PREV ARTICLE
NEXT ARTICLE
FULL ISSUE
PREV FULL ISSUE
V8 2005 INDEX
E-SYLUM ARCHIVE
The E-Sylum: Volume 8, Number 47, November 5, 2005, Article 22 ON REVIVING THE ASSAY COMMISSION George Kolbe writes: "Concerning Dick Johnson's opinion on "killing" the Assay Commission, may I point out that politicians of both parties routinely rail against "wasteful spending" (but never when it occurs in their district, I admit). However, viewed from this, in my opinion quite proper, perspective, how can one justify the existence of a commission to certify how much base metal is present in a particular coin?" [In 1977 it was true that the Mint no longer produced coins of precious metals, but within a few years the U.S. began producing and marketing bullion pieces, and now sells a huge number of silver, gold, and platinum coins. We also have commemorative coins and various special issues struck in silver and gold. -Editor] George adds: "My point is that its abolition was undeniably justified at the time. A greater truth: the Assay Commission was an obsolete institution anyway. If not at its beginnings, certainly by the dawn of the 20th century the U. S. could have not gotten away with issuing underweight coins, nor can they now. It was and is a political impossibility. Monarch and tyrants may secretly debase coinage; democracies cannot. " [Well, I can agree with that, too, but I guess the collector in me still yearns for the revival of the tradition (see Fred Schwan's response following). Assays do go on regardless of the existence of an official commission, but despite the added expense I think there's something of value in a public, independent, official appraisal. The press doesn't do assays, nor do most buyers of U.S. Mint products. But all would pay attention to a less than favorable Assay Commission report. Of course, the mere existence of a watchdog organization helps ensure that the reports will be nothing but positive. Has there ever been a negative one? I'll admit I've never read the details of assay commission reports or the corresponding sections of the annual Mint reports. But neither do I recall reading about an Assay Commission failing to give high marks to the U.S. Mint. -Editor] Fred Schwan writes: "The discussion on the assay commission has caused me to go public with an idea that I have been hiding. Since we do not have an official assay commission, I think that we should start our own! In my opinion the Old Time Assayers should take on this task. Failing that the ANA or, gasp, a large hobby community commercial entity might take on the task. Done correctly, it would probably even be possible to get the cooperation of the mint. Failing that or even if the mint wanted to participate, the organizers might opt to exclude the mint. The event could be very much like the meetings in the later years (more honorary and social than functional, but that is not such a bad thing). Alternatively, with the help of some scientific community members the group might be able to do some interesting assaying on circulating and noncirculating current coins. Certainly, the annual assay medals should be revived. Possibly the assayers could receive silver medals and base metal medals could be sold to the community to help finance the thing. I would suspect that the medals should not be advertised in New York (I could not resist)." [I would think that if the Old-Time Assay Commissioners really wanted to revive the institution on their own they would have done it long before now. The organization gets smaller and grayer each passing year since no new blood has joined since 1977. -Editor] Wayne Homren, Editor The Numismatic Bibliomania Society is a non-profit organization promoting numismatic literature. See our web site at coinbooks.org. To submit items for publication in The E-Sylum, write to the Editor at this address: whomren@coinlibrary.com To subscribe go to: https://my.binhost.com/lists/listinfo/esylum | |
PREV ARTICLE
NEXT ARTICLE
FULL ISSUE
PREV FULL ISSUE
V8 2005 INDEX
E-SYLUM ARCHIVE