NathanB

Love the funny gif's and the great energy here, Ryro! Glad you got a coin that brings you such joy.

Hey, Kali, you did indeed post some terrific humour, and I do not believe for one minute that you had any nefarious motives in doing so. So to see my comments must have been a very unpleasant shock. Unfortunately, in a world of countless memes, I do think it's important for people to know the origins of this particular set of characters. So although I think it's important that people understand the origins of the Wojak memes, I do feel bad for raining on your parade, as it were. Your numismatic humour was both very creative and truly hilarious. Also, I do enjoy all your contributions on this forum.

Just to clarify, I agree that innocent things can be co-opted by extremist groups, as is the case with Pepe the frog. However, in the case of the Wojak memes, the opposite has occurred. These memes got their start in the alt-right, but are now widely used by people who do not know their origins. When I first saw the "Chad" character many months ago, I could see its origin very clearly just in its basic design, and that is what motivated me to bother to research these memes, which I later learned were called Wojak memes.

Hi Donna! To answer your question, I don't know. But about the Pepe meme, I think the blogpost kind of elided over its use. I don't think this was to minimize or justify that usage--I think the writer was essentially assuming that their readers were all fully-versed in why that meme had become so objectionable. So as I read it, the article is saying, "look, here's a meme element with an innocent core that has been co-opted by extremist groups. Now here's another meme element with even worse origins." For the record, while I can't stand either set of memes, the OP's numismatic humour was genuinely funny.

Ah-ha! Found it--a blog post I read some months ago, from none other than the truly hilarious "Classical Memes for Hellenistic Teens." https://csmfht.substack.com/p/why-i-wont-post-wojak-memes The post still leaves some unanswered questions, but it's worth reading. Note that all my comments about these "Wojak" memes that I dislike so much apply to the memes themselves, and not to those who unknowingly use them.

The particular characters in this meme (and in many others) always strike me as somehow related to white supremacy. Does anyone know anything about their origin? I love memes, but I will never bite if I see these characters.

It is important to remember that there is no single objective version of history that is completely factually true and truly exhaustive. Everyone has an agenda, and everyone has biases--whether they realize them or not. Cassius Dio? Agenda: to make his patrons look good! Plutarch? To make moral judgments and inferences about character. Thucydides: besides demonstrating a more rigorous way of writing history, to show how the war between Athens and Sparta was "a great war, and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it." Caesar? To win fame and glory for himself and put his spin on how the West--er, Gaul--was won. (Of course, I do greatly simplify here.) To use these kinds of primary sources, we have to read them critically. A historian who uses primary sources in this way can write a history. The history that that historian relates will concern itself with the issues and agendas that that historian has. In the past, such histories often concerned themselves with "great men." (Indeed, I still have on my shelves my childhood books like 100 Great Kings, Queens, and Rulers of the World, and Augustus Caesar's World. As an adult, I actually worked my way through the entirety of the Folio Society's 8 volume edition of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And since it has been about 25 years since, I need to return to it!) More recent historians have sought to look at not the great men, but ordinary people. How did they live? What were they like? How did they interpret the world around them? What were the currents that produced the evolutions and sudden changes of the times? Then there are the various "isms"--Marxists would look at history and produce narratives about the evils of capitalism and the necessity for revolution. The Freudians took to history their psycho-analytic approach. Queer theory has looked at treatment of homosexuality, gender, and so on. An author might even study the same history and write more than one history! Nowadays, Mary Beard's book Emperor of Rome is getting talked about. But she also wrote SPQR earlier, with a very different agenda. (I haven't read the former, but heartily recommend the latter!) History from the very beginning was always being written and rewritten according to the agendas and biases of the writers. Although I haven't been a Christian for many years, I still think C.S. Lewis's essay "On the Reading of Old Books" is useful here in pointing out one thing. Lewis wrote, if you were forced to read only one kind of books, past, present, or future, you obviously couldn't read the books of the future. He suggested that--if you were forced to choose only one--you should read the books of the past rather than those of the present. Why? Because the past writers would not make the same kinds of mistakes that modern writers make. Lewis's idea wasn't that past writers were better, or that modern writers made too many mistakes, or even that one shouldn't read current books. Rather, he was saying that it's easier to spot the biases of past ages than to spot those of our own that we are accustomed to. Nowadays, we have many more ways of writing history than existed in Lewis's day. Each brings something to the table. I would submit that we have something to learn from all the ways that history has been told over the ages (even if at times we are learning in spite of a writer rather than because of them!). To really understand the past, we need to read widely, both in terms of primary sources and histories that use them. We might have our own preferences about the kinds of history we think are most accurate, or the kinds that are the most enjoyable to read, but we simply can't say that the questions that we want asked are the only ones that could be asked, or should be asked.

The thing about bullion is that it can be sold for the dealer's precious metal value only. If an ancient gold coin is worth more than a little more as a collectible than as bullion, then the dealer runs the risk of future possible tax penalties if it is listed as bullion.

That is a wonderful idea, and I think it's worth pursuing. I also think asking here is a good idea, too. That said, I think it's important to specify a price, and also a time range. How much money are you willing to spend? Also, do you have time to wait for a special coin at auction, or do you need to buy it quickly? The answers to these two questions will directly affect your options and the ability of others to give you good advice. As far as my proverbial two cents' worth, I always think a good gift for a good friend would be a coin from Augustus' or Tiberius's reign celebrating Agrippa. The only reason our second summer month is named after Augustus is because in Agrippa he had the support of a highly intelligent, incredibly loyal ally and champion. Here's an image of a coin-type that--if it were available--would be *waaay* too much for me. But it may not be too much for you. The picture below is courtesy of the Former Place from which we all came: The motif of hands clasped in a handshake is also a nice one. Here's one from Vcoins: Another consideration is this: what kinds of interests does your friend have? That could also come into play. I think my only hard and fast rule here would be this: give a coin with good eye appeal. It might be VF and have very good eye appeal. On the other hand, it might be heavily worn, with many problems, but because it is so scarce and in such high demand, it could be relatively expensive. Unless there is a very particular piece that your friend is after, I would say to take that money and spend it instead on a less rare coin with eye appeal. Finally, because you are putting thought and feelings into this, I think that the coin that you decide on will be a suitable gift for your friend, who will look at it as a symbol of your friendship. I hope you will show it to us once you've purchased it.

ϜΘΦ! 😂

I used to work in a coin shop that saw a lot of modern fakes. US "seated Liberty" dollars were one of the most common ones. Most of the fakes were pretty bad and I could tell by sight. Regardless of the skill involved, the weight would often be way off. In this case, nothing in the pictures makes me question the coin. That said, I would recommend getting a small scale. You can pick them up very cheaply on Amazon. That, and buying from reputable dealers, should keep you pretty safe.

You mis-named the thread. "Max Thrax Pax." There. Fixed it for you! 😉 Sorry, I just couldn't resist! As for the issue itself, I hope your "R" is just a fibre in a randomly weird position.

Badly Behaved Butting Bovine Bull Basileos Bronze Seleucus I Nikator, AE 18 mm. (If you think it has bronze disease, by the way, let me know!)

Thank you! I figured it had something to do with that part of the body, but both my guesses were wrong.

Anyone know what the meaning is for the word "piles" in the article? I can't make any sense out of it.

@CPK, Congratulations on your catch! I am very much with you on how (deservedly) iconic this coin is. I would love to have one, but can't afford one for the foreseeable future. I also feel exactly the same about Eukratides' tetradrachms and drachms. Another reason I particularly like the Lysimachos reverse is because it was so clearly an inspiration for the Seated Britannia of older English penny fame.

Nice coin! Completely unrelated, but @David Atherton, I saw this Lord of the Rings cat meme recently and thought of your avatar:

I read your first sentence and smiled. 🙂 Yes, I know that you were not comparing repatriating worthless antiquities to genocide. You were essentially trying to prove if my "we should respect people who try to make ethical decisions even if those ethical decisions don't produce results we like" could really hold water. And indeed, if we push it to include extreme cases, it does not. But my point wasn't that we must always and in each case respect all decisions made with reference to ethics, from returning worthless things to plotting genocide, but rather, that in ordinary situations--the kind we all face from day to day--it is in general a good thing if we respect it when someone else tries to do the right thing. Regarding the virtue signaling/moral grandstanding, it honestly doesn't bother me. Preachers in church, imams in mosques, politicians at rallies, opinionated managers, random internet personalities--at some point many of us are trying to persuade others that a particular way is better than another way. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. And sometimes such persuasion is done for the right reasons, sometimes for the wrong, and other times for a mix of motives. But regardless, I just don't get offended by whatever it is that we might call moral grandstanding or virtue signaling. It's not something I concern myself with. Regarding the other repatriation stories you mentioned, without having seen them, I can't really comment. But in general, when a small person makes a small gesture, they don't really seek out fame and glory. It is more likely that they will be used as pawns by more powerful institutions, such governments like Italy. In other words, in those cases, too, I think it's more likely that the media have been contacted by academic or diplomatic staff rather than by little people returning things. About your final paragraph, I'm not sure that this individual did suppose that his antiquities were of much worth as the article doesn't address this point. Similarly, I don't see this guy claiming that any antiquities outside a country of origin were illegally obtained. He was afraid that his antiquities were improperly removed from Italy. He thought that they had been sold at an outdoor market in Naples, and since he grew up in Italy and accompanied his father around there, it seems that he thought his dad bought them in good faith, and transported them out of the country in good faith. One thing that did surprise me was that he said he thought his dad had no idea of the age of the artefacts; similarly, he thought his dad would support him returning them. I find it unlikely that his father did not have at least a rough idea of the age of the items he purchased. And since they were purchased in a very different era, I don't have any way of knowing if his father (if he were alive) would want him to return them or not. It seems kind of counterintuitive, though. Where I think you and I both share concern is with these various agreements made by the State Department with governments like Italy and Turkey, who claim that antiquities manufactured in their historic lands should be returned to them, regardless of where they were found. For instance, a Greek coin minted in Asia Minor that circulated around the Mediterranean and ended up in, say, Tunisia--that coin to me would fall under the purview of the laws in Tunisia and not the laws of Turkey. Similarly, a Roman coin minted in Italy that ended up in Great Britain should be governed by British laws on exporting and so on rather than by Italy's. In my opinion, for countries like Italy and Greece and Turkey to claim these coins that were found outside their borders is not only completely absurd (for a variety of reasons), it's also unfair to the countries in which the artefacts ended up prior to being found.

You make a good point about much evil being done by people who thought they had good ethical reasons for doing it.* But at the same time, much good has been done by people who thought they had good ethical reasons for doing so. In this particular case, I don't think bringing up people who have committed atrocities is even remotely an appropriate analogy. The guy returned some nearly worthless antiquities to Italy; its not like he set the stage for genocide or something. I also disagree with your comment about virtue-signaling, for two reasons. First, it is entirely possible that the media was alerted to this by staff at an Italian embassy or consulate, or by a university department somewhere, rather than by this guy himself. In that case, perhaps he was simply persuaded that he was doing even more of the right thing. Second, your point about virtue signaling applies to yourself, too: you literally posted your opinion on a social media page that has like buttons on it. Frankly, the whole concept of "virtue-signaling" seems to be to be of nearly no usefulness. First, the usage is almost entirely on the right side of the political spectrum. To those outside that point of view, the term sounds kind of like the language of a cult. Second, it always shows both a judgmentalness and a corresponding assumption that one is making about the motivations of another. I'm not comfortable making those assumptions about people I don't know at all when there are other explanations that don't impugn their character. As for what this fellow did, honestly, I don't feel threatened by it. They were his antiquities to do with what he thought best. He made what he thought was the right call, even if I don't think that call was necessary. It's honestly not that big a deal. No need to get one's knickers in a knot. 🙂 -- *Having said that, a lot of people are willing to fool themselves into thinking they are doing the right think when really all they want is power or vengeance. In other words, most atrocities are committed for reasons involving power or hate, and those reasons are then used to drive an attempt at an ethical justification. And a lot more people are willing to believe the propaganda the first type puts out.

That seems very uncharitable. The individual made what he thought was an ethical decision. That should be respected even if one disagrees with the reasoning behind it.

I really think we need better in situ photography. 😉

Very, very beautiful work!

Your cabinet looks beautiful, but you should post a few more pictures of the finished product. Take one on a corner-ish angle, looking down so that we can see the top. And another with a drawer or two open with the coins inside. 🙂

Thank you very much, each one of you! These are all very helpful contributions. (On my phone at the moment, which is why this comment is brief.)