dirt, or other contaminants is not a coin doctor!
Toning is a controversial topic because toning is he result of the oxidation of the coin metal accelerated by environmental contaminants. Oxidation alters the irreversibly alters the surface of a coin. Usual causes of toning comes from storage using non-neutral materials. Since toning can give coins a pleasing or pretty look with many interesting colors, there are collectors who seek out toned coins.
Artificially toning a coin can be used to hide the work of doctored coins or make the coin more desirable. The problem is that there is no definitive way to tell the difference between artificial and natural toning. There are ways to tell the difference between deliberate attempts at toning, but there has been anecdotal evidence demonstrating that it is possible tone a coin that has fooled the grading services.
Now that we have he definition of coin doctoring, what do we do with it? While PNG can use this definition to police its own members, what happens to dealers who are not PNG members? Will PNG work with the American Numismatic Association to adopt similar ethics rules? If so, will ANA members be allowed in this conversation?
“It frankly took longer than some of us expected or wanted to get something substantive finally approved, but the overwhelmingly vote now by PNG members to support a specific coin doctoring definition is an important, major step for the hobby and the profession. It needed to be done,” said Brueggeman.
Maybe they should have waited longer and put out their definition for general comment before enthusiastically adapt a message with questions.
Mar 30, 2012 | commentary, dollar, policy
During my perusal of the coin and currency related news on the Internet, I came across a story, “Survey shows dislike of Schweikert’s Coins Act” on the website for the East Valley Tribune, a newspaper based on Tempe, Arizona. The story is about alleged opposition to Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) sponsored the COINS Act to transition the one-dollar federal reserve note in favor of a one dollar coin. Schweikert represents Arizona’s 5th District that includes Tempe.
NOTE: The rest of this posting will discuss the survey, its backers, and the politics behind the paper currency versus coin debate. If you are not a fan of the discussion of the nexus between numismatics and politics, you should stop reading here.
The article discusses a survey that was “conducted by the independent public opinion research firm Lincoln Park Strategies”that was paid for by an organization named Americans For George. Lincoln Park Strategies (LPS) was founded by Stefan Hankin who has worked on behalf of “numerous Democratic politicians and organizations, including President Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee.” Although Hankin has tried to position his company to be non-partisan, his LPS’s portfolio boasts of the firm’s association with many Democrats and left-leaning organizations.
Americans for George claims to be a coalition “of like-minded individuals, businesses, and organizations seeking to ensure that the citizens of the United States maintain the ability to choose their preferred currency.” Their coalition members includes bars, restaurants, vending machine companies, companies that supply vending machine parts, armored car services, a few taxi services, Bingo World in Baltimore, and the Alabama Forestry Association an advocacy group for renewable forest resources in Alabama.
Unless you followed the paper, vending machine, and armored service industries, none of the coalition members are a household name outside of their home towns except one: Crane & Company, the Dalton, Massachusetts company who has the exclusive contract to supply currency paper to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Also listed as a coalition member is The Crane Family Council, a group of the extended Crane family that still owns and operates the paper company.
In other words, Americans for George is a front for Crane & Company to promote the business agenda of Crane & Company.
From 2005 through 2011, Crane & Company has paid Russell Wapensky, a lobbyist and former State Department employee, to lobby on their behalf. Wapensky was paid $80,000 by Crane & Company for his services in 2011. Wapensky has not filed disclosure paperwork and an office listed in the last discovered address in Washington, D.C. does not list him as a tenant. Disclosure records shows that for the last three years, Crane & Company was his only lobbying client.
In February 2012, Gephardt Government Affairs filed lobby registration forms (PDF) declaring Crane & Company as their client with the lobbying issue of “preservation of the dollar bill currency.” Gephardt Government Affairs was founded and run by former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) who served in the House of Representatives from 1977 through 2005. No disclosure regarding how much Crane & Company has paid the Gephardt Group is available since the Lobbying Activity Reports for the first quarter of 2012 are due on April 20.
Dick Gephardt was a mainstay in the House for 28 years having climbed the ranks to become House Majority Leader (1989-1995) and Minority Leader (1995-2003). He ran for president in 2004, losing in the primaries to John Kerry and was mentioned as a potential vice presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008. Gephardt remains well respected by many congressional veterans.
House rules allow members to keep their membership pins when their service ends. These pins allow their owners access to the House floor and other areas where the public is not allowed without escort. Gephardt should know his way around the Capital building. Buying this type of access and potential influence to Capital Hill is not cheap and shows that Crane & Company may be afraid that the political will is there to make a change that would cut a significant portion of their business. Currency paper for the one dollar Federal Reserve Note has to be the least expensive of the papers Crane & Company manufactures for the BEP. It is the only note that does not include features like watermarks or embedded security ribbons that has to make the process more expensive.
Without full disclosures from both Crane & Company and the BEP, it is impossible to determine the exact loss of revenue. The BEP is not required to report what they pay individual vendors and Crane is a privately held corporation, they are not required to file financial disclosure reports. However, we can make assumptions based on information provided by the BEP 2010 CFO Annual Report (PDF), the last available, and other public information.
How much revenue could Crane & Company lose if the the law was changed to eliminate the dollar note? Let’s assume the BEP produces 405 million $1 Federal Reserve Notes (rounded average of the last five years production). Let’s also assume that it costs the BEP $33.48 per one thousand notes to produce Federal Reserve Notes (the 2009 cost adjusted for inflation) of which 55-percent ($18.41) is the cost of the paper (calculated from 1990s information). In order to produce 405 million Federal Reserve Notes, Crane & Company would be paid about $7.45 million to supply the paper—estimating that the potential revenue loss from eliminating the one dollar Federal Reserve Note would range from $7 million to 10 million.
Crane & Company has over 7 million reasons to hire a powerful lobbyist like Dick Gephardt.
As a citizen, numismatist, and blogger, I have made it clear that I am in favor of transitioning from the paper note to the dollar coin. As the process continues, I will watch the public reports by Gephardt Government Affairs and any other information available on Crane & Company’s manipulation using the patriotic sounding front group, Americans for George.
Feb 18, 2012 | commentary, policy
There is an old adage that the two things you should not talk about in polite company is sex and politics. While it is easy to avoid talking about sex when discussing numismatics, it is nearly impossible to avoid the periodic discussion of politics when discussing what happens before United States coins are manufactured. All other countries, the mint or the central bank has the authority over coinage in the same manner that the Federal Reserve has over the printing of paper currency. While there are a few laws to govern their processes, coin content, and how the money is distributed, the United States stands alone as the only country where the entire coin manufacturing process is codified in its law.
Discussion of the politics of United States coin production came back in my previous post, “Figures Never Lie But A Liar Figures” where I wrote that Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) asked the GAO for a specific slant on their report regarding the benefit of the coin versus paper accusing him of playing politics in the light of his heated re-election campaign. Comments both public and private accused me of acting in various self interests for political reasons.
First and foremost, this is not a political blog. My look into the politics behind the actions of congress, the laws they pass, and how they go about passing those laws are in the view of the collector of the coins being produced by the U.S. Mint. The views expressed here are favorable to the collector and the collector’s interest especially since I am collector.
To answer quite a few private emails, I am not a member of any political party. I am registered as “not affiliated” in the State of Maryland, a closed primary state. I have not been registered as a member of any political party in nearly 30 years and will not change this in the future. Also, the link about the heated campaign between Sen. Brown and Elizabeth Warren was supposed to be to another story at boston.com about the race—but the stories are so fluid that I cannot find the original link. I apologize for using the wrong link and have removed it from that posting.
But when discussing the manufacturing of money, I have to remind everyone that the U.S. Mint cannot strike any coin or medal that has not been prescribed by law. If the coin or medal has not been voted on by congress, signed by the President, argued over by the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, then it will not be produced by the United States Mint. That is a lot of politics from the idea for a coin up until the dies are made to manufacture the coin. You can read more about this process in this story that was published in Numismatic News
When a GAO report about coins or currency is issued and the media grabs onto it like a dog grabs a bone only to find out there is more gristle than meat in the story, I will comment on it here. If the issue has a political slant to it, I apologize, but that is the nature of how the money manufacturing process in the United States works and cannot be avoided. The only way to remove the politics from the money manufacturing process is to privatize the U.S. Mint and change many of the current laws (United States Code Title 31, Subtitle IV, Chapter 51, Subchapter II ) to give the reorganized mint more authority. As I have written in the past, privatizing the U.S. Mint is not a good idea. Thus, we are stuck with the politics.
Feb 17, 2012 | BEP, commentary, currency, dollar, US Mint
The media, blogs, and pundits who do not read government reports beyond the executive summary have shown their lack of journalistic credibility over the latest report from the Government Accountability Office titled Alternative Scenarios Suggest Different Benefits and Losses from Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin (GAO-12-307 [PDF] published February 15, 2012).
The latest tome from the GAO is a followup to GAO-11-281, Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial Benefit to the Government published almost a year ago. It was a report produced for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and addressed to Sens. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Tom Harkin (D-IA) after being asked to analyze the cost differences to the government using a dollar coin over the dollar note. In that report, the GAO estimated that replacing the note with a coin will save an estimated $5.5 billion over the 30 year lifetime of a coin.
Rather than accepting that report, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) used his position as the Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, commissioned the GAO to rework the report under different condition. Sen. Brown asked the GAO not to add seigniorage to the calculation, reduce the report to cover ten years, and calculate the a one-to-one replacement rather than the 1.5 coins to one note replacement used in the 2011 report.
Seigniorage is the profit the U.S. Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing earns on producing their products. It is calculated by the difference between the cost of producing the money versus its face value, which is what the Federal Reserve pays for that money. For example, the BEP reports that it costs 7½ cents to print one note. When they sell a one dollar Federal Reserve Note to the Federal Reserve, the BEP collects 92½ cents for that transaction. By law, both the U.S. Mint and BEP deposit seigniorage into their respective Public Enterprise Funds (see 31 U.S.C. § 5136 for the U.S. Mint and 31 U.S.C. § 5142 for the BEP). Both laws require the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit excess over what is needed for operations into the General Fund. Not only are these bureaus manufacturing money, they earn money that is deposited for the general use of the government.
Seigniorage is an important factor in the operations of the money manufacturing operations of the U.S. Mint and BEP which is why it is important in the analysis of any bill introduced in congress. This analysis is performed by the Congressional Budget Office. When the economists of the CBO to reads a bill and determine its effect the country’s budget, they are supposed to take every aspect of the bill into consideration. Since all coin-related bills requires the U.S. Mint to deposit its profit in their Public Enterprise Fund, calculating the effect that seigniorage has is required. If fact, when the CBO analyzed the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, the “CBO estimates that replacing the Golden Dollar with the $1 Presidential coin would increase seigniorage by about $280 million over the 2006-2015 period.”
What Sen. Brown asked the CBO to do is to figure out what would happen if the U.S. Mint was to produce more coins but not count their profit what would the effect be. The answer is not based in any reality because if you do not count the profit (seigniorage) you are only telling part of the story. Basically, Senator Brown is asking to the CBO to use the sin of omission in an attempt to justify his policy position.
Remember, Senator Scott Brown is the junior senator from Massachusetts where the Dalton-based Crane & Co. is the sole supplier of currency paper to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Brown, who is completing the term of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, would never have been appointed the Ranking Member of any subcommittee as a freshman member except that he is a Republican who won a long standing Democratic seat. Brown is currently locked in a heated campaign against Elizabeth Warren (D) for the 2012 election.
It is clear that Sen. Brown changed the parameters of the original GAO report (GAO-11-281) as a way to stop attempts to replace the paper note with coin to use in his campaign for his senate seat as a favor to Crane & Co. Unfortunately, the media outlets who covered the release of this report has chosen to read the executive summary and skipped Page 1 that begins “Dear Senator Brown.”
Feb 14, 2012 | ANA, commentary
Anyone who has followed the issues at the American Numismatic Association over the last few years does not have to be told that the organization has had its share of problems. While the economic problems appear to be settled for now, the ANA continues to have issues that have not been addressed by the current or previous Boards of Governors.
Recently, Dr. Lawrence J. Lee, the former director of the ANA Money Museum in Colorado Springs had an opinion piece published in CoinWorld basically saying that the ANA should be reorganized around the museum.
“What I find is that most people confuse the ANA organization, its structure and goals and board members and all of their ‘stuff,’ with the ANA Money Museum, as if they were one and the same,” writes Lee. “If only they were. One is the dog. One is the tail. The problem is that for many years the tail has been wagging the dog.”
With all due respect to Dr. Lee, the ANA is more than the Money Museum. The ANA is an association of collectors of all types and dealers of all sizes for the sole purpose of perpetuating and promoting numismatics as a hobby, investment, and business. To support its members, the ANA provides many services that members can use to enhance their collecting pursuits and enjoyment of numismatics. Along with the Edward C. Rochette Money Museum, the ANA publishes The Numismatist monthly, offers education through the Florence Schook School of Numismatics, provides research materials through the Dwight N. Manley Numismatic Library, and the offering of other group benefits available to all members.
In short, the ANA is, and should be, a comprehensive organization that should be focused on education where the Money Museum is only one attraction of the resources provided to its members and the communities it touches.
Lee, who worked with Executive Director Edward Rochette “to increase the level of professionalism at the museum” so that the Money Museum could be accredited by the American Association of Museums (AAM) and become a leader in numismatic exhibitions. However, even Lee admits that in order to become AAM accredited, the association must be reorganized around the Money Museum:
In an AAM model, most departments at the ANA that are now separate would be placed under the museum. Without doubt, the education functions of the ANA should already be under the museum, not a separate department. The same is true of the gift shop, the magazine and membership. Basically only the convention department should be a separate entity. The library should be co-equal to the museum as a repository of objects in a collection.
While the Money Museum is an important benefit of the ANA, it is not the reason for the ANA’s existence.
If the ANA were to follow Lee’s recommendation, the ANA’s charter and by-laws would require it being amended to include a diverse mix that would include those from academia and other nonprofit organizations while diminishing the role of coin dealers. While Lee appropriately notes that most Board members are from the for-profit world and try to manage a nonprofit with that mindset, it is the Board that the membership elected to run their organization.
The ANA and the Board of Governors has its problems. It needs strong leaders who can professionally lead a nonprofit and develop a cohesive professional organization in Colorado Springs that could run the organization without the micromanagement from the Board. The Board should be structured in a manner that would best represent all its members while providing the professionals in the Colorado Springs headquarters the support they deserve—including professional development, which seems to be lacking for the ANA’s professional staff.
Lee suggests that the library and museum should be staffed with properly educated and trained professionals, it would help the current staff maintain these jewels in the ANA’s crown for the benefit of its members.
“The ANA coin collection is more than the sum total of all of its individual coins,” writes Lee. But the ANA is more than the sum total of all of its assets and should not be defined in the terms of those assets.
Jan 9, 2012 | ANA, commentary, technology
On Friday, January 6, 2012, the American Numismatic Association Board of Governors held an open meeting at the annual Florida United Numismatists Show in Orlando, Florida. Although it was reported that it was a “dull” meeting, I was disappointed to find out about the meeting on Monday from the press. No other communication options were offered.
This is not making the organization open to its members.
During a Board of Governors meeting in November, an ANA staff member posted highlights to the ANA Twitter and Facebook accounts—and only if you happen to be paying attention at the time. After the meeting I wrote, “Someday the ANA will have a better information management and communications policies so that this information is more accessible to the membership in ways other than relying on Twitter.”
This time, the ANA did not even use Twitter or Facebook.
For an organization whose membership has remained relatively stagnant for the last 20 years, the ANA must find ways to involve membership, especially those under 40 who should be mentored to carry on the association’s long term visions.
Every time I discuss the issue of communications and leveraging social media, I am told that the nuances of social media has to be explained to one or more board members. With all due respect to the members of the Board of Governors, social media is the future of communications and this is how you are going to reach potential members under 40.
I know that Governor Greg Lyon is leading an effort from the Board to look at how technology can help the ANA. But that committee will require a little time to start looking into the issues and suggest policy. That does not mean the Board of Governors could not set interim policies. The new policy can be something as simple as requiring that ANA communications use social media to announce meetings and perform live updates during those meetings.
At least make an attempt to reach out using social media. You might find interest not only with current members but find potential new members in the process.
Dec 1, 2011 | commentary, nclt
A few weeks ago I started to receive email advertisements from several coin companies offering to sell 2012 coins. One note was found in my Junk folder from the end of October. I began to wonder if we are selling coins are cars?
Those of us living in the United States cannot engage in any media without seeing one advertisement for next year’s newly redesigned, sleeker, faster, shiny, new four-wheeled wonder from Detroit, Japan, Korea, or Germany with better handling, more fuel efficient, and technology that will do everything but brew your coffee but will tell you where you can find a cup. Anyone old enough can remember when the next model year would come out in the fall of the previous year—and in those days, you could order a car to your specification for delivery in November or December.
Although it started a few years ago, it seems that many of the world’s mints are not only beginning to advertise their next year’s offerings, but are striking them, too. I have seen advertisements from the Royal Australian Mint, Perth Mint, Royal Mint, the Royal Canadian Mint, the People’s Bank of China, and Tuvalu. These 2012 coins, mostly commemorative issues, are gilded, enameled, and painted on designs with crystals, diamonds, and even rub-and-sniff coins—new, shiny, and better than last year’s versions.
“Order now! Operators are standing by!”
Has the numismatic market become too gimmicky that these mints and central banks are resorting to car selling techniques?
I have bought my share of gimmicky collectibles, but that was at a time when these were novel. Now, it seems that many of these world mints have come up with various gimmicks in order to sell more non-circulated legal tender coins. It seems as if the metal and design are not enough any more.
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your view, this could not happen in the United States. The U.S. Mint is the most regulated of all the world mints. Every coin and medal manufactured by the U.S. Mint must be allowed by a law passed by congress. Unless congress authorizes the use of color, crystals, gilded, or other non-engraved design elements, they will not appear on a U.S. coin. Even though the U.S. Mint is allowed to strike coins early, the law prevents them from issuing the coins dated in the future.
I am not going to ask if the gimmicks are good for the hobby because these new issues have the potential to introduce coins to new collectors. But how far will it go? Does the hobby really need to create contrived collectibles to generate interest?
Nov 30, 2011 | ANA, commentary, shows
The American Numismatic Association Board of Governors held a teleconference last night. During the telecom, updates were provided on the ANA Twitter account @ANACoins. Here are the highlights with some commentary:
The Chicago Coin Club has been voted as the host for the 2013 World’s Fair of Money.
This is an anticlimactic type of announcement. With so many World’s Fair of Money shows scheduled for Chicago, is there really anyone else who could be the host club? What many people do not know is that if a club is designated as a host club, they automatically earn Life Membership in the ANA. With the shows being concentrated in Chicago and the decision to rotate the spring National Money Show between three cities, the chance for others to not only be part of the experience but earn life membership has diminished.
The board has just voted to hold the 2013 spring National Money Show in New Orleans.
I know where I will be in the spring of 2013! I love visiting New Orleans. There is no place like it in the world. Aside from the French Quarter, there are world class restaurants, the Audubon Zoo, the music, and more. Have you ever been to a Voodoo museum? I have, and it is an interesting sight. Have you ever ridden on a steamboat on the Mississippi? That is a lot of fun, too. Then there’s definition of heaven: sitting at Café Du Monde at the French Market while drinking café au lait and eating beignets, getting powdered sugar on your shirt, and watching the crowds. Try doing this at 2 AM while an event is in town.
The board has voted to reinstate early admittance (aka early birds) at future ANA conventions.
Why did they stop early birds in the first place?
The board OK’d an exhibit award for women in numismatics. An anonymous donor will sponsor the award on a 3-year trial basis.
As I said in a previous post, the hobby has to do better at diversifying. While this announcement is a good start, I think there should be more. What about exhibit awards for minorities? How about something to help the “Lost Demographic” (as I previously discussed)? I realize that this was probably initiated by the anonymous donor, but what about working with those in the donor community to sponsor a program for minorities or the Lost Demographic?
Last update: President Hallenbeck announced that
NGC will continue as ANA’s official grading service for another five years.
As someone who has taken advantage of the self-submission benefit with NGC with much success, I feel this is a good decision.
Someday the ANA will have a better information management and communications policies so that this information is more accessible to the membership in ways other than relying on Twitter. While I appreciate the information appearing on Twitter, too many people cannot handle the level of noise generated on Twitter and how to separate real information from the noise. In fact, if I had not checked Twitter for realtime sports information, I would not have seen the ANA tweets about the Board meeting.
Loading ...