Notation by Bruce W. Smith〔 USA〕
Edited by Che-lu Tseng〔 USA〕
Edited by Che-lu Tseng〔 USA〕
Dear Mr. Kann:
This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st and the parcel of miscellaneous booklets, for which I thank you.
I regret that I do not seem to be able to locate Mr. Clark’s [克拉克] notes on Tibetan coins, altho I did have a copy. I must have loaned it to someone who has not yet returned it. If it turns up later I will send it to you.
I did not have the article in the Dec. H.S.B, but borrowed Ritchie’s [裡奇] copy for you, and am enclosing it herewith. This particular article does not seem to be of any particular importance, bit I consider the previous installment by the same author on paper notes of Tibet of some importance as it is illustrated by excellent cuts of half a dozen Tibetan notes which I have never seen elsewhere.
I will endeavor to obtain one of the magnifiers for you thru a friend in New York, thru whom I obtained mine. It does not seem to have any number on it, only the manufacturers’ name, from which I conclude it is a special item made for some one distributor and not a stock item.
Thanks for Shih’s [施嘉幹] Hongkong address, altho I do not see that anything would be gained by writing to him for a copy in view of his peculiar behaviour in the past. Mr. Mosser [莫瑟] the editor of Numismatic Literature [《錢幣文學》] has requested me to write a notice for his magazine on Shih’s book, and has sent the Society’s Library copy to me for this purpose, so at the moment I have a copy for reference.
Last night I saw the films of your sycee at Ritchie’s house, and have asked him to have prints made from them for me. Thanks for the opportunity to obtain them.
I have heard nothing from Seaby to date regarding you or the Tai Ping gold coin. I hope you are able to trace and obtain this and the Hongkong Shanghai tael essays. They would make a substantial addition to your collection.
Yours very truly,
F. Bowker
Notes: Bowker gets sycee photos thr Ritchie. Taiping gold coin.
This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st and the parcel of miscellaneous booklets, for which I thank you.
I regret that I do not seem to be able to locate Mr. Clark’s [克拉克] notes on Tibetan coins, altho I did have a copy. I must have loaned it to someone who has not yet returned it. If it turns up later I will send it to you.
I did not have the article in the Dec. H.S.B, but borrowed Ritchie’s [裡奇] copy for you, and am enclosing it herewith. This particular article does not seem to be of any particular importance, bit I consider the previous installment by the same author on paper notes of Tibet of some importance as it is illustrated by excellent cuts of half a dozen Tibetan notes which I have never seen elsewhere.
I will endeavor to obtain one of the magnifiers for you thru a friend in New York, thru whom I obtained mine. It does not seem to have any number on it, only the manufacturers’ name, from which I conclude it is a special item made for some one distributor and not a stock item.
Thanks for Shih’s [施嘉幹] Hongkong address, altho I do not see that anything would be gained by writing to him for a copy in view of his peculiar behaviour in the past. Mr. Mosser [莫瑟] the editor of Numismatic Literature [《錢幣文學》] has requested me to write a notice for his magazine on Shih’s book, and has sent the Society’s Library copy to me for this purpose, so at the moment I have a copy for reference.
Last night I saw the films of your sycee at Ritchie’s house, and have asked him to have prints made from them for me. Thanks for the opportunity to obtain them.
I have heard nothing from Seaby to date regarding you or the Tai Ping gold coin. I hope you are able to trace and obtain this and the Hongkong Shanghai tael essays. They would make a substantial addition to your collection.
Yours very truly,
F. Bowker
Notes: Bowker gets sycee photos thr Ritchie. Taiping gold coin.
Los Angeles
15th January 1950
15th January 1950
Dear Mr. Bowker,
Thanks for your letter of 11th inst. I return herewith with thanks the brief article on Tibetan rupees which indeed is of no value.
Tibet: Due to the lack of knowledge of Tibetan I find that this chapter for my catalogue is the most difficult one. I had a reply from Clark, which is not satisfactory. He says that he is still chasing for a certain book, without being able to find it; and that he cannot say when his book on Tibetan coins will appear.
The photostatic copies I have from Woods [伍茲] and Walsh’s [沃爾什] articles, as well as the articles themselves, are incomplete, so that I have run against a roadblock. Of one I have the photos, but only part of the text. Of the other one I own the article, but lack the photos. So, I must reluctantly ask you to kindly loan me those two books; I promise to return them in good shape within 10 days. Clark’s article is, or was, in Rithchie’s possession. I should be grateful if he would loan it to me. Then I probably will be enabled to finish my catalogue manuscript.
I do not know whether I wrote you that, according to information I have had from Kalgan Shih, another large collector in Shanghai, Ching Tze-wei [秦子帷], is liquidating his collection and selling so to say at 1/2 price. This is the man, whose collection in the form of rubbings I have sent you in about 10 volumes. (Note by JEAN: These 10 volumes were later collected by Bowker, and now, they are housed in the Champion Shanghai Office.) Coupled with the Woodward [伍德華] collection now being on the market, is most unpropitious for the appreciation of Chinese numismatic items.
At long last I got into touch and had a letter from Lieut. Siebert [希伯特], who tells me that the news about his demise is exaggerated, though he wished he was dead, having lost interest in anything, due to the serious airplane accident he had. He says that he was forced to sell his Chinese coins at sacrifices figures, in order to cover cost of his illness. I was only interested in his Shanghai (Hongkong 1867) tael, but since he assured me that he pawned it for $700 and that I could have it for 750, my interest has waned.
From Seaby’s I had a reply; very unconcerned. They have nothing rare on hand; and if they had, there would always be buyers. And the Taiping gold piece is, of course, no more available, etc.
The negative of de la Couperie’s [拉庫伯裡. 德拉庫普里] article you took along, please keep altogether, as I shall not require it.
My wife tells me that she owes a reply to Mrs.Bowker re a food recipe. She has not forgotten and will soon answer. For some time she seems to lack the time to write, and then suddenly she will attend to all the accumulations in the realm of private correspondence.
I return Ritchie’s extract from the Scrap Book Magazine with thanks and remain with compliments.
Very sincerely Yours
Note: Ching Tze-wei collection for sale.
Sibert
Ching Tze-wei collection for sale.
Ching Tze-wei need info here about him collection.
31 Jan 1949 correct name Chin Tzu-wei
H. Chang [張璜] finally publish his book Silver Dollars & Taels of China [《中國銀圓及銀兩幣目錄》] in 1981. Some of the same coins are shown in both places. Did those coins belong to Chang or Sibert or both or others.
Lt. Sibert is no doubt Dennis W. Sibert (1912-1991) Metone, AL who along with H. Chang in Shanghai was working on catalog of Chinese silver dollars in 1946. Book announced Num Oct 1946 but July 1948 issue has announcement that book had been cancelled due to illness of Sibert. This letter suggests what that illness was. The manuscript with photos is now in B.W. Smith [史博祿] library.
Thanks for your letter of 11th inst. I return herewith with thanks the brief article on Tibetan rupees which indeed is of no value.
Tibet: Due to the lack of knowledge of Tibetan I find that this chapter for my catalogue is the most difficult one. I had a reply from Clark, which is not satisfactory. He says that he is still chasing for a certain book, without being able to find it; and that he cannot say when his book on Tibetan coins will appear.
The photostatic copies I have from Woods [伍茲] and Walsh’s [沃爾什] articles, as well as the articles themselves, are incomplete, so that I have run against a roadblock. Of one I have the photos, but only part of the text. Of the other one I own the article, but lack the photos. So, I must reluctantly ask you to kindly loan me those two books; I promise to return them in good shape within 10 days. Clark’s article is, or was, in Rithchie’s possession. I should be grateful if he would loan it to me. Then I probably will be enabled to finish my catalogue manuscript.
I do not know whether I wrote you that, according to information I have had from Kalgan Shih, another large collector in Shanghai, Ching Tze-wei [秦子帷], is liquidating his collection and selling so to say at 1/2 price. This is the man, whose collection in the form of rubbings I have sent you in about 10 volumes. (Note by JEAN: These 10 volumes were later collected by Bowker, and now, they are housed in the Champion Shanghai Office.) Coupled with the Woodward [伍德華] collection now being on the market, is most unpropitious for the appreciation of Chinese numismatic items.
At long last I got into touch and had a letter from Lieut. Siebert [希伯特], who tells me that the news about his demise is exaggerated, though he wished he was dead, having lost interest in anything, due to the serious airplane accident he had. He says that he was forced to sell his Chinese coins at sacrifices figures, in order to cover cost of his illness. I was only interested in his Shanghai (Hongkong 1867) tael, but since he assured me that he pawned it for $700 and that I could have it for 750, my interest has waned.
From Seaby’s I had a reply; very unconcerned. They have nothing rare on hand; and if they had, there would always be buyers. And the Taiping gold piece is, of course, no more available, etc.
The negative of de la Couperie’s [拉庫伯裡. 德拉庫普里] article you took along, please keep altogether, as I shall not require it.
My wife tells me that she owes a reply to Mrs.Bowker re a food recipe. She has not forgotten and will soon answer. For some time she seems to lack the time to write, and then suddenly she will attend to all the accumulations in the realm of private correspondence.
I return Ritchie’s extract from the Scrap Book Magazine with thanks and remain with compliments.
Very sincerely Yours
Note: Ching Tze-wei collection for sale.
Sibert
Ching Tze-wei collection for sale.
Ching Tze-wei need info here about him collection.
31 Jan 1949 correct name Chin Tzu-wei
H. Chang [張璜] finally publish his book Silver Dollars & Taels of China [《中國銀圓及銀兩幣目錄》] in 1981. Some of the same coins are shown in both places. Did those coins belong to Chang or Sibert or both or others.
Lt. Sibert is no doubt Dennis W. Sibert (1912-1991) Metone, AL who along with H. Chang in Shanghai was working on catalog of Chinese silver dollars in 1946. Book announced Num Oct 1946 but July 1948 issue has announcement that book had been cancelled due to illness of Sibert. This letter suggests what that illness was. The manuscript with photos is now in B.W. Smith [史博祿] library.
Los Angeles,
January 25, 1950
January 25, 1950
Dear Commander Bowker,
Reverting to your postcard of 18th inst. I wish to advise that I am returning to you Walsh’ article on coinage in Tibet and thank you for having loaned it to me. I have it completely, i.e. exactly like yours, but find that no details are supplied to table III and IIIa. I thought that I have a copy. In fact I gave you the negative when you were here. I believe it is unnecessary to bother any more.
In the same parcel I am returning to you the auction list of Glendining [格蘭登寧拍賣公司], and also the March-April number Coin Collector [《硬幣藏家》]. From both I had photostate made, though they did not turn out well. I wish to express appreciation for your kindness.
Recently I had a letter direct from Shanghai and obtained some new Peoples Bank notes. I am enclosing here 40 $500 and 20 $1000, all different. Please accept them with my compliments.
I do not know whether you are aware of the existence of a set of nickel coins, prepared for issue in 1938, when the Hwa Hsing Commercial Bank [華興商業銀行] was appointed to replace the Central Bank of China. Actually it functioned in its place and issued bank notes, which you might have. It also prepared nickel coins in denominations of 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 cts, but these never were issued, because the bank ceded to the Central Reserve Bank of China. Those nickels are scarce, especially the 5 cts, for which as much as US$ 200 was asked in Shanghai. Of less rarity is the 10-cents piece, of which a rough rubbing here with. I could offer you same, plus the 3 birds $ of 21st year in copper proof, in exchange for the 1 nickel Sinkiang. This offered is more than fair.
Reverting to your postcard of 18th inst. I wish to advise that I am returning to you Walsh’ article on coinage in Tibet and thank you for having loaned it to me. I have it completely, i.e. exactly like yours, but find that no details are supplied to table III and IIIa. I thought that I have a copy. In fact I gave you the negative when you were here. I believe it is unnecessary to bother any more.
In the same parcel I am returning to you the auction list of Glendining [格蘭登寧拍賣公司], and also the March-April number Coin Collector [《硬幣藏家》]. From both I had photostate made, though they did not turn out well. I wish to express appreciation for your kindness.
Recently I had a letter direct from Shanghai and obtained some new Peoples Bank notes. I am enclosing here 40 $500 and 20 $1000, all different. Please accept them with my compliments.
I do not know whether you are aware of the existence of a set of nickel coins, prepared for issue in 1938, when the Hwa Hsing Commercial Bank [華興商業銀行] was appointed to replace the Central Bank of China. Actually it functioned in its place and issued bank notes, which you might have. It also prepared nickel coins in denominations of 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 cts, but these never were issued, because the bank ceded to the Central Reserve Bank of China. Those nickels are scarce, especially the 5 cts, for which as much as US$ 200 was asked in Shanghai. Of less rarity is the 10-cents piece, of which a rough rubbing here with. I could offer you same, plus the 3 birds $ of 21st year in copper proof, in exchange for the 1 nickel Sinkiang. This offered is more than fair.
Kind regards from.
Yours very truly,
E. Kann
Note:
Facing portrait 18th year dollar, later letter (after catalog publish) shows this was a mule made at Philadelphia mint in 1932.
What were the nickel coins? 1934 coins？
Los Angeles
April 27, 1950
Dear Bowker,
Thanks for your letter of 21st inst. Contrary to your opinion Dr. Wong has so far not sent me the prospectus re printing referred to by you. Ten days ago I specially went to a philatelic meeting in Claremont, which otherwise I should have skipped owing to the great distance, in order to take the prospectus off his hands. However, he said nothing about the matter, and when I ventured to asked for it, he appeared to be peeved, saying he had not yet unpacked and that in due course he would send it along. Yet, so far I have not heard from him.
What you say about a paragraph in the N.G. Herald [《華北捷報》], same is wellknown to me. I have (or had) the original clipping fro the paper in my possession. The letter was written by Giuseppe Ros [羅斯]. In my catalogue I refer to the matter in detail, saying that I could not understand the meaning of a 20-cents size for 1 tael (Note by JEAN: It might be referred to the Chihli 1900 One Tael Copper Token).
Thanks for the article on the 18th Year Sun Yat-sen. I shall send it to Osaka and enlighten them, for they never knew or heard that their mint ever was commissioned to make a steal die for China. “Very pitiful”, they probably remarked. Meanwhile I had a friendly letter from Mr. Dressel [德雷斯勒], the director of the Chicago mint, expressing regret that Wahington does not permit him to reveal anything pertaining to orders from foreign nations; only with the written authority from the relevant Chinese authorities is he permitted to give details. So there you are. It is quite possible that one or the other of the facing models was made in Philadelphia. If you have a friend writing good Italian, it would be worthwhile if you wrote to Rome, inquiring at the Mint there whether in the first semester of 1929 they were commissioned to make a model for an en-face with Sun Yat-sen’s portrait on, and whether a sketch could be obtained.
Meanwhile I am glad to report that, 2 months after ordering those coins from Vienna, they did arrive; unfortunately one 5-cent nickel (though of a very rare variety) was missing. But the rest is so exquisite, that I am compensated. I am sending you an excellent photostat from the photo received from Vienna, depicting all the coins. Besides there was also the Mausoleum (16 th Year), but in deep grey, mat surface, which is a piece of art. Some of the coins are unique, inasmuch as only 1 or 2 pieces are extant.
With the photostat copy the following additional photos have been mailed to your address:
Szechuen rupee, small and big head, 4 times enlarged. If you have the patience to cover the background of the obverse with Chinese ink, you will obtain wonderful effects.
Photostat re Shanghai and Vienna nickels of 25th Year, showing the differences.
A list of Kirin errors on the reverse.
A negative, showing the 10 cents Kiaochou nickel, enlarged, proving three designs. The first one is common and worth about 25 cents. But No.2 and 3 is fully worth $50 each. All the foregoing please retain with my compliments, except the negative re Kiaochow, which please return at your convenience. Ritchie can, if he wants, also have copies made.
I am enclosing (please keep) obverse and reverse of what is possibly a genuine 5 tael gold Taiping coin. It is owned by Keefer [基弗]. I was shocked to have had a letter from him, describing the serious state of his health and speaking of the tortures of his 3 operations. Very regrettable indeed.
Regarding the old Shanghai tael I fear that I could not get at my negatives which are crammed away; besides they were takes with a Leica, i.e. tinv. Shali [沙利] see if I have duplicate photos which, after a while I shall mail you, if possible. But none of mine are very clear.
Why I think the 1/2 tael a forgery? I had it 4 or 5 years in my collection as genuine and had paid heavily for it. But the best conoisseur of Chinese coins, a dealer Ma, is positive that it was a forgery. (Note by JEAN: Dealer Ma is Mr. Ma Ding Xiang.) The man knows more than anybody else. Besides, Woodward who had good material, did not describe that particular specimen. Finally, the man who sold it to me was a professional forger and was before the Court as such. There is no doubt about the matter. Otherwise I should not have discarded it.
With best regards I remain,
Cordially Yours
Herewith copy of shortcomings which I so far found in Shih’s catalogue. There will be more later on, I suppose.
Note: U.S Mint official says can’t reveal info on foreign orders--though some info is in mint reports.
Kann receives Mausoleum Dollar matte proof and other coins from Vienna(probably from Placht [普拉特]).
Bowker letter of 21st not found. No letters found between 25 January and 27 April.
Note:
Keefer has Taiping gold coin Kann sent Bowker photos.
2 Szechuan rupee photos-now in my library(ex Bowker)
3 varieties kiauchau 10 coin--Kann sent negative
Half tael Kann decides is forgery, which one? Pcob 1856 Shanghai.
Note: Referred to in Bowker letter 30 April 1950
Errors in Kalgan Shih’s catalogue
English Version
fol. 18 02-2 You say: was struck in Lanchow, but in Turki it is clearly inscribed Kashgar.
fol. 19 02-20 is not Tihwa, but clearly marked in Turki Kashgar.
fol. 26 05-36 You forgot to state that the coin is unique and that only 1 specimen is known to exist.
fol. 29 You say: There remain only 2 mints: one in Nanking and one in Shanghai. This is incorrect, since the Nanking mint was burned down and completely destroyed in 1929, never being resuscitated.
fol. 32 You call the tael(Hongkong 1867) ordered by the Municipal Council of Shanghai. Positively incorrect. Made for Peking Government, which rejected the coin C10-7 and 8.
fol.36 Kirin C15-7. You call it 24 th Year of Kuang-hau. You should add: undated.
fol. 49 D3-2. You say: Dies engraved by Platte of Italy. Quite incorrect. It should read: By Richard Placht [理查·普拉特], then chief designer of the mint in Vienna, Austria.
fol. 50 D3-8. You say. All 6 designs were struck by the Hangchow mint. Am not so sure, as possibly they were produced at Nanking in the first half of 1929, before the conflagration there.
fol. 56 E3-1......in honor of Li Yuan Hung on his election, Soochow mint did like honor to Governor Chen by making a memento of the same pattern. This means: of the Li Yuan Hung pattern, which, of course is incorrect, as it shows the portrait of Cheng Tah-Chuang.
fol. 56 E3-3 Unquestionably a mint sport.
fol. 60 5 and 10 cents nickel. Should read 1909, and not 1907.
fol. 64 G1-6, 2 cents aluminium.You say: widely circulated. Actually this coin never was in circulation. When I left Shanghai it cost from $20 to 30 each. May be, it dropped in price, yet it never was circulating.
fol. 60 FI-22 2 cts nickel. Same is a mint sport and should not be recorded.
The foregoing appear to me at first glance as errors or omissions. They ought to be rectified at the next edition. Possibly there are other stakes which, if detected, will be reported later on.
Kann
I wrote to Mr. E. Placht, Vienna, in February 1950, regarding the origin of the bigger size Sun Yat-sen dollar, 40mm in diameter, instead of 39mm, in your catalogue D3-2. Mr. Placht answers me in unequivocal terms, that he positively never made such a coin. To my mind there is no mystery extent, for the master die was shipped by Vienna to Nanking, and in the Nanking mint, where 480 specimens of D3-5 were struck, they also made one or more trial pieces, exactly the name in every respect, but with 1 mm larger margin. This is the authentic solution of “a very rare coin”. It was repeatedly offered to me at Shanghai, but I never falt like worth buying it.
E.K.
fol.9 A6-1 Yuan Shih-kai gold coin without value. Obverse the 10 cts silver piece; reverse fancy dragon. Either bogus, or mint sport.
fol.10 A9-1 20$ gold, weight 14 grams
10 $ ” ” 7 ”.
When weighed at Shanghai I found 8.8 grams and 4.5 grams. Which is correct?
fol.64 G1-2 1 cent aluminium coin of 1939. You say: A large number of issues. I consider this was an essay piece only and not circulated at all. It is a rare coin.
On page 59 you say that government regulations regarding nickels were published in June 1927. I thought I possessed all regulations re nickel coins, but I never heard of those of June 1927. Surely you do not mean the Kemmerer Report [肯默勒報告] published in 1929? If I am wrong, may I ask for the favor of the entire wording of those 1927 regulations? And where were they published?
fol. 59 F1-1: You say: Made from early Austrian dies. This is incorrect. All nickels with letter “A”(120 million pieces) were struck in Vienna (Austria), and none were produced in China. On the contrary, the bulk of the “A” coins(100 pure nickel) was melted up in China.
Note: Which Catalog?
Thanks for your letter of 21st inst. Contrary to your opinion Dr. Wong has so far not sent me the prospectus re printing referred to by you. Ten days ago I specially went to a philatelic meeting in Claremont, which otherwise I should have skipped owing to the great distance, in order to take the prospectus off his hands. However, he said nothing about the matter, and when I ventured to asked for it, he appeared to be peeved, saying he had not yet unpacked and that in due course he would send it along. Yet, so far I have not heard from him.
What you say about a paragraph in the N.G. Herald [《華北捷報》], same is wellknown to me. I have (or had) the original clipping fro the paper in my possession. The letter was written by Giuseppe Ros [羅斯]. In my catalogue I refer to the matter in detail, saying that I could not understand the meaning of a 20-cents size for 1 tael (Note by JEAN: It might be referred to the Chihli 1900 One Tael Copper Token).
Thanks for the article on the 18th Year Sun Yat-sen. I shall send it to Osaka and enlighten them, for they never knew or heard that their mint ever was commissioned to make a steal die for China. “Very pitiful”, they probably remarked. Meanwhile I had a friendly letter from Mr. Dressel [德雷斯勒], the director of the Chicago mint, expressing regret that Wahington does not permit him to reveal anything pertaining to orders from foreign nations; only with the written authority from the relevant Chinese authorities is he permitted to give details. So there you are. It is quite possible that one or the other of the facing models was made in Philadelphia. If you have a friend writing good Italian, it would be worthwhile if you wrote to Rome, inquiring at the Mint there whether in the first semester of 1929 they were commissioned to make a model for an en-face with Sun Yat-sen’s portrait on, and whether a sketch could be obtained.
Meanwhile I am glad to report that, 2 months after ordering those coins from Vienna, they did arrive; unfortunately one 5-cent nickel (though of a very rare variety) was missing. But the rest is so exquisite, that I am compensated. I am sending you an excellent photostat from the photo received from Vienna, depicting all the coins. Besides there was also the Mausoleum (16 th Year), but in deep grey, mat surface, which is a piece of art. Some of the coins are unique, inasmuch as only 1 or 2 pieces are extant.
With the photostat copy the following additional photos have been mailed to your address:
Szechuen rupee, small and big head, 4 times enlarged. If you have the patience to cover the background of the obverse with Chinese ink, you will obtain wonderful effects.
Photostat re Shanghai and Vienna nickels of 25th Year, showing the differences.
A list of Kirin errors on the reverse.
A negative, showing the 10 cents Kiaochou nickel, enlarged, proving three designs. The first one is common and worth about 25 cents. But No.2 and 3 is fully worth $50 each. All the foregoing please retain with my compliments, except the negative re Kiaochow, which please return at your convenience. Ritchie can, if he wants, also have copies made.
I am enclosing (please keep) obverse and reverse of what is possibly a genuine 5 tael gold Taiping coin. It is owned by Keefer [基弗]. I was shocked to have had a letter from him, describing the serious state of his health and speaking of the tortures of his 3 operations. Very regrettable indeed.
Regarding the old Shanghai tael I fear that I could not get at my negatives which are crammed away; besides they were takes with a Leica, i.e. tinv. Shali [沙利] see if I have duplicate photos which, after a while I shall mail you, if possible. But none of mine are very clear.
Why I think the 1/2 tael a forgery? I had it 4 or 5 years in my collection as genuine and had paid heavily for it. But the best conoisseur of Chinese coins, a dealer Ma, is positive that it was a forgery. (Note by JEAN: Dealer Ma is Mr. Ma Ding Xiang.) The man knows more than anybody else. Besides, Woodward who had good material, did not describe that particular specimen. Finally, the man who sold it to me was a professional forger and was before the Court as such. There is no doubt about the matter. Otherwise I should not have discarded it.
With best regards I remain,
Cordially Yours
Herewith copy of shortcomings which I so far found in Shih’s catalogue. There will be more later on, I suppose.
Note: U.S Mint official says can’t reveal info on foreign orders--though some info is in mint reports.
Kann receives Mausoleum Dollar matte proof and other coins from Vienna(probably from Placht [普拉特]).
Bowker letter of 21st not found. No letters found between 25 January and 27 April.
Note:
Keefer has Taiping gold coin Kann sent Bowker photos.
2 Szechuan rupee photos-now in my library(ex Bowker)
3 varieties kiauchau 10 coin--Kann sent negative
Half tael Kann decides is forgery, which one? Pcob 1856 Shanghai.
Note: Referred to in Bowker letter 30 April 1950
Errors in Kalgan Shih’s catalogue
English Version
fol. 18 02-2 You say: was struck in Lanchow, but in Turki it is clearly inscribed Kashgar.
fol. 19 02-20 is not Tihwa, but clearly marked in Turki Kashgar.
fol. 26 05-36 You forgot to state that the coin is unique and that only 1 specimen is known to exist.
fol. 29 You say: There remain only 2 mints: one in Nanking and one in Shanghai. This is incorrect, since the Nanking mint was burned down and completely destroyed in 1929, never being resuscitated.
fol. 32 You call the tael(Hongkong 1867) ordered by the Municipal Council of Shanghai. Positively incorrect. Made for Peking Government, which rejected the coin C10-7 and 8.
fol.36 Kirin C15-7. You call it 24 th Year of Kuang-hau. You should add: undated.
fol. 49 D3-2. You say: Dies engraved by Platte of Italy. Quite incorrect. It should read: By Richard Placht [理查·普拉特], then chief designer of the mint in Vienna, Austria.
fol. 50 D3-8. You say. All 6 designs were struck by the Hangchow mint. Am not so sure, as possibly they were produced at Nanking in the first half of 1929, before the conflagration there.
fol. 56 E3-1......in honor of Li Yuan Hung on his election, Soochow mint did like honor to Governor Chen by making a memento of the same pattern. This means: of the Li Yuan Hung pattern, which, of course is incorrect, as it shows the portrait of Cheng Tah-Chuang.
fol. 56 E3-3 Unquestionably a mint sport.
fol. 60 5 and 10 cents nickel. Should read 1909, and not 1907.
fol. 64 G1-6, 2 cents aluminium.You say: widely circulated. Actually this coin never was in circulation. When I left Shanghai it cost from $20 to 30 each. May be, it dropped in price, yet it never was circulating.
fol. 60 FI-22 2 cts nickel. Same is a mint sport and should not be recorded.
The foregoing appear to me at first glance as errors or omissions. They ought to be rectified at the next edition. Possibly there are other stakes which, if detected, will be reported later on.
Kann
I wrote to Mr. E. Placht, Vienna, in February 1950, regarding the origin of the bigger size Sun Yat-sen dollar, 40mm in diameter, instead of 39mm, in your catalogue D3-2. Mr. Placht answers me in unequivocal terms, that he positively never made such a coin. To my mind there is no mystery extent, for the master die was shipped by Vienna to Nanking, and in the Nanking mint, where 480 specimens of D3-5 were struck, they also made one or more trial pieces, exactly the name in every respect, but with 1 mm larger margin. This is the authentic solution of “a very rare coin”. It was repeatedly offered to me at Shanghai, but I never falt like worth buying it.
E.K.
fol.9 A6-1 Yuan Shih-kai gold coin without value. Obverse the 10 cts silver piece; reverse fancy dragon. Either bogus, or mint sport.
fol.10 A9-1 20$ gold, weight 14 grams
10 $ ” ” 7 ”.
When weighed at Shanghai I found 8.8 grams and 4.5 grams. Which is correct?
fol.64 G1-2 1 cent aluminium coin of 1939. You say: A large number of issues. I consider this was an essay piece only and not circulated at all. It is a rare coin.
On page 59 you say that government regulations regarding nickels were published in June 1927. I thought I possessed all regulations re nickel coins, but I never heard of those of June 1927. Surely you do not mean the Kemmerer Report [肯默勒報告] published in 1929? If I am wrong, may I ask for the favor of the entire wording of those 1927 regulations? And where were they published?
fol. 59 F1-1: You say: Made from early Austrian dies. This is incorrect. All nickels with letter “A”(120 million pieces) were struck in Vienna (Austria), and none were produced in China. On the contrary, the bulk of the “A” coins(100 pure nickel) was melted up in China.
Note: Which Catalog?
1716 Gouldin Road Oakland 11, Calif
30 April, 1950
30 April, 1950
Dear Mr. Kann:
Yours of the 27th with several enclosures received, and am glad to learn that you at long last received the circular from Wong. If I had any idea that you would not have received it more promptly I certainly would not have sent it by him, but at the time I was just up and about in the hospital and did not know that I would be going home at once and would feel well enough to write letters. I trust that it will be a good lead for you in getting a printer to do your book. At least I’ll know better next time, as I should know by now that Chinese are notoriously negligent about being prompt in such matters.
Am very glad to receive the prints of the Tai-ping gold coins. These are the first I have seen, altho I have know of their existence from reading any for some time. It is regrettable that the photographic work on this piece is so poor that it necessitated hand work in the outlining of the characters are incused on this piece by hand similarly to the larger silver piece which I have in my collection.
I have not heard from Keefer for some time, and conclude that he must have one back to the hospital again for a 3rd operation, as in his last letter he mentioned as having had only two. I hope that he is successful in recovering from the effects of his malady and that the fully recover his health. Ritchie had a long letter from him some time ago in which he want to great length to describe the radical treatment in the hospital, which I read. He appears to enjoy telling of the details about its effects on him.
Also many thanks for the summary of the errors in Shih’s book Ritchie showed me your notes, but I now see that you have somewhat amplified them. Am making use of your notes to correct the errors in my copy of his book.
Thanks for your information about the Shanghai tael. There is one point about these issues which perhaps you can clear up for me without reference to the photos, if you happen to have your specimens at home. It is with regard to the reading on the edges of the 1 and 1/2 tael pieces. In the 1 tael piece which I have the angular pattern of the reeding measure 3mm or 1/4 from one pattern to the adjoining one. The question is, they made by means of a separate device with different measurements? I have information as, to how these meandering lines were put on the coins, which was written by an Englishman at the time they were made, and I should like to determine if the device for putting them on the coins was used for both sizes, or if they had two devices with different with different size patterns for the two sizes of coins.
Have noted your remarks regarding the authority of the 1/2 tael piece which I have, and must agree that there is a good deal in what you say. However, the means of placing the reeding on the coin is identical with the method in the original, tho I note that there are slight differences in the manner of the writing of some of the characters from the J type which Woodward illustrates.
I have discovered that the 1 tael piece which I have, which is Woodward’s type A, is the identical piece which J. Schulman [索赫爾曼] sold in his auction sale 19 January 1931 as lot 1418. Here it was in somewhat bad company as the dollar-sized coins which are illustrated as lots 1427, 1433, 1434 and 1438 are fakes. There were, however, some good coins too among which were the two Peking 10&20 pieces in lot 1426; the Pei Yang and Mu Pu taels as lots 1425 and 1421; and an 18th year essay of the SYS $ as lot 1435.
I was able to identify my piece with the illustration in the catalog by men as of several nicks on the edges which conform exactly with the photograph. Interesting, but of no great importance!
The several enclosures which you mention in your letter were not enclosed, so I conclude that you must have sent them separately, but have not yet come to hand.
Am glad to hear the favorable report of the Vienna transaction, but deplore the loss of the one coin. I guess it is remarkable that so many of them came thru OK, what with all the inspections and other red tape entailed in obtaining them.
Yesterday I received from a Hongkong correspondent a lot of 62 rubbings of coins which are for sale in Shanghai at a price of the coins of Sinkiang and Tibet. They are of silver, copper and lead, and some I have never seen before. The lead ones are of the cash variety. As he has asked for the return of the rubbings, Ritchie and I are going to try to make some contact prints of the rubbings by the reflex method, for which we have some paper, and if they turn out successfully we will send you a set. However, it will be a few days until we can make them. Of the Tibetan pieces, one corresponding to Walsh’s Kong-bo mint [康保鑄幣廠] plate III no.4 as regards the date is entirely a different die. This piece conforms closely to Lacouperie’s [拉克伯裡] number 2, but is different markedly on the reverse, and seems to be dated 13/47, altho the last or lower characters of the date do not conform to the typical characters given in the text, but perhaps the last figure is intended for the 6 and not the 7.
The other specimen is particularly interesting, as the obverse conforms in general to the Kong-bo type, excepting that only the character for 1 is made conventionally and I have been unable to determine what the other 3 are, but the reverse is not even remotely similar to the Kong-bo reverses but is somewhat like the other Tibetah coins minted by Nepal, see plate IV(A) no.7 of Walsh. The 3rd piece has the obverse of the same type, but the other side is similar to the reverse of the Kong-bo mint. Altogether, a very interesting lot.
With reference to your list of corrections for Shih’s book, I cannot agree with your note on C2-2. To me C2-2 is supposed to be the same as C2-3. Shih obtained the latter coin from me and at the time I gave him a photostat of Bushell’s [布謝爾] notes on this coin which were published in the Journal of the NCBRAS (皇家亞洲學會華北分會) in vol. XXXII which states definitely that it was struck in Lanchow. Attention is invited to the fact that the reverse of C2-2 is similar to the reverse of C2-3, excepting that the positions are reversed. Bushell places the reverse in a position 90 degrees from that given by Shih’s pictures with the 5 dots at the top, and as he could read Turki it is believed that this is the correct position. Personally I cannot see where the character even looks like the Turki character for Kashgar, and anyhow at the time Tso Tsung-t’ang [左宗棠] minted them in Lanchow he was some years away from the conquest of Kashgar and at least a thousand miles. What Shih has in C2-2 is an leaden imitation of C2-3, the actual coin. The latter is struck in silver, while the former is a cast piece, an imitation and not a pattern.
Sorry to hear that your status here is doubtful. Perhaps with the expiration of time new rulings will be made which will include you. Guess that’s about all for the present. With best regards.
Yours very truly,
F. Bowkerr
Note: Bowker summarizes the Taiping gold coin is incuse like the silver cashes.
Bowker sold Shih a coin, apparently K1000.
Yours of the 27th with several enclosures received, and am glad to learn that you at long last received the circular from Wong. If I had any idea that you would not have received it more promptly I certainly would not have sent it by him, but at the time I was just up and about in the hospital and did not know that I would be going home at once and would feel well enough to write letters. I trust that it will be a good lead for you in getting a printer to do your book. At least I’ll know better next time, as I should know by now that Chinese are notoriously negligent about being prompt in such matters.
Am very glad to receive the prints of the Tai-ping gold coins. These are the first I have seen, altho I have know of their existence from reading any for some time. It is regrettable that the photographic work on this piece is so poor that it necessitated hand work in the outlining of the characters are incused on this piece by hand similarly to the larger silver piece which I have in my collection.
I have not heard from Keefer for some time, and conclude that he must have one back to the hospital again for a 3rd operation, as in his last letter he mentioned as having had only two. I hope that he is successful in recovering from the effects of his malady and that the fully recover his health. Ritchie had a long letter from him some time ago in which he want to great length to describe the radical treatment in the hospital, which I read. He appears to enjoy telling of the details about its effects on him.
Also many thanks for the summary of the errors in Shih’s book Ritchie showed me your notes, but I now see that you have somewhat amplified them. Am making use of your notes to correct the errors in my copy of his book.
Thanks for your information about the Shanghai tael. There is one point about these issues which perhaps you can clear up for me without reference to the photos, if you happen to have your specimens at home. It is with regard to the reading on the edges of the 1 and 1/2 tael pieces. In the 1 tael piece which I have the angular pattern of the reeding measure 3mm or 1/4 from one pattern to the adjoining one. The question is, they made by means of a separate device with different measurements? I have information as, to how these meandering lines were put on the coins, which was written by an Englishman at the time they were made, and I should like to determine if the device for putting them on the coins was used for both sizes, or if they had two devices with different with different size patterns for the two sizes of coins.
Have noted your remarks regarding the authority of the 1/2 tael piece which I have, and must agree that there is a good deal in what you say. However, the means of placing the reeding on the coin is identical with the method in the original, tho I note that there are slight differences in the manner of the writing of some of the characters from the J type which Woodward illustrates.
I have discovered that the 1 tael piece which I have, which is Woodward’s type A, is the identical piece which J. Schulman [索赫爾曼] sold in his auction sale 19 January 1931 as lot 1418. Here it was in somewhat bad company as the dollar-sized coins which are illustrated as lots 1427, 1433, 1434 and 1438 are fakes. There were, however, some good coins too among which were the two Peking 10&20 pieces in lot 1426; the Pei Yang and Mu Pu taels as lots 1425 and 1421; and an 18th year essay of the SYS $ as lot 1435.
I was able to identify my piece with the illustration in the catalog by men as of several nicks on the edges which conform exactly with the photograph. Interesting, but of no great importance!
The several enclosures which you mention in your letter were not enclosed, so I conclude that you must have sent them separately, but have not yet come to hand.
Am glad to hear the favorable report of the Vienna transaction, but deplore the loss of the one coin. I guess it is remarkable that so many of them came thru OK, what with all the inspections and other red tape entailed in obtaining them.
Yesterday I received from a Hongkong correspondent a lot of 62 rubbings of coins which are for sale in Shanghai at a price of the coins of Sinkiang and Tibet. They are of silver, copper and lead, and some I have never seen before. The lead ones are of the cash variety. As he has asked for the return of the rubbings, Ritchie and I are going to try to make some contact prints of the rubbings by the reflex method, for which we have some paper, and if they turn out successfully we will send you a set. However, it will be a few days until we can make them. Of the Tibetan pieces, one corresponding to Walsh’s Kong-bo mint [康保鑄幣廠] plate III no.4 as regards the date is entirely a different die. This piece conforms closely to Lacouperie’s [拉克伯裡] number 2, but is different markedly on the reverse, and seems to be dated 13/47, altho the last or lower characters of the date do not conform to the typical characters given in the text, but perhaps the last figure is intended for the 6 and not the 7.
The other specimen is particularly interesting, as the obverse conforms in general to the Kong-bo type, excepting that only the character for 1 is made conventionally and I have been unable to determine what the other 3 are, but the reverse is not even remotely similar to the Kong-bo reverses but is somewhat like the other Tibetah coins minted by Nepal, see plate IV(A) no.7 of Walsh. The 3rd piece has the obverse of the same type, but the other side is similar to the reverse of the Kong-bo mint. Altogether, a very interesting lot.
With reference to your list of corrections for Shih’s book, I cannot agree with your note on C2-2. To me C2-2 is supposed to be the same as C2-3. Shih obtained the latter coin from me and at the time I gave him a photostat of Bushell’s [布謝爾] notes on this coin which were published in the Journal of the NCBRAS (皇家亞洲學會華北分會) in vol. XXXII which states definitely that it was struck in Lanchow. Attention is invited to the fact that the reverse of C2-2 is similar to the reverse of C2-3, excepting that the positions are reversed. Bushell places the reverse in a position 90 degrees from that given by Shih’s pictures with the 5 dots at the top, and as he could read Turki it is believed that this is the correct position. Personally I cannot see where the character even looks like the Turki character for Kashgar, and anyhow at the time Tso Tsung-t’ang [左宗棠] minted them in Lanchow he was some years away from the conquest of Kashgar and at least a thousand miles. What Shih has in C2-2 is an leaden imitation of C2-3, the actual coin. The latter is struck in silver, while the former is a cast piece, an imitation and not a pattern.
Sorry to hear that your status here is doubtful. Perhaps with the expiration of time new rulings will be made which will include you. Guess that’s about all for the present. With best regards.
Yours very truly,
F. Bowkerr
Note: Bowker summarizes the Taiping gold coin is incuse like the silver cashes.
Bowker sold Shih a coin, apparently K1000.