President Lincoln, shown here on a 1918 commemorative half dollar, wrote his own speeches.

It is quite curious that American citizens, including political analysts and newscasters, often take speeches at face value. Never mind that they may not be original at all, but in many instances are done by hired writers. Take for example Sarah Palin in the recent memorable election campaign. When she gave her own remarks, as to Katie Couric on CBS, one could get an idea of what Mrs. Palin was really like. Enter real politics, and speech writers were assigned to her. Ronald Reagan, who was perfectly capable of enunciating his own thoughts, relied heavily on speechwriters, as have all modern presidents and, presumably, many unsuccessful candidates as well.

Apparently, a good speech equates to a good man (or woman) in office, or seeking office.

This makes one wonder whether we should elect a speech-writer rather than a speech-giver!

We should mention that President Abraham Lincoln prepared his own speeches. It is probably nice that the Gettysburg Address was not written by someone else.

One nice thing about numismatics is that when you hear a talk, ranging from an informal chat at a coin club, to a Numismatic Theatre presentation at an American Numismatic Association Convention, the words you hear are real. If Bill Fivaz, Scott Travers, Mary Counts, David Hall, or any other speaker, gives a presentation, it is the real thing-not something written out by an anonymous person.

It is not that speech writers are entirely absent in our hobby. Or at least, ghost writers have been around for a long time. Walter Breen ghost-wrote an article for R.S. Yeoman, on the 1848 CAL. quarter eagle, that was published in The Numismatist and earned Yeoman a Heath Literary Award. ANA Executive Director Bob Leuver ghost-wrote some "letters from the president" published in the same magazine.

Returning to politics for a moment, it seems that candidates are supposed to have positions on everything.

If someone asks, "What do you think of Mt. Pinatubo in connection with Al Gore's program?" a ready answer should be on hand, or else the media might condemn the candidate as being downright stupid.

In actuality, a better answer might be, "I'm not familiar with the mountain you mentioned, but I'll have a staffer check it out, and I will learn at the same time you will-as I'll e-mail you a response," or similar.

Accurate, inaccurate, based on facts, or simply an on-the-spot lie-an answer must be given.

The system seems to work. Politicians can say whatever they want, then tomorrow change their mind. They'll get criticized for this, of course, but as both sides of the contest usually do it, the result is a cancellation or standoff.

Can you imagine what it would be like if you went to a numismatic lecture and heard a distinguished student discuss a favorite topic, only to find out that the same program given by the same student a week later contained a different set of "facts" and opinions? The person would not have much credibility.

This is not to say that politicians or anyone else should speak with scientific accuracy. This is nice, but not often obtainable. However, everyone should be "real." If a candidate speaks, the candidate can give an opinion that he or she has, in his or her own words-not somebody else's opinion in someone else's words. And, "I don't know, but I'll check," is perfectly acceptable.

Numismatics in comparison to politics is indeed real. And this is nice for all of us.

The annual convention of the American Numismatic Association was held in Omaha in 1955. I was there, and it was my first, although I had attended other shows -mostly those of the Empire State Numismatic Association (ESNA).

Back in 1955, I was fairly well steeped in numismatic tradition, through reading, hardly by first-hand experience. I had only been a coin collector since 1952, although I could say and pronounce numismatist correctly. With a limited budget, I mainly collected coins from circulation at the outset, and concentrated on building a numismatic library.

As strange as this may seem today, in the early 1950s, scarcely anyone was interested in collecting old coin books, magazines, and catalogues. Members of the Wilkes-Barre (Pennsylvania) Coin Club, on learning my interest, deluged me with piles of copies of The Numismatist, The Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, and auction catalogues.

Concerning the latter, the only one that seemed to have any particular value, perhaps a few dollars, was the 1941 presentation by B. Max Mehl of the William F. Dunham Collection. Others, dating back to the previous century, were of little or no commercial value.

By 1955, I had developed a number of different specialties. I had an active business in buying and selling pattern coins in an era in which these were a niche at best, and most dealers did not handle them at all. I also enjoyed colonials and collected copper coins of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, staying away from New Jersey coppers as my fine friend Jim Ruddy collected those. Anything else, such as Massachusetts Pine Tree shillings, for example, was way out of financial reach.

Somehow, probably through corresponding about patterns and colonial coins, my image as a buyer far exceeded my financial resources. Many people thought I could write a check for whatever I saw, but this was hardly the truth. To buy one coin, I usually had to sell another!

Numismatics was a wonderful hobby then, as it is now. Investors mainly concentrated on bank wrapped rolls and Proof sets, forming a division or niche in the field, but not driving it. The main buyers of coins did so for their collection, and the word investment was hardly ever heard. However, it was a given -just about everyone knew that a fine collection, carefully gathered, would do well upon its sale.

Returning to the 1955 story, at the convention in Omaha, the bourse was in the grand ballroom of the Fontenelle Hotel, a drafty old place with its own charm. Cincinnati dealer Sol Kaplan a