SOME PROSE AND CONS ON PLASTERS Público Deposited

Contenido del artículo
  • The E-Sylum: Volume 8, Number 7, February 13, 2005, Article 20

    SOME PROSE AND CONS ON PLASTERS

    Recently, I was part of an email exchange with Joe Levine
    and Dick Johnson regarding the merits of collecting original
    artists' plaster or wax models and galvanos for coins
    and medals. I own exactly one plaster, created by U.S.
    Mint Sculptor-Engraver John Mercanti for the 2004
    Pittsburgh ANA Convention medal. Eventually I'll get it
    framed and hang it in my office. Dick pointed out several
    negatives on the collecting of plaster and wax models, and
    Joe and I offered some counterpoints. Below is a reworking
    of our discussion. Comments, anyone?

    Dick Johnson writes: "It is NOT recommended for
    individuals to form collections of plaster and wax models
    of coins and medals for the following four reasons:

    1) They are impermanent. They easily break, chip, scratch,
    dent and are very easily damaged. It is not recommended,
    particularly for a new collector. They must be handled and
    stored in a professional manner, which most collectors do
    not have this knowledge or capability.

    2) They do not hold their value. There is no aftermarket.
    You cannot easily sell them when you wish to dispose of
    them. See comments below.

    3) They are purchased for the wrong reason. Burning in the
    mind of everyone who buys models (and dies) is often the thought
    -- "Since this is the original I am going to reproduce this."
    Some even think of having a die made from a plaster model
    to strike specimens they can sell (a la Robert Bashlow
    restriking the Confederate cent from both dies). Most
    reputable medal makers will not accept this business. If you
    find a shady firm that will, you are courting disaster. While
    not counterfeiting, it is certainly a disreputable practice of
    restriking, shunned by seasoned collectors.

    4) Plasters are so easily replicated. You never know if you
    have an original or a replica. It takes about 40 minutes and
    40 cents worth of plaster to reproduce a plaster model. You
    can then sell either the positive or the negative. On the other
    hand making a galvano from a plaster takes some skill, an
    electrogalvanic tank, copper anodes and three day's time.
    The galvano is metal and permanent!

    Even I – with four thumbs – could replicate a plaster. I
    can’t make a galvano.

    Maybe my concern is WHO is buying plasters. For
    seasoned collectors, as I stated, should have ONE as
    an example of how a coin or medal is made. I do not
    see collectors with large collections of plasters. Such
    a collection would have so many problems!

    The most notable example: Michigan numismatist Joseph
    Lepczyk accepted a consignment of plaster models from
    the studio of James Earle Fraser and listed these in one
    of his numismatic auction sales, complete with pictures.
    These included some of the Fraser Buffalo nickel models.
    (Did he wonder why this came to him instead of being
    consigned to one of the big name auction houses?) A
    Coin World article at the time heightened the interest for
    these unusual items.

    A dentist in Texas bought most of these plaster models.
    He paid dearly for them. When the dentist went to sell
    them he could not find a buyer, even at a substantial loss.
    To get out from under a bad situation he wanted to donate
    them for a tax writeoff. He could not find any appraiser
    who would give him anywhere near the appraisal of what
    he paid.

    Note: The metal galvanos made from some of these plaster
    models is a completely different story. Walter Breen even
    mentioned the Buffalo nickel galvanos in his Complete
    Encyclopedia of United States and Colonial Coins and
    created the term "electrotrial" for these pieces.

    These galvanos are unique, tell a delightful story of Fraser's
    testing the design, and command realistic substantial prices.
    (It was the founder of Medallic Art Company, Henri Weil,
    who made these for Fraser -- even silver plating copper
    galvanos to look like nickel -- and were mentioned in the
    manuscript history of MAco by brother Felix Weil.)

    However, it has been my recommendation that a seasoned
    collector should have ONE plaster model or galvano and
    ONE die in his collection just to be familiar with the
    technology of how a coin or medal is made. But I would
    not recommend a large number of plasters – as a collection
    -- for the average collector. "

    Countering some of these points, Joe Levine replied: "I
    can't say that I wholly agree with Dick's condemnation of
    collecting plasters. Just because they are easily broken is
    hardly a good reason not to collect them - Liverpool
    pitchers are easily broken too!"

    I agree -- it is part of the risk one takes as a collector.
    My library can and does suffer damage from too much
    light, handling, etc. from time to time, but this is par for
    the course. On the valuation point, Joe Levine writes:

    "Nothing holds its value if it is initially purchased at a
    very high price! If the guy had bought the Fraser materials
    on the cheap back then and offered them for sale now,
    he would probably have shown a nice profit."

    Dick is right that the market is exceedingly slim for these
    items, and that finding buyers is always tough. But I also
    agree with Joe's point. Over time, rare items will come
    to have their day in the sun. Time was when many of the
    items which comprise my numismatic library were unwanted
    and unappreciated by the mass of collectors of either coins
    or literature. But now, things that I bought for $25 or less
    now bring $200 or more. And anyone who bought say,
    a rare plated Chapman catalogue for $9,000 many years
    ago would still be waiting to make money off the purchase.
    The material in each case remains very desirable, but
    paying top dollar at market peaks is never a good way to
    invest..

    As for the ease of replication, I have no plans or desire to
    strike duplicate medals using my plaster, and doubt many
    collectors would either, but it does remain a possibility.
    It is a difficult task, though, and that also limits the likelihood
    of this happening. As for reproducing the plasters
    themselves, this is far easier than reproducing a galvano or
    die. In fact, my plaster is one of THREE made.

    Joe Levine writes: "Who is to say what motivates someone
    to purchase a plaster? I have sold a number of them for
    various Official Inaugural Medals and I don't think even one
    of my customers had in mind creating a galvano or a die from
    them.

    I agree with Dick about the ease of replication -- however, if
    the pedigree can be ascertained with some degree of certainty,
    I don't have a problem with authenticity. It's like the lock of
    Kennedy's hair that is accompanied by a letter from his barber
    authenticating it. A letter from the artist's son would be the same."

URL de origen Fecha de publicación
  • 2005-02-13
Volumen
  • 8

Relaciones

Autor NNP