In response to John Kleeberg's comments on the passing of Theodore V. "Ted" Buttrey and their conflict with John J. Ford over the fake Western Assay Bars, allow me to add some sidebar content.First, it is just as common to honor the dead as it is to scorn the fallen who cannot defend themselves. I point out that John J. Ford was one of the founders of the Numismatic BibliomaniaSociety.

John Kleeberg wrote: "Clyde Hubbard tried to get Margo Russell to publish Ted's paper [condemning the fake Mexican shipwreck gold bars] in Coin World, but Ford threatened litigation. AsTom Delorey said to me, 'Margo Russell was impossible to buffalo - but Ford buffaloed Margo.' "(E-Sylum Volume 21, Number 04, January 28, 2018.)

I had a similar experience when I worked at Coin World in 2000 at the time of the so-called "Great Debate" between Michael Hodder on behalf of Ford and Buttrey on behalf of Eric P. Newman.Beth Deisher permitted no criticism of John J. Ford, not just in print, but verbally in the office. She only spoke well and highly of him. Whether he really had her charmed or not is an openquestion. When I came on board in April 1999, Coin World had just gotten through a lawsuit by some dealer who claimed that they were out to get him; and he had all of the notebooks of thereporters seized as evidence. That really put a damper on discussions about people and personalities. So, maybe Beth Deisher was not so much buffaloed by John J. Ford as Amos Press was averse torisk.

But Stuart Segan and I would go out in the back lot behind a storage shed and smoke cigarettes. Segan was the Trends (pricing) editor. Like me, he did not have a college degree in journalism. Hisbachelor's was in physics from U. Cal. Berkeley, home of berkelium, californium, and americium. He handed me the Clifford Sale Catalog and told me to approach the problem like a scientist. Given thisempirical evidence, what theory could you construct? We argued it out for weeks before and after the Great Debate. Segan eventually wore me down: no theory could be constructed because the evidenceshowed no pattern. "In other words," he said, "none is genuine." He had other arguments but we kept it all to ourselves.

Although I was the International editor, managing editor William T. Gibbs assigned me challenging feature articles in American numismatics to widen my knowledge base. One of those was on the 1876Centennial "celebration" issues, the copies, restrikes, and re-creations of colonial and early Federal coins. Montroville Dickeson was perhaps the leading numismatist of the time mostenthusiastically issuing such "celebrations."

I was told to call John J. Ford and to interview him as an expert. It has been a long time now, but as best I recall, he said that no one should be fooled by the issues of 1876, as they lookcompletely different from the originals. "Not to me," I demurred. Ford replied (and I do remember this well): "If you cannot tell the difference between 19th century die work and 18th century diework, you have no business at that desk." A few weeks later, I left Coin World and returned to writing technical documentation for Verizon, Honda, and others.

Just to note: I did not leave only because of Ford, but he and his status symbolized much that is wrong. We speak of people in denial ignoring "the elephant in the room." American numismatics is ahouse with many such rooms. Trying to understand Western Assay Bars and 19th century die work, I read every book in the Coin World library on California fractional gold dollars. I finallybought one coin that I regarded as genuine.

Segan asked me, "Who owns the dies now?"

To read the earlier E-Sylum article, see:
KLEEBERG ON TED BUTTREY VS. JOHN FORD (http://www.coinbooks.org/v21/esylum_v21n04a15.html)