Howard Bowker Eduard Kann |
Bowker to Kann - 1949.1.6, 1 page.
Kann’s address 941 Chung Cheng Road, Shanghai.
Bowker thanks Kann for sending him the coins and paper money through Mr. Buccelli and for sending the set of books illustrating the Ching Tse-wei collection. He notes that volume 2 is missing from the set and asks for the Chinese characters for Ching Tse-wei’s name, which he did not find in the book. He suspects that one or more of the seals in the book may contain his name but does not have anyone to read the seal script. Finally he asks Kann to obtain one or two sets of the eight pamphlets issued by the Chinese Paper Money Society in Shanghai during 1948, titled: Chung Kuo Chih Pi Chi Ts’ang Hui.
Kann to Bowker - 1949.1.31, 1 page.
Kann reports that he has been busy packing and shipping numerous cases to Los Angeles, and plans to leave China in two to four weeks. Kann says he does not know by which ship he will be traveling to America nor whether he will land in San Francisco or Los Angeles.Kann says the paper money journal Bowker had asked him to obtain is no longer published “because the editor and organizer Mr. Chen committed defalcations.” On the other hand, he had found another paper money periodical published by H. F. Liu in Shanghai.
Kann explains that the missing volume from the set of rubbings he sent Bowker had been cut up to provide illustrations for his catalog. He also provides the characters for Ching Tse-wei’s name, which is actually Ch’in Tzu-wei.
Kann to Bowker - 1949.2.27, 1 page.
Dated at Yokohama
Kann reports that he is on his way to the USA on the Danish freighter, Trein Maersk, which was due to arrive in San Francisco about March 14th. His address in Los Angeles will be: 1995 North Sycamore Avenue. Kann says he will call Bowker when he arrives and arrange a meeting, to which Bowker should bring the Turkestan gold coin so they can settle accounts.
Bowker to Kann - 1949.3.17, 1 page.Sent to Kann’s North Sycamore address.
Discusses Tibetan coins and numbers. Apparently Kann and Bowker had met the previous day.
Kann to Bowker - 1949.3.22, 2 page
“After arrival here I got a great shock. Of 19 cases I did pack in Shanghai, 17 seemingly were landed here (though I have not yet passed them through customs), while two got stolen. Of these one contained a large portion of my coin collection, namely all subsidiary silver, nickel and aluminum coins, plus duplicates. Apart from the fact that it badly cripples my collection, the monetary loss to me is very great. To the thieves the value is rather small, because if they melt the silver coins up, they may get say between $700 and $900. Even if sold to dealers in America, they will get comparatively little, because these coins are not at all appreciated here, so that nobody would pay high prices. To me, however, they are valuable, and for me they are worth about $10,000. The two cases, of which one contained glass, ivory, silver ornaments, etc, were not insured; partly because the premium would have been about $500, but mainly because I did not want to divulge to the insurance company that I take silver coins out of China.”
“In the event of my getting repossession of the two lost cases intact through the instrumentality of a person other than the steamer’s agents, I am willing to pay a good reward. I do not know whether you think that you could or should tackle the problem; if not, whether you consider that Mr. A. T. Ritchie could attempt to do so. I have to reply to his letter, and am doing so herewith. If you consider that you can not undertake the research, but that Mr. Ritchie could try, please send on to him. But if you deem it possible to try investigating, kindly take the enclosure away, trim the bottom postscript from my letter to him and mail minus. I do believe that the sheet appended hereto contains all the needful particulars.”
“I might mention that many a coin (all in boards with slides) appears in from 20 to 50 specimens, because I was one of the few persons collecting die varieties. But to a dealer they are all the same. May I ask you to kindly inform Frisco coin dealers to be on the lookout for people offering Chinese subsidiary and nickel coins for sale?” “To the best of my knowledge nobody has seen me packing the coins at Shanghai. Since a bill of lading was issued for the entire shipment of 9 (should be 19) wooden cases, one should think that all these were received on board the steamer. However, there remains a slight possibility of disappearance at Shanghai, though not a likelihood.”
The issue of Kann’s stolen coins would appear in several letters over the next couple years. Unfortunately the list of stolen coins was not found among these letters. Bowker’s 31 March letter indicates he gave the list to Ritchie. The present letter indicates Kann mounted his coins in album pages with clear slides on both sides as early as 1949. There is a photograph of Kann seated at his desk examining his coins in such holders, in the front of his catalog. The person Kann mentioned incorrectly as A. T. Ritchie is actually Alexander Walter Ritchie (1912-2003), also known as Walt Ritchie, a chemist by profession, was a friend of Bowker's, who collected Chinese coins and also lived in the San Francisco area.
Kann to Bowker - 1949.3.29, 1 page.
Dated Shanghai in error.
“Yesterday I passed at the custom house in company with the cargo surveyor, in order to survey and repack contents. I am glad to say that seemingly the bulk of my subsidiary coins are extant. Due to formalities I could not take the cases with me, but shall endeavor to get them in the course of the next few days. Then a careful check will reveal if the sailors have helped themselves to some souvenirs or not.”
“As soon as I get the particulars given above, I am communicating with you, mainly with the object of suggesting a stoppage of searching for the lost treasure, if such a search has been initiated. But, in any event, it will be wise to keep your eyes open in connection with a sudden offer to or from dealers of Chinese subsidiary coins.”
Bowker to Kann - 1949.3.31, 1 page.
Kann’s address 941 Chung Cheng Road, Shanghai.
“Immediately upon receipt of your previous letter, I went over to see Ritchie about the matter and delivered your letter to him with its enclosures. He had a small lot of coins of a miscellaneous nature from a SF coin dealer which I thought might well be from your duplicates, particularly so as among them were duplicates of those fakes which I knew you had obtained from Hodges.”
“On the next day, Saturday, I took the day to visit all of the principal coin dealers in SF and informed them of your missing coins, and alerted them just in case anything corresponding to your reported loss might turn up in the local market. All agreed to co-operate and to inform me if anything turned up. During the tour I looked over the balance of the lot from which Ritchie had gotten the coins he showed me and the dealer has agreed to not dispose of any of them until we have a more complete report from you on the extent of your actual loss, just in case [any of] them happened to be from your lot. If you have ascertained exactly what is still missing, could [you] send me a list of some few particular pieces. I will check into the matter further.”
Kann to Bowker - 1949.4.5, 1 page.
“By now I have had the broken case No. 69 surveyed. The damage is very large, partly through oil which got intermixed with my contents, partly through either ruination, or theft. But I have the feeling that most of my silver / nickel coins are intact, apart from some souvenirs retained by the sailors. I know that I packed numerous subsidiary duplicate coins in one of the cases, though I cannot tell in which. Should they have been in No. 69, they would have disappeared. If in another case they are likely to come back to me one day. So far I do not know whereto store even a single one of the remaining 18 wooden boxes, as our flat is too small to absorb anything further. All my coin boards, though newly made in Shanghai, are soaked with wood oil and ruined. But this is the smaller of two alternate evils.”
Bowker to Kann - 1949.4.11, 1 page.
Bowker has listed and sent two pages of rubbings of about two dozen coins he had seen at a local coin shop. Unfortunately the rubbings are not present, but many of the coins can be identified by the Tsiang catalog numbers he gives. Among the coins are a silver striking of a Yunnan gold coin and an example of the Kirin 50 cent 1901 with English inscriptions in banners. As will be seen in later letters, these two coins were among those stolen from Kann. Interestingly both ended up in Bowker’s collection. Bowker’s next letter is also dated 11 April.
CHINA-YUNNAN ND(1917) 5 Dollars Silver Essay, with plain reverse, K1521a,Bowker collection, donated to Shenyang Mint Museum
CHINA-KIRIN 1901 50 Cents Silver Banner Coin, Kann B40,Bowker collection, donated to Shenyang Mint Museum
Bowker to Kann - 1949.4.11, 1 page.
“To put it mildly, I am astonished to learn that the lot of miscellaneous Chinese coins that have recently come into the hands of a local dealer are indeed from your shipments. Upon receipt of your letter I informed Ritchie and the dealer, William H. Smith, of the Eureka Coin Shop, 4117 19th Street, San Francisco, of the facts. I made an appointment to meet the latter at the convention of the California State Numismatic Association which was having a meeting on Sunday at San Jose, but he did not show up, or I missed him. Yesterday I went to his place of business to consult him about the matter. I noted that he had withdrawn the entire lot from his show cases, and apparently had put them away after I notified him. He stated that he had sold a number of the pieces to several different collectors, but did not say who they were, excepting that he agreed with me that he had disposed of a lot of 29 of the Hunan small silver pieces [fractional taels K942-985; see Kann’s next letter] to a dealer, Smith & Son, of Main Street and Geneva Road, Wheaton, Illinois, who was present at the convention and had them on display there, where I saw them.”
“Smith stated that he would write to you regarding the matter, and I of course, gave him your address, so I suppose you will be hearing from him. I loaned him your last letter and the sheet which had the original description of the cases which you sent to me and Ritchie. I have some of the coins which I purchased from Smith which interested me. He agreed that if you required their return he would refund to me the purchase price, but asked that I retain them until he heard from you.”
“Smith seemed somewhat concerned that the description you originally gave of what was in the smashed case did not correspond in any respect to the coins he had purchased. Nothing is contained therein as to your duplicates and forgeries being in the case, and this description seemed to most adequately describe the stuff he bought. It is difficult for me to believe that some of the pieces are forgeries, so I conclude that they must have been among your duplicates or that I am very badly mistaken about their authenticity. Of course there are any number of them that are obvious forgeries, many that I had never previously seen or heard of. He seems to wish to do the right thing by you in this matter insofar as I can judge, but after having read your last letter, in which you seemed to advise me to buy some of the pieces for myself, he was at a loss to know just what you wished in the matter.”
“Perhaps I should also mention the little I know about the man who is reputedly the source of your coins. He is said to be a seafaring man, and one from whom another dealer, Earl Parker, has occasionally obtained coins. He first showed the lot to the latter, and I believe he referred him to Smith. Neither seems to know his name, but both stated that they know him by sight, and that they could see him most any day at a bar located near Parker’s place of business on Market Street in SF, where he seems to make his headquarters. I mention this just in case you wish to have the matter of the rifling of your box investigated by the carrier or his representative.”
No letter has been found which suggests Bowker buy the coins for himself. Perhaps there is a letter missing.
Kann to Bowker - 1949.4.22, 2 pages.
Dated Los Angeles
“In my last letter to you, I omitted to answer your query regarding the value of the 7th year Tihwa 1 tael silver coin. In Shanghai they ask from US $15 to $20 for the specimen. It definitely is from my duplicate collection. Same was contained in a strong cardboard box, which latter was torn open and about two handfuls of contents extracted.”
“Reverting to our letter of the 11th inst. I can easily explain the omission, when I first notified you. [It is] that the same wooden case also contained boards containing Chinese minted medallion, bogus and forgery coins, as well as my duplicates. My collection is distributed amongst so many different cases that I did not recall the aforestated facts. Only when receiving the remnants of case 69 at the customs house here, packed in gunny bags and flimsy crates, did I see what other coins there were (in the case). This means that two-thirds of my forgery/bogus collection was pilfered, while they left me one-third; and two fistfuls of duplicates were stolen. I hope none of my subsidiary silver and nickel coins from my regular collection [were stolen]. As our quarters are too small to spread them out, I had no chance as yet to examine them more closely.”
“In any event, it is wrong on the part of any dealer to buy Chinese and Turkestan silver coins from a sailor or wharfhand, for it is obvious that he must have stolen them. I am sure that, in the event of this case being taken to court, the dealer would fare very badly, for he ought under all circumstances have asked name and address; respectively he ought to have made a list of what he bought and have same signed by the (thieving) seller.”
“I can tell you with full authority that the subsidiary Hunan tael pieces, which you say were sold to an Illinois dealer, were forgeries, made by the late Ping. I paid dearly for them, had them in my collection for about 5 years, but finally I had to mournfully discard them as forgeries. On this point there is no doubt whatsoever. Most likely I have photos of these in my baggage.”
“So far Mr. Smith has not written to me. If he does, he ought to make me a fair proposal. As I said, I have pictures of some of the coins which originally I took for genuine, but which conclusively proved to be fakes.”
“I am keeping busy. We plan to take a third room in the same house, and while this will be inadequate for accommodating all our cases, it might help ameliorate the situation in part.”
Aside from more details about Kann’s stolen coins, the most important piece of information in this letter is the name of the forger who made the fake Hunan subsidiary tael coins. Kann calls him only “Ping” and we know nothing more about him, except that he had already died.
The last paragraph about Kann’s living arrangements in Los Angeles, reveals that either he lived very frugally or he was not as wealthy as some believe him to have been. Several years after his death, a lawsuit brought by his heirs showed that his estate consisted of a relatively modest amount of stocks and bonds. No mention was made of his collections. His coin collection was sold in the 1950’s, but his stamp collection, sycee collection, and paper money collection were all sold after his death. What became of his collections of Chinese jades and ivory is unknown.
“I am applying for recognition as a displaced person, so that I might stay on in USA. Inter alia I need for this purpose letters from three American citizens (affidavits), testifying to my good moral character. The problem of finances is not concerned, and there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of the writer. May I therefore ask that you kindly mail such a testimonial to ….. (address) ….. You might state that you have known me for many years and that, etc. etc. Many thanks in advance.”
Kann mentions hearing of “a doctor in San Diego who owns a noteworthy collection of Chinese coins”, and asks to be put in touch with him. He also enclosed a listing (not found) of all Chinese Gold Yuan notes issued by the Central Bank of China up to the end of March 1949.
Bowker replies that the doctor in San Diego who collects Chinese coins is probably a Dr. Wallace, optometrist, whose office was at 5th and Broadway in San Diego. Dr. Wallace had been president of the San Diego coin club. Wallace’s main collecting interest, however, was U.S. 50 cent coins. There was another collector named Johnson who was trying to buy Wallace’s Chinese collection before he (Johnson) returned to his former home back east. Bowker suggests Kann contact Dr. Wallace to learn whether the collection had been sold or not.
This information could be important. It is rumored that Kann sold his collection of Chinese coins about 1954 to a doctor, and it was this unnamed doctor who owned the collection until it was sold by Schulman & Kriesberg in 1971. To this day, the identity of this doctor has remained a mystery. A couple coin dealers claim to know who he was but as late as 2011 refused to reveal his name because either he or his family was still living. Another possible identity for this mystery doctor, is Dr. David Graham, with whom Kann published a supplement to his catalog of Chinese coins, listing various Taiwan patterns.
David Graham was an industrial education advisor with the U.S. Mutual Security Mission in Taiwan in the 1950's. He should not be confused with Dr. D. C. Graham, the missionary and anthropologist.
Bowker acknowledged receiving the listing of gold yuan notes and states that the only important recent addition to his collection was a 20 cent Peking coin of 1900. Bowker also says he would be happy to send a testimonial on Kann’s behalf to the Immigration Service.
Bowker concludes with: “Have heard nothing from Smith, but due to the time elapsed since I gave him your address, I feel it only proper to ask you if he did in fact communicate with you as he promised?”
Kann writes: “From Smith I have not heard for many months. Most likely he is still in Peking, and just as likely he is O.K. there. Smith is a professional writer – provided he writes at all; which is rarely enough the case.” Here Kann has confused Ward Smith, the Chinese paper money collector, with William H. Smith, the San Francisco coin dealer who bought Kann’s stolen coins.“It is indeed good news that you found the 20 cents Peking coin. It is worth from $100 to $150 (if genuine). I do not possess it yet, and neither the 10 cent piece. If you come across such rarities (provided you have them already), please buy them for me, or else I will exchange with good value.” It is interesting that Kann did not have these two coins as late as May 1949. They are the two Peking coins most often seen in auctions.
Kann reports that about the 15th of April, two new values in Gold Yuan notes were issued in Shanghai – GY 50,000 and GY 100,000 – and encloses a GY 500 note as a gift to Bowker. He also reports that he and Dr. James Wang (a well known Chinese-American collector of Chinese stamps) had formed a local chapter of the China Stamp Society in Los Angeles, but so far had only seven members. Bowker was an active member of the San Francisco chapter of the China Stamp Society.
“Ever since I wrote you about seeing Smith (about the coins) I have been expecting some word from either or both you and him, but as nothing was said, last Sunday I went over to SF to see him. He now tells me that although he intended writing you when I last saw him, he did not do so. When I asked him if he intended to write to you as he had promised, he stated that he did not, and that it was his present intention to do nothing further about the matter unless some action was taken on your behalf. Needless to say neither I nor Ritchie concur in this attitude, but I am mentioning it to you in order that you will know of his present attitude. Smith had on display in his place of business quite a few other silver coins of China which he had not previously displayed, but whether or not they came from the same source as the others [that is, stolen from Kann], he did not say.”
The second page is a copy of Bowker’s letter to Immigration endorsing Kann. He writes: “I am informed that Mr. Edourd (misspelled in original) Kann, formerly of Shanghai, China, and of Czechoslovak nationality, desires to obtain the recognition of the United States as a displaced person. With a view to furthering his application, I wish to state that I have known him personally since 1939, both in China and the United States, and that I believe him to be of good moral character, strict integrity, and in every respect worthy of consideration. In all of my intercourse with him, which has been continuous for the past ten years, I have always found him to be honorable, courteous, and honest, and I take pleasure in so testifying.”
At the time of his birth, Kann’s home town was located in Austria. When the country of Czechoslovakia was created after the First World War, that town became part of the new state. Being a Czech citizen would become a problem in Kann’s application to stay in the United States.
Kann to Bowker - 1949.5.20, 2 pages.
“Regarding the theft of part of my coins, I plan to do nothing in particular at this moment, for hiring a lawyer and appearing personally there before a court might come much dearer than the damage was. Regarding the stolen duplicates I have no register and no proofs, except that the box containing them was torn open and a few fistfuls extracted. My regular collection (I have not yet had the possibility of opening any of my large wooden cases) is different for there almost all of my coins are photographed. If these should have been pilfered, I plan to prosecute Mr. Smith. This for your private information; do not discuss this with Smith.”
“We are a little confused regarding the Smith’s. This time it is too many Smith’s, not cooks. My reference was to the SF Smith whom I gave your address with a view to his writing you regarding the coins which were missing from your shipment, and which turned up in his shop. Your reference is, of course, to the Smith who went to Peiping.I have heard nothing from him, likewise, for about a year, but have wondered if he stayed on in Peiping or returned home. I asked Mr. Coole about him, but he did not reply to my inquiry. They had been in touch with one another in Peiping.”
The Smith in Peiping is Ward D. Smith, author of the catalog "Chinese Banknotes" published in 1970. He had been in China with the U.S. army during World War II. After the war he enrolled as a student at Peking University.
Bowker reports he has had the testimonial (affidavit) recommending Kann to the Immigration Service notarized and has put it in the mail to Kann. The rest of the letter concerns obtaining newly issued Chinese stamps.
Kann to Bowker - No Date, 1 page.
Thanks Bowker for the affidavit and says he hopes to be granted displaced person status which will allow him to immigrate to America. Kann sent a new list (not found) of Gold Yuan notes and mentions that they are no longer circulating, having been replaced by Silver Yuan notes issued in Canton and printed in Hong Kong. This letter must have been written sometime between June 2nd and 10th. Mentions that he had agreed to give a talk on Chinese coins at the ANA convention, as requested by Vernon Brown.
Bowker to Kann - 1949.6.10, 1 page.
Remarks on Gold Yuan and Silver Yuan stamps and notes.
Just a note to advise Bowker that he will be arriving in San Francisco at night on the following Friday, and had booked a room at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel. Though unstated, he was there to attend and give a talk at the ANA convention, being held in San Francisco that year. He says he will telephone Bowker to arrange where and when to meet. Kann also writes: “My brother from Portland came down to meet me, and as he is leaving on Sunday, I shall be spending Saturday with him.” This is the first mention of any of Kann’s relatives. His brother, Alfred Kann, apparently lived in Portland, Oregon.
Bowker enclosed rubbings (not found) of four gold tilla coins issued by Yakub Beg in Sinkiang, as Kann had requested when they met during the ANA convention in San Francisco in August. The coins were apparently all dated AH 1291 (Kann types K1489-1491) but were probably all different, as Bowker states: “You will note that there is considerable variety in the marginal border and the engraving of the inner circles, which sometimes appear as simple lines, dots between lines, and straight lines connecting the two circles.”
CHINA-SINKIANG 1873 (AH1291) Tilla Gold Coin, K1489, XF
Bowker asks Kann to help him build his collection of notes of the Central Bank of China and especially the Gold Yuan notes he is still missing. Also mentions that he plans a trip to Los Angeles soon. Mentions that he has been receiving issues of the Golden Carp since it began publication.This was the journal published by the newly formed Los Angeles branch of the China Stamp Society. Bowker laments that his own chapter in San Francisco was not interested in publishing a journal. Bowker was later able to change their minds, and they did issue a journal, of which Bowker was the editor.
The letter ends with the first mention of Chen Cho-wei: “I enclose herewith a copy of a catalog of an exhibition of Chinese coins being held in Hong Kong this month by Mr. Chen Cho-wei. He also issued a similar brochure in Chinese. He expects to come to the US for a couple years’ graduate studies in Money and Banking and expects to bring his collection with him. I hope he does, as he appears to have quite a collection and much that I have never seen.”
Bowker would have more to say about Chen Cho-wei in later letters.
Kann to Bowker - 1949.10.17, 1 page.
Kann thanks Bowker for sending a brochure about the display of Chen Cho-wei’s collection of modern coins, but dismisses the importance of the collection. He does, however, ask Bowker to put him in touch with Chen if he should visit California. Also mentions receiving a letter from Kalgan Shih announcing publication of his catalog of Modern Chinese Coins, Chinese version, in 500 copies. Kann says of the book “…. comprising 200 pages and richly illustrated, largely with coins from my collection.” Kann’s letters refer several times to other people publishing books using photos of Kann’s coins.
Modern Coins of China
Anticipating a possible visit from Bowker, Kann asks for a week’s notice so he can gather his coins from a bank safe deposit box and put them in pages for display. Kann used cardboard pages with clear plastic slides which display both sides of the coin. However, when not being examined, the coins were housed in a safe deposit box, probably in paper envelopes.
Kann then mentions that the three U.S. mints made during June-July 1949 some 30 million silver dollar coins for China. He says these were struck from dies for the 23rd year Sun Yat Sen dollar with junk on reverse, though it is unclear how he knew this. He also says “Minting of silver has been going on in China at Canton, Chengtu, Chungking and in Formosa, all 1 dollar coins, I surmise; and at Lanchowfu (before it fell) 20 cent pieces. The dollar pieces supposedly are the Sun-Junk type, but most likely dated 38th year.” Obviously Kann had not seen the coins, as no such coins exist. It is unclear why he thought silver coins were being made at those mints. Some of these mints probably did strike silver coins in 1949, but there is no direct evidence of this. The mention of 20 cent coins made at Lanchow (Kansu Province) is interesting. This may refer to a Kansu Yuan Shih-kai 20 cent, which Kann mentions in his catalog, and reserves number 761, but as he says, no such coin has been seen. He may have confused Lanchow with Kweichow, which did issue a 20 cent coin in 1949 (Kann 758iii), or this may be simply a false rumor.
Bowker had not replied sooner because he was on a trip to Detroit. He now plans to be in Los Angeles the next weekend and wants to arrange to visit Kann. Bowker says he has not heard from Kalgan Shih for a year or so and had not heard about his book.
Esther Usher, writing for the Library of the Essex Institute in Salem, Massachusetts, answers an earlier letter from Kann (not found) regarding a pamphlet titled “The Currencies of Tibet”. They were not able to find such a work in their main library or in the Robinson Library of numismatic works. They ask Kann to provide an author or date for the work. Kann’s 12 December 1949 letter to Bowker reveals he was looking for a consular report on the coinage of Tibet, but they were unable to find it. It is unclear whether he was looking for a British consular report or an American consular report, or perhaps it was really a report from the Chinese maritime customs service. Bowker’s letter of 14 December 1949 says the item is Consular Report 21188, and that he had seen it at Essex when he visited there, but that it is not listed in the Essex catalog or the Robinson catalog. He says the ANS has a two page typescript summary of the report, but does not mention a date or author.
Bowker thanks Kann for showing him his collection of Chinese sycee and silver coins, apparently a few days earlier. He mentions having recently obtained 12 Sinkiang half miscal (mace) silver coins from Arthur Coole, to add to the seven varieties of these coins he already had. Bowker offers to send all 19 coins to Kann for examination, and if any turn out to duplicate each other, he offers to
trade those to Kann, if he needs them. This tells us that most of the Sinkiang half mace silver coins in Bowker's collection were obtained from Coole late in 1949.
Bowker sent Kann a copy of an article he was working on, listing the Year 18 (1929) Sun Yat Sen dollars and attributing them to the various countries which produced them at the invitation of the Chinese government. Bowker says he wrote the article hurriedly and was unsure he had correctly identified all of them, and asks for Kann’s opinion.
Responding to Bowker’s question about the Year 18 Sun Yat Sen dollars, Kann says his conclusions seem to be correct except for some problem with the British made coin. Kann says he will write to the Vienna Mint to inquire into the matter.
Regarding the Sinkiang half miscal (5 fen) coins, Kann says he has 80 different pieces and that every one seen seems to be another variety. Kann says he was buying the Kashgar coins in Shanghai for 50 cents each but that the other mints, such as Yarkand, are worth more. He had purchased three pieces from Hans Schulman for $7.50 each, one of which was a type he had never seen before, with the Chinese character “yuan”. There are two such Sinkiang 5 Fen silver coins with yuan, both very rare. Both have on the obverse the character "yuan" with a dot inside a box between its legs. One has on the reverse only Turki inscriptions and is attributed to the Kuche Mint (Sinkiang Gold & Silver Coins Catalogue (2016) by Lin Hsien-chang #023). The other, from the Kashgar Mint, has on the reverse a Manchu mintmark to the left, Turki mintmark to the right, and the Chinese denomination in the center (Xinjiang Numismatics (1991) #286). We don't know which type Kann had in his collection because it is not listed in his catalog.
Two paragraphs of this letter concern Taiping Silver and gold cash coins . He mentions an article by R . Alexander Jamieson published in the Numismatic Chronicle of 1866, which states that the Taipings did not issue silver or gold coins. Yet A. M. Tracey Woodward cited this article as evidence that such gold coins were issued. But Kann notes another source of information, an article by William Mesny published in 1866, in which Mesny mentions seeing Taiping gold coins, some worn as souvenirs by foreigners. Kann also notes an 1860’s article published in Belgium which refers to silver and copper Taiping coins donated to the Royal Museum of the Netherlands. Kann wrote to the museum and they replied that they had received no such donation and no such coins were in their collection. However, Kann (and everyone else) misunderstood the article, which simply reported that a collector in Java had such coins – they were not donated to the museum.
Also mentioned in the letter is that Kann’s sister-in-law had returned from Shanghai with some new Chinese notes, which Kann sent to Bowker in the letter. A hand notation indicates the letter contained two 50 yuan notes, six 100 yuan notes and three 200 yuan notes. The relatively low face values suggest these may have been notes of the Peoples Bank of China.
Finally Kann asks: “Did you obtain a reply from the man with the 20 cents Hupeh “ben shen” coins?” This extremely rare coin is from a set of Hupeh dragon coins with the characters “pen sheng” to the sides of the dragon. The purpose of this marking is unknown. That someone should have more than one of such a coin is very unusual. In the next letter, Bowker replies: “To date have heard nothing further from the gentleman who stated he had the 20 cent Hupeh [pen sheng] coins.”
Taiping gold coin
Taiping silver coin, Bowker collection, donated to Shanghai Mint Museum
More on Taiping gold and silver cash coins. Bowker mentions that Spink had a Taiping gold cash for sale in April 1935 and Seaby had one for sale, apparently around the same time. Bowker speculates that it might have been the same coin. Spink described the coin as having four characters on the obverse and two on the reverse. Bowker had never seen an image of the gold coin but he owned a Taiping silver coin.
More on Sinkiang 5 fen (half miscal). Bowker says he has one with character “kuang” (part of inscription: Kuang Hsu Yin Ch’ien) on one side above a simulated center hole, and suggests that Kann’s coin with “yuan” might be a misreading of this coin. Bowker enclosed rubbings of all the Sinkiang 5 fen and 1 miscal coins in his collection.
Kann had several times referred to a Mr. W. Clark who was working on a book on Tibetan coins. This was W. L . Clark , but no such book was ever published, and in this letter Bowker asks if “the contribution which you expected Clark to publish on Tibetan coins was the article he published entitled “Denominations of Tibetan Coins” which was published in the March-April issue of the Coin Collectors Journal, pages 46-47.”
Bowker mentions a Russian collector of Chinese coins who had contributed some information for Bowker’s bibliography. “Slobodchikof has furnished me with a list of ten or so titles which were published in Vladavostok in Russian on Chinese numismatics. As his notes are rather sketchy, I will have to have a look at the pamphlets themselves in order to obtain the required data relative to page numbers, etc.”
Bowker to Kann - 1949.12.16, 1 page.
“At the meeting on Wednesday of the PCNS [Pacific Coast Numismatic Society] in SF, one of the dealers present showed me a circular letter from Mrs. Tracey Woodward, of which I am enclosing a copy for your information [not found]. Although I do not suppose that you would be at all interested in the collection as a whole as offered, I thought you might wish to communicate with her regarding some individual specimens if, as appears most probable to me, she should not obtain a buyer for the entire collection, or in case the collection might get into the hands of some dealer who would break it up.”
This was the beginning of the break-up of the famous A. M. Tracey Woodward collection of Chinese coins. At the time of his death in the 1930’s, Woodward was equally if not more famous for his collecting of Japanese stamps. He had written what is still a standard work on early Japanese stamps. A couple years after his death, his widow consigned his world famous collection of Japanese stamps to a stamp auction in Europe. Unfortunately, the sale occurred on the eve of the Second World War, and the stamps sold for only a fraction of their true value. Perhaps this is why his widow did not sell the coin collection at that time, but waited until after the war. The collection was broken up by two New York City coin dealers beginning in 1951, but it is unclear who actually bought the collection. Many of the rarities were sold in two Hans Schulman sales in April 1951 and April 1952.
Kann describes his Sinkiang half miscal with character “yuan” which Bowker referred to in his letter of 14 December: “Re ½ miscal I have from Schulman. The character “yuan” [which Kann has written in by hand] stands absolutely clearly on the right. Above is “kuang”, below “hsu”, and left (only partly visable), either “ch’ien” or “yin.” It is very interesting and the only specimen I saw. Seemingly undated.” He then goes on to mention again that he was able to buy many examples of the common types of half miscals in Shanghai for fifty cents each. His Shanghai supplier told him that a dealer in Peking had a drawer full of the coins.
An earlier letter suggested Kann's Sinkiang half miscal (5 Fen) was the type with a single character "yuan" on the obverse, but this letter makes it clear that there is a four character Chinese inscription on the obverse of the coin. While most Sinkiang 5 Fen coins with four Chinese characters read "Kuang Hsu Yin Ch'ien", there is a very rare coin with the inscription "Kuang Hsu Yuan Pao" (or the last character might be "nien"), and it is listed in his catalog as Kann 999, from the Yanghissar Mint.
Kwangsi 20 cent with “kuei” character
The next paragraph lists coins Kann offered in exchange for some Sinkiang duplicates which Bowker had offered. Among the coins offered was a Kwangsi 20 cent with “kuei” character (Kann 750), about which Kann says: “My original copy I bought 10 years ago for $150, being for years one of the great rarities. During the war a small supply came on the Shanghai market, bringing prices down.” Another coin on the list was a Fookien 20 cent coin dated 16th year (1927; Kann 712). Kann writes: “Was discovered during 1945 only. My specimen is mint condition. In July 1948 it was offered to me at $100; some months later I bought it at $25. Then it was offered lower.”
Kann then mentions an anticipated work on Tibetan coins. “Mr. W. Clark has been working for over 2 years on a monograph re Tibetan coinage and wrote to me last summer that he expects to publish same in December of this year. I don’t know whether it will be a monograph for the ANS or whether it will be published independently. I wrote to him again about 2 months ago, but so far I remain without an answer.”
Kann to Bowker - 1949.12.31, 2 pages.
Kann writes: “I am replying to your letter of 16th inst. and want to thank you for the copy of Mrs. Woodward’s circular. I believe that I spoke to you when you were here and expressed the opinion that, so far, the collection still was unsold. I was right in my assertion. In 1938 I had similar details from Mrs. W. direct. Our project to sell the collection to the Chinese government was then hopeful, but the war prevented consummation of the deal. At first sight I was about to share your opinion, namely that nobody will come forward and offer to buy the entire collection as such. However, we are mistaken, for I have it on undoubted authority that one dealer at least offered $45,000 for the lot, half of which payable in cash, while the other half is payable within one year. The party is of excellent credit standing. Yet Mrs. W. turned the offer down. I do not know what other offers came in. I wrote to Mrs. W. (I am not a buyer, except certain pieces) about 2 weeks ago, but so far she has not answered to me. I have reason to believe that the collection contains divers forgeries and bogus coins. In number just one half of the collection consists of 1 cent coppers, about which I know nothing. The gold portion undoubtedly is good, but the silver section far below mine. I am giving you full information and ask you to reciprocate if you get authentic news.”
Fookien 20 cent coin dated 16th year
This remarkable letter tells us for the first time that Kann and Woodward’s widow had negotiated the sale of Woodward’s collection to the Chinese government, but the arrangement fell through due to the war with Japan. We can only speculate which government agency was to be the buyer – perhaps the Central Bank or the Central Mint at Shanghai. Kann had connections with both and would be the logical choice to arrange such a sale. A decade later, after the war, the collection was still intact and Mrs. Woodward was attempting to sell it. One dealer offered $45,000 for the collection, which was probably a fair amount, but Mrs. Woodward turned down the offer. We do not know why, nor do we know the name of the person who made the offer. We don’t even know for certain whether he was a collector or dealer, nor in which country he lived. Perhaps the buyer was Japanese (perhaps the Bank of Japan?) and the offer was turned down due to animosity toward the Japanese. We just don’t know.
Kann then turns to Kalgan Shih and his recently published book on Chinese silver and gold coins: “I just had a letter from Kalgan Shih. My letter to him via Hong Kong took 40 days to reach him. His answer is dated 2nd December. He naturally writes in guarded terms and gives me to understand that numismatics under the new masters are now dormant in Shanghai. He tells me that cost of printing 692 copies in Shanghai, inclusive of plates and photos, was US $4,250; Hong Kong, he says, would have charged double this price. Not very encouraging for my planned book, which would occupy double the space. He can be reached at the following address: Kalgan Shih, c/o P. N. Chen ……”
Shih’s letter confirms what Kann had suspected, that under the new communist government, numismatic activity in Shanghai had ceased. The printing information provided is interesting. Why were 692 copies of the book printed? I suspect this was 500 copies of the hardcover volume in Chinese (with the photos) and 192 copies of the paperback English translation (without photos). Later letters will discuss the until recently unknown second edition of Shih’s book.
Kann then mentions that Ritchie had asked to borrow the photos of Kann’s sycee collection in order to have enlargements made of some pieces. Kann sent him a set of 12 photographs and a detailed list, and tells Bowker that if he is interested, he can have an extra set made (at Ritchie’s expense) for himself. Bowker’s next letter shows he had done just that, and the set of photos was present in his library when I acquired it.
In the early 1970’s I had borrowed a set of large (about 2 feet by 1 foot) photo plates of the Kann sycee collection from the Los Angeles auction company which had it on consignment from Kann’s widow. I had my uncle make copies in the same size, and sent a set of the copies to Joe Cribb at the British Museum, which ended up buying the collection. I also have a copy of the list of the sycee – 199 pieces, giving the weight and some other details about each piece.
Kann brings up Mr. W. Clark, who claims to be writing a book about Tibetan coins, but who hasn’t answered Kann’s request for information. Kann asks Bowker to inquire about the book, but not to let Clark know that he (Kann) is interested. Kann asks to borrow Clark’s article on Tibetan numerals and a recent Numismatic Scrapbook article on the Szechuan rupee. Those were the days before xeroxing was available.
Kann then mentions the Taiping gold cash coin: “About two weeks ago I wrote to Seaby & Co. asking whether they still own, or could get for me, the Taiping gold coin. Also whether it would be feasible to trace the buyer of the Hong Kong 1867 (Shanghai) tael, even at double the auction price. I told them that I wanted no credit and am ready to make a deposit in advance; I also gave your name as reference. However, not a syllable in reply. Did they inquire from you?”
Kann was asking Seaby, the old London coin dealership, to contact the buyer of the Shanghai tael and offer him double what he had paid for it in the auction, apparently a Seaby auction. In other letters Kann complains that he was rarely able to buy anything from London coin dealers.