Michael Hodder and Q. David Bowers
November 8, 1955
Dear John:
My friend tells me that his organization is not interested in the New Mexican bar. Historically it has merit, but the price is far beyond their means and/or their degree of interest ....
Sincerely,
Hon. R. Henry Norweb
November 28, 1955
Dear John:
Many thanks for the message about the "assembly job" of the 1911-1912 Canadian set. I suspect some shenanigans, but do not count on out and out faking in view of the "original case" statement. I wonder what should be done by the publication itself in such cases of rank misrepresentation.
And now to a query. Please turn to the Mehl catalogue-sale of October 25-Lots 262 and 263. These are similar to specimens recently purchased through New Netherlands. Number 262 went at $560 and No: 263 at $235. Mehl indicates they are both originals, but the prices-which they fetched would not seem to support this. Perhaps you know of the two Mehl items and would like to have some comment for-the files.
I note that Katen's List No. 27' offers the Coin Collector's Journal 1934-1954 bound, for $150. We have enjoyed so much the odd copies you have given us of late that I am tempted to take the plunge, but would like your opinion as 'to their value.
Very sincerely,
Hon. R. Henry Norweb
December 8, 1955
Dear John:
Many thanks for your informative letter of the 2nd [a copy of which does not survive in the files]. Apparently the 1852 [perhaps here the reference should have been to 1851] original silver dollar can have the date either high or "medium high" as described by Mehl. It was on this point that I needed enlightenment-the suggestion about the return of the coins was wasted.
I shall be guided by your helpful remarks as to the bound set; also as to the 1921 double eagle.
We can talk about the "interesting" Christmas present when in New York next week-the 13th, 14th, and 15th.
With personal regards,
Very sincerely,
Hon. R. Henry Norweb
December 23, 1955
Dear Charles:
For some days I have been intending to write to you about the 1937 Canadian set which I recently got at New Netherlands. I would like a little more time to compare this set with another set of this date, since there seems to be a doubt if any Proofs were made that year.
A letter from a collector friend says, "In 1937, 1,295 milled edge specimen sets in dull Proof were struck in addition to the regular coinage, and sold in cases." On the other hand the Mint states that no Proofs have ever been issued other than the Matte Proof sets of 1908.
What I am trying to determine is if the set you are offering is one of the 1,295 referred to as being in "dull Proof:' This is something new to me and the coins in question are certainly not Matte Proofs, but have more or less a polished field with a matte relief. They are not in the class of say the 1887 Royal Mint Proofs, but are also quite different from the run of the main issue. It" seems to me that the explanation is that these sets were struck on hand presses and individually handled.
In any event I will write to you again as soon as I have the other set for comparison, Meanwhile, we have had several pleasant Christmas thoughts from New Netherlands.
Very sincerely,
Han. R. Henry Norweb
February 28, 1956
Dear Ambassador and Mrs. Norweb:
I am still at home, not cataloguing, but proofreading, which is a lot worse, if that is possible. There are times I wish that my catalogue standards were a lot lower, so I could enjoy putting them together more, but I can't help myself.
It was good to talk to you both last week, and I have at hand the ambassador's letter of the 20th. I hope that this quick note will catch up with you, as I haven't your March 1st address handy.
Am writing the Kagin boys re what dimes they might have for you (via us of course, no names mentioned), but have little hope of real success. Their 1873-CC has arrows, and the 1894-S overpriced. They do have a worn 1894-S (the only one out of the 24 struck known so), which probably can be bought right. We ok'd as kosher for them, and will stand behind it. While it wouldn't fit in with your wanting the best, it is juicy from the standpoint that it is real, and not a "piece de caprice" like the 1913 Liberty Head nickel 1884 and 1885 trade dollars, etc To my mind, circulation adds to that particular coin.
Will not hustle after them for half dimes, particularly of the 1802, as Mrs. Black has the finest known, and when she sells, we sell, and you get. Since she has been very close to making a move for the last two years, we might get action any time. There are some real nice halves, quarters, and dimes, as well as a few "gem" Uncirculated half dimes in this Clarke offering that you can use. Abe [Kosoff] will have 440 lots large cents, 47 lots of half cents.
Later this week I will send down a complete set of page proofs for our sale. Please mark up any lot that you want info on, and we can sit down and go over it when you come up.
The boxes, book, and other info, etc. that the ambassador wanted will be handled by Charles M. Wormser (I hope). If not, we can square away when you get to New York. Have all kinds of deals, etc. on the fire, but all can wait until next month or May or something.
Will bet a deluxe steak dinner (this is for real, not like earlier bets) that you do not have a true 1796/5 half dime. Loser pays off in Chicago (at that trick place behind the Congress). Any takers?
Best to you both,
John J. Ford, Jr.