Did You Know: Those Marvelous(?), Wonderful(?) Adjectives!

By Q. David Bowers, Chairman Emeritus

A few years ago in an issue of e-Sylum, the weekly web letter conducted by Wayne Homren for the Numismatic Bibliomania Society, our long-time friend and highly-respected numismatic literature dealer and publisher Charles Davis submitted this, after reading one of our June catalogues:

“Question: What is significant about the following words? satiny, elusive, enigmatic, attractive, extraordinary, lustrous, classic, intriguing, stately, amazingly rare, pleasing, incredible, awesome, impressive, nice, distinctive, exemplary, celebrated, splendid, popular, famous, desirable, remarkable, compelling, lovely, dazzling, sparkling, satisfying, fascinating, extraordinary, dramatic, landmark, outstanding, exciting, unusual, appealing, and important.”

“Answer: They are just some of the hollow modifiers gleaned from the headlines of the latest Stack’s catalogue. The last one is my favorite. I do not see a coin as being ‘important.’ A cure for cancer is important, but we take ourselves a little too seriously to consider a coin important. Significant yes, but not important. And notice that the word significant is missing from the above list.”

Charlie went on to point out the perceived overuse of adjectives by other companies, suggesting the matter had been going on ever since a particularly ‘nauseating’ catalogue was published by a Midwest dealer in 1984, down to the latest production of a company with offices in Europe and America.

There is no doubt that if such adjectives were omitted from numismatic headlines and, for good measure, text as well, this would be a great “green” move, as paper would be saved, and nearly all numismatic publications from Coin World to Numismatic News to the next Stack’s Bowers Galleries catalogue now in progress would be much smaller. Ditto for the catalogs of our worthy competitors.

Methinks that, for example, a seldom-seen Machin’s Mills halfpenny could indeed be called unusual, that an 1804 dollar is certainly celebrated, and that the first appearance of a variety in many years can be deemed an extraordinary event. A coin can be important in my opinion, perhaps this being the same as significant (an adjective not used in the catalog cited). And so on. I like adjectives. The more the better, as long as they are relevant (which I admit is a consideration that may differ from reader to reader). Adjectiveless narratives and listings, such as Form 10-K reports of publicly-traded companies, or schedules of oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, or DEA seizures are not the sort of thing I would read unless I have to.

Moreover, if Stack’s Bowers Galleries (or any other numismatic auction house) were to eliminate the seemingly superfluous adjectives from headlines, no one except Charles Davis would consign to us.

If I were to describe Charles, a fine acquaintance for many years and the cataloguer of the Armand Champa Collection of numismatic literature when it was consigned to us in the 1990s, I would call him an outstanding writer and an extraordinary researcher. I lift a glass to his continued success. Or, deleting adjectives he doesn’t like, I could call him “a writer and researcher.” Doesn’t quite seem the same!

But, one great thing about numismatics is that we can all have our opinions and express them.