When Does A Researching Collector Become An "Expert"?

Well the experts on experts say 10K hours is the magic line to cross. Of course, most are self proclaimed.

Apparently as soon as they join a group on Facebook.

I think your question is both hard and easy. In the easy front, Once someone is published they are IMO an expert.

But the question is also hard. As one can be an expert on certain types of coins for example and still not be considered an expert in the field. Many of the error collectors on here know more about modern errors but they aren't published and many would have a hard time telling a IHC proof from a non proof.
Só the question of being an expert is loaded. An expert in what?

"Expert" is in the eye of the beholder.
Ever since a colleague of mine has found out I collect coins, she now - once in a while - asks me for advice. Mainly related to the fact that they've inherited a large Morgan dollar coin collection and have no clue about it.

To me, the difference between "being an expert" and "being well researched and knowledgeable" is that proven capacity to share that knowledge. But "getting published" is a somewhat 20th century standard; nobody publishes books these days, and "publishing" online is perhaps a bit too easy; the reason why disinformation is so prevalent is because there's no "universal panel of experts" moderating the entire Internet and deleting wrong or outdated information.

So to me, the key to "being an expert" is not just "knowledge sharing", but recognition by others that what you share is correct and beneficial. That might be through old-fashioned book publishing or research collaboration, it might be going onto a bunch of Internet forums, it might be by other means.

Do people come to you for help? Do people buy your books because those books have your name on them? Do people ask for you, by name, at coin clubs, or on Internet forums, or at the academic level, for your assistance in checking over certain coins? Do lawyers ask to you testify in court as an "expert witness"? Then congratulations, you're an "expert".

An expert, ideally, will have both the humility, and sufficient self-awareness, to know their own limitations and to not pretend to be an expert in areas where they know their knowledge is deficient. Unfortunately, experts are all human. "Expert over-reach" is a considerable problem in modern society. We even have a word for when somebody speaks confidently as an expert, when their actual expertise is lacking: "hubris".

Great summation.

One issue with becoming an expert in coins I've found is how challenging it is to find published books, especially regarding world coins. There are many books out there that previous collectors or experts have written where there just aren't many copies available. Perhaps 1-2 copies come up for sale every few months or per year, and some books might have been written in a foreign language. It's extremely frustrating, as good knowledge creates appropriate valuations.

Another issue with world coins that I've noticed is that two experts might describe a particular coin or series in ways that contradict each other. I've noticed Stack's and Heritage have different descriptions for the same coin in their catalog descriptions over the years. It's very important to do the right homework.

I can understand why big time collectors and investors would want to keep information private though. It pays to look for information and do the research, which in the long run will help to tell me if a coin I find is overvalued or undervalued, especially if I come across something truly special that no one else sees. Any time invested should in the long run pay off. Hunting for those hidden gems is the fun part of the hobby.

My big question though regarding expertise in numismatics is whether someone can claim to be an expert if they haven't actually held or seen the coin in person. Is handling only one coin good enough, or do collectors have to see many different examples to be qualified in being called an expert? Unfortunately, for some series, there just aren't many examples left to study, or they can be quite expensive or challenging to acquire.

This thread has been an interesting read for me. My brain went the publishing route as well.




I'd like to propose a middle ground here—publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.