Q. David Bowers
"Nevertheless, I was instructed to keep in mind that we are trying to find a fair sales price by a collector to a museum. I was also advised that the museum in question was the Smithsonian Institution, of which we are justly proud, as we are of its efficient curator, Dr. Vladimir Clain-Stefanelli.
"Alternate marketing conditions had to be considered. The trustee's responsibility to the estate demanded that he investigate all possible avenues. The trustee has been properly impressed by the sale of the Josiah K. Lilly Collection of rare stamps. Several auction sales have already taken place, and each session has produced gross sales figures in excess of the appraisal set by the expert auctioneer.
"The rare coin market is no different from the rare stamp market. There is justification, therefore, for an optimistic view that, if the Lilly coin collection were sold at auction, the gross sales would exceed the appraisal figures. My conclusions therefore are that the appraisal is a fair one, and that the acquisition of the Lilly Collection is in the public interest. I respectfully urge that this honorable body give favorable consideration to the House Bill."
The trustee of the Lilly estate chafed at continued delays and informed the congressional committee that it was costing $1,000 per day to await a decision. A deadline of December 1, 1967 was set.
The deadline came and went and still no action was taken. Alternate plans were set up, and Parke Bernet Galleries, the New York art auctioneer, was approached to sell the holdings at auction. Abe Kosoff prepared a news release in this direction. But, before the release was made public, almost as if Washington was alert to the plans then afoot, the Senate acted on the bill and approved it. Then the House of Representatives gave their approval and, finally, on June 4, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law. Less than two weeks later, the Lilly Collection was delivered to the Smithsonian Institution.
Thus, the story had a happy ending. In due course, Vladimir Clain-Stefanelli and his wife Elvira prepared an outstanding exhibit of selected rarities from the Lilly Collection holdings, an exhibit which attracted the attention of numismatists and members of the public far and wide and which served as a fitting memorial not only to Lilly but to Kosoff, Schulman, the Stefanellis, and all others involved.
Counterfeits have always been a problem in numismatic circles. It is not that the problem is unique to coin collecting; in the field of art, for example, forgeries are even more prevalent.
In the days prior to the 1960s, counterfeits and false coins divided themselves into several categories. Electrotypes, made by the electrodepositation of metal to create two halves of a coin which could then be soldered together, were a common forgery from the 19th century onward. These could be detected by their lack of a sonority or "ring" when lightly tapped on the edge, by a revealing seam, and often by the incorrect weight or thickness. It was common practice at one time for such organizations as the British Museum and the American Numismatic Society to prepare electrotypes for study and for use as fillers in the cabinets of private numismatists and museums.
Casts are another class of forgeries. By means of dental casting equipment or other molds and devices, pieces can be duplicated by casting. A typical cast is apt to have a granular surface, to be ever so slightly smaller than the original or master from which it was made, and to have other distinguishing characteristics. Although casts are more sophisticated than electrotypes, still professionals can usually recognize them.
Alterations made by soldering mintmarks on Philadelphia coins to create "1916-D" dimes, by changing one or more digits in the date to create a "1913 Liberty Head nickel" or a "1856 Flying Eagle cent" have long been with the hobby and are recognizable with some basic training.
Die-struck counterfeits, from unofficial dies have been made in America for a period of centuries and, until the 1960s, usually were sufficiently crude in one area or another that they could be spotted.
Then came the 1960s with advanced techniques such as the spark-erosion die making process, advances in centrifugal casting, and other practices Writing in 1968, Abe Kosoff noted:
'The present day of sophisticated equipment has created extremely hazardous counterfeiting situations. Those of us who have made a lifetime stud: of the field suddenly find that we have much more to learn-and what we learn about new technique today will be obsolete information very shortly This is the day of miracles. We have been conditioned to extraordinary advances in the field a science and technology. Nothing surprises us anymore. We don't know what to expect next, but we do expect sensational advances.
"We have witnessed remarkable progress in the field of coin reproduction. But just as the actor might be used for public good or for war, so has this progress been used for good and for bad. We are learning to cope with it but, unfortunately equally sophisticated equipment is necessary and that makes it an expensive proposition."
Banding together with some far-sighted numismatists, Abe Kosoff joined Virgil Hancock John Jay Pittman, and several others to propose the Numismatic Authentication Service. By earl 1968, the Professional Numismatists Guild, the American Numismatic Association, the Organization of International Numismatics, and the Middle Atlantic Numismatic Association had each pledged or sent donations, as had dealer Jess Peters and several others.
Over the next several months, Virgil Hancock served as the focus of the movement, but Abe Kosoff was one of its most visible public supporters. The American Numismatic Authentication Trust (ANAT) was set up, with Hancock Kosoff, and Pittman as trustees. The solicitation for donations continued, and thousands of dollar poured in.
To illustrate the need for such a service, Abe Kosoff gave many examples to those who listened to his talks or read his Coin World columns. He cited as an instance an 1882 double eagle which had just been consigned to him by another dealer. For this particular year, the 1882 Philadelphia Mint coin, without a mintmark, is a great rarity, whereas the 1882-S San Francisco issue is relatively common. From time to time an unscrupulous person seeks to make a profit by removing the S mintmark from such pieces. The 1882 Philadelphia Mint coin in question seemed authentic to Abe Kosoff, but to be sure he took it to a Professional Numismatists Guild convention which featured a program centered on the topic of forgeries. John Jay Ford, Jr.. Eric P. Newman, and Don Taxay, three of the nation's leading experts, shared their experiences and thoughts. Writing on the subject at a later date, Abe Kosoff recalled that both Taxay and Ford had a chance to examine the piece and agreed that it was an authentic 1882 Philadelphia Mint coin. The piece was subsequently sold to an eastern collector. Later, the eastern collector sold his holdings through a dealer who examined the 1882 double eagle and concluded that it had a mintmark removed. The piece was re-examined using equipment owned by Ben Dreiske and David Shapiro, and again the conclusion was made that it was an authentic Philadelphia Mint piece. All of this pointed out that a centralized bureau for the authentication of coins would be helpful to collectors and dealers alike and could render opinions which all would find to be authoritative.