Interesting thread on reddit about Roma Numismatics and the apparent arrest of Richard Beale

[Deinomenid]

With the pedigree, it’s interesting in some cases, but I’m not sure why people bid up for say Pozzi coins over and beyond the fact that the ownership helps with dating of the provenance itself. Whether or not a surgeon named Pozzi happened to buy them doesn’t mean a huge amount to me otherwise. 
 

An Evans (father or son) coin is different to me but even there I’ve heard people say well that’s just a coin he/they happened to have dug up (!) Implying  the coin has no great intrinsic merit.

 

[Null]

10 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

Aaron and Mike of HJB discuss the events in their latest podcast episode:

 

Yeah I watched that this morning, fair play to Mr Berk (sniggers in cockney rhyming slang 😅) and Mike for bringing it up.

They could have easily not said anything about it and not had to disparage someone Arron does business with. In fairness Aaron did point out that he does like Richard as a person even if he doesn't agree with his actions.

 

I'd be a bit miffed if I was the wine sponsor though, they didn't even show a bottle of it on the video or post the link to the wine company on the video.

[DonnaML]

5 hours ago, Deinomenid said:

 6 hours ago, Roman Collector said:
pedigree and provenance to be two separate things.

Sounds very much like this. Proof of past crucial. Whether it was owned by the aforementioned Madame de Pompadour specifically, is less relevant than broader provenance.

 

I've never before heard that supposed distinction between the two terms, but I agree that the existence of documentation regarding a coin's previous ownership history, and the length of that history, is generally more significant (at least for purposes of establishing the legality of a purchase) than the identity of the previous owner(s). Although it would be naive to pretend that an extremely famous previous owner (let's say, John Qunicy Adams) won't materially affect a coin's purchase price.  Otherwise, people wouldn't rush to the auctions of the personal effects of people like Joan Didion after they die, so they can say they bought her toothbrush. And previous ownership by a famous numismatist certainly supports authenticity more than previous ownership by Joe Shlabotnik. Thus, I never heard of the Vicomte de Sartiges, as notable a collector as he may have been, before I bought that Vespasian aureus with a documented history back to 1910. The existence of that documented history, and the fact that the coin was deemed authentic by Jacob Hirsch and Lucien Naville, are more significant to me than the fact of ownership by the Vicomte given that I don't really know anything about the level of his expertise.

[Ryro]

11 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

Aaron and Mike of HJB discuss the events in their latest podcast episode:

 

Thanks! I hadn't caught this episode yet. I love these two and could watch them talk about ancients all day. 

Interesting point about Roma being greedy with the Alexander decdrachms as well. 

[AETHER]

I would have loved for Aaron to speculate or talk about the 2018 Owl hoard that is being circulated. Roma always has them , all similar quality and period and likely from this Turkish hoard, which are illegal to export. Sadly information is vague, unclear and minimal.  Even the rough 30k number can't be exactly confirmed, anyone have any good information on this hoard?

Edited March 28, 2023 by AETHER

[Severus Alexander]

7 minutes ago, AETHER said:

which are illegal to export

This should always be put as "which are illegal to export under objectionable or at least highly questionable Turkish antiquities laws."  It's up to other countries – and individuals! – whether they respect those unjust laws or not.  

When a persecuted minority escapes from an oppressive régime, Canada and most other countries don't just lie down and say "oh well, it's illegal for us to harbour you, we have to send you back. Sorry!"

Too often (including in this thread) I see collectors just lie down and accept that these coins are "illegal" in some false objective sense, as though any country can determine how things ought to be just by legislating them.  

Sorry to keep harping on this, but it's important.

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

Sorry I didn’t read the last 500 replies; hoping I won’t be repeating someone’s comment. What I’d be interested in is knowing how they could prove the coin was from Greece. Read this old article from 2006 and I especially like these sentences:

«According to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, only four EID-MAR coins have an established Greek origin: two that were found near the northern Greek city of Florina and now reside in the Archaeological Museum of Pella (Greece); and two others, one silver and one gold, in private European collections. »

and: « How the Greek government determined — and proved to the British High Court — that this one emanated from Macedonia is unclear. »

 

https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/coins/worden-coinage1106b.htm

Edited March 28, 2023 by Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

[AETHER]

22 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

This should always be put as "which are illegal to export under objectionable or at least highly questionable Turkish antiquities laws."  It's up to other countries – and individuals! – whether they respect those unjust laws or not.  

When a persecuted minority escapes from an oppressive régime, Canada and most other countries don't just lie down and say "oh well, it's illegal for us to harbour you, we have to send you back. Sorry!"

Too often (including in this thread) I see collectors just lie down and accept that these coins are "illegal" in some false objective sense, as though any country can determine how things ought to be just by legislating them.  

Sorry to keep harping on this, but it's important.

I understand, but it was found in the country that doesn't allow exports, and exported, illegally.  Like the eid mar. For the record , I don't blame Greece or Turkey having laws to preserve stuff found. They have that right. I am not saying other countries have to return things. But it's out of collectors hands and hurts them as well.

[robinjojo]

Well, I don't know about other folks, but henceforth all of my coins, ancient or otherwise, will come with a Pedigree, guaranteed!

 

[Heliodromus]

26 minutes ago, robinjojo said:

Well, I don't know about other folks, but henceforth all of my coins, ancient or otherwise, will come with a Pedigree, guaranteed!

Seems legit.

Just in case you run out of supplies, I've found a vendor who may be able to help.

[Ryro]

1 hour ago, AETHER said:

I would have loved for Aaron to speculate or talk about the 2018 Owl hoard that is being circulated. Roma always has them , all similar quality and period and likely from this Turkish hoard, which are illegal to export. Sadly information is vague, unclear and minimal.  Even the rough 30k number can't be exactly confirmed, anyone have any good information on this hoard?

NOBODY is talking about where they are coming from... though, as I personally feel that most governments are greedy, conniving pieces of trash, maybe its better that we don't know😉

Ps, did you here about the post office having to stop their sale of stamps with modern politicians on them?

Apparently, patrons didn't know which side of the stamp to spit on. 

[Severus Alexander]

58 minutes ago, AETHER said:

I understand, but it was found in the country that doesn't allow exports, and exported, illegally.  Like the eid mar. For the record , I don't blame Greece or Turkey having laws to preserve stuff found. They have that right. I am not saying other countries have to return things. But it's out of collectors hands and hurts them as well.

It's not out of collectors' hands. It's up to us to defend the right to collect and to criticize terrible antiquities laws outside our own countries plus any support for those laws that our own countries offer.  It's also up to us to promote the best alternatives, along the lines of what we see in the UK (but preferably better funded).  

Certainly Greece and Turkey have the right to protect their cultural heritage, but not by any means whatsoever.  For example, the draconian prison sentences (and horrific prisons) we see in Turkey are atrocious.

I've yet to see a cogent defense of the absolute prohibition type approach they're using.  Even putting aside human rights violations, this does a terrible job of protecting their heritage.  They have an abundant resource which they've made literally impossible for their citizens to profit from legally.  That approach just encourages looting.  Moreover, Turkey (at least) doesn't even care about much of this "heritage" as they're busy promoting alternate history which disparages anything pre-Turkish, going so far as to persecute academics and arrest journalists who disagree, and encourage the destruction of sites that might conflict with their official view.  This is simply criminal... and any support for this in the form of MOU's is clearly wrong.

I'm not saying that your use of "illegal" in referring to the Athenian tetradrachm hoard was meant to support these bad laws.  I'm just saying that we need to be careful in throwing the term "illegal" around, when the laws contravened are probably bad ones that need to be changed.

[AETHER]

18 minutes ago, Severus Alexander said:

It's not out of collectors' hands. It's up to us to defend the right to collect and to criticize terrible antiquities laws outside our own countries plus any support for those laws that our own countries offer.  It's also up to us to promote the best alternatives, along the lines of what we see in the UK (but preferably better funded).  

Certainly Greece and Turkey have the right to protect their cultural heritage, but not by any means whatsoever.  For example, the draconian prison sentences (and horrific prisons) we see in Turkey are atrocious.

I've yet to see a cogent defense of the absolute prohibition type approach they're using.  Even putting aside human rights violations, this does a terrible job of protecting their heritage.  They have an abundant resource which they've made literally impossible for their citizens to profit from legally.  That approach just encourages looting.  Moreover, Turkey (at least) doesn't even care about much of this "heritage" as they're busy promoting alternate history which disparages anything pre-Turkish, going so far as to persecute academics and arrest journalists who disagree, and encourage the destruction of sites that might conflict with their official view.  This is simply criminal... and any support for this in the form of MOU's is clearly wrong.

I'm not saying that your use of "illegal" in referring to the Athenian tetradrachm hoard was meant to support these bad laws.  I'm just saying that we need to be careful in throwing the term "illegal" around, when the laws contravened are probably bad ones that need to be changed.

I completely understand what you are saying.  Cheers.

[Hrefn]

Antiquities and national patrimony law violations are malum prohibitum, but not malum in se.  

[Severus Alexander]

5 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

Antiquities and national patrimony law violations are malum prohibitum, but not malum in se.  

... and sometimes not malum at all! 🙃

[DonnaML]

In case anyone's interested, here's a list of the types of coins, up to 1770, covered by the USA's current 5-year MOU with Turkey, entered into on January 19, 2021 -- the day before President Biden's inauguration, in what is widely believed to have been an effort by the previous administration (which was notoriously positive towards Erdogan) to cement the restrictions into place by making sure the MOU was implemented before it could be re-examined by the new administration. (The restrictions are far more draconian for materials defined as "ethnographical" materials, giving Turkey the right to all such materials created prior to 1923, specifically including materials originating in Turkey relating to Jewish, Greek, and Armenian cultural heritage.)

Coins

9. Coins

a. Greek coins—Archaic coins, dated to 640-480 B.C., in electrum, silver and billon, that circulated primarily in Turkey; Classical coins, dated to 479-332 B.C., in electrum, silver, gold, and bronze, that circulated primarily in Turkey; and Hellenistic coins, dated to 332-31 B.C., in gold, silver, bronze and other base metals, that circulated primarily in Turkey. Greek coins were minted by many authorities for trading and payment and often circulated all over the ancient world, including in Turkey. All categories are based on find information provided in Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O., Kraay, C., Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, 1973 (available online at http://coinhoards.org/) and the updates in Coin Hoards I-X as well as other hoard and single find publications. Mints located in Turkey and surrounding areas are found in Head, B. V., Historia Numorum, A Manual of Greek Numismatics, 1911 (available online at http://snible.org/coins/hn/).

b. Roman provincial coins—Roman provincial coins, dated from the end of 2nd century B.C. to the early 6th century A.D., in gold, silver, and bronze and copper that circulated primarily in Turkey.

c. Byzantine period coins—Byzantine period coins, in gold, silver, bronze, copper coins, and sometimes electrum, dating from the early 6th century to the 15th century A.D., that circulated primarily in Turkey, (e.g., coins produced at mints in Nicaea and Magnesia under the Empire of Nicaea).

d. Medieval and Islamic coins—Medieval and Islamic coins, in gold, silver, bronze, and copper coins from approximately A.D. 1077-1770, that circulated primarily in Turkey.

See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/16/2021-12646/import-restrictions-imposed-on-categories-of-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of-turkey

Note the citation to our own @Ed Snible's website!

It seems to me that there's some room for argumentation in this list: the Eid Mar aureus, for example, was not a "Roman Provincial" coin that "circulated primarily in Turkey." So even if hypothetically some Roman soldier brought an Eid Mar aureus (or indeed any Roman Republican or Roman Imperial coin, or any Roman Provincial coin that primarily circulated in, say, Syria) to Anatolia and lost it or spent it there, and it were discovered in Turkey 2,000 years later, I would argue that any such coin should not, by the terms of the MOU, be subject to its restrictions despite having been found in Turkey and exported from Turkey without a permit.

Edited March 29, 2023 by DonnaML

[DonnaML]

An interesting article about the testimony at the latest open meeting of the CPAC last month:

https://culturalpropertynews.org/cpac-report-coin-collectors-face-more-collateral-damage/

Keith Twitchell - February 3, 2023

After watching the most recent meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, it’s easy to draw the conclusion that coins – and coin collectors – are collateral damage in the battle over importation of culture and historical artifacts in general.

The Committee met in open session on January 30, 2023 to consider Memorandums of Understanding relating to proposed import restrictions on cultural goods with three countries: Cambodia, North Macedonia and Uzbekistan. The latter two would be new agreements, while the Cambodia proposal would extend and expand a current MOU. The meeting’s purpose was to receive public input on these documents.

As proposed, all three are extraordinary in their scope, in time frame and types of items covered. Since this is not the forum for going into great detail, here is a very brief overview of the proposed agreements.

– Cambodia: depending on the type of artefact, the MOU would reach as far back as circa 250 BC, and for some items, through 1891. Requested for inclusion in the new agreement are items made of stone, ceramic, glass, bone, wood, and metal, including coins. Architectural elements, manuscripts, and religious and funerary objects would be covered.

– North Macedonia: the proposed period for the agreement is 300,000 BC to the 1950s. Coverage is requested for archaeological items made from ceramics, stone, bone, ivory, glass, faience, and metal, including coins. Some specific items are listed, including musical instruments, pipes, mosaics, textiles, and artworks.

– Uzbekistan: maximum time frame is 50,000 BC to 1917. Materials include those in the two other proposals, along with plaster, stucco, unfired clay, birch bark, vellum, and shell, among others. Also included in this MOU would be human remains.

While there are important, legitimate issues relating to looting of archeological sites and illegal exporting of artefacts from each of these countries, the proposed MOUs are so vast in scope that they may well cause as many problems as they solve. That did not deter a number of individuals from testifying in their favor during the meeting. Speaking in opposition were Randy Myers on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) and Peter Tompa, officially representing the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN). The American Numismatic Association joined the ACCG’s written comments but was not present at the open session.

The majority of oral comments addressed only the MOU with Cambodia. Along with people speaking from an institutional vantage point, several individuals, primarily displaced Cambodian citizens, addressed the Committee. They spoke movingly of the damage to great, ancient structures, and to the subsequent damage to history and religion within Cambodia, that is caused by looting.

The institutional representatives addressing the Cambodia MOU tended to speak very generally, while in the process pointing out other as-yet untaken measures that would help solve the problems, and even acknowledging that the current MOU has been limited in its effectiveness. For example, Stephen Acabado, of the Society for American Archeology, pointed out that the lack of surveys and inventory listings of sites and items in Cambodia contributes substantially to the problem. Tess Davis, the Executive Director of the Antiquities Coalition, freely acknowledged that looting and illegal exporting has continued despite the current MOU. Davis also stretched so far as to suggest that the MOU should be extended in order to protect potential buyers of these items in the United States.

The only person to speak in favor of the Uzbekistan proposal was Soeren Stark, a professor at New York University. Yet he also acknowledged that looting of Uzbek archeological sites has “happened with the knowledge and silent consent of local authorities,” and that “Uzbekistan has the legal framework to protect this local heritage.” In the process, he pointed out the need for local community education efforts to address these issues.

To summarize, several speakers identified actions that could be taken within these countries to address these problems. No one argued that the MOUs themselves would solve the problems, and there was even acknowledgment that the existing MOU with Cambodia has not deterred illegal looting and exporting.

Left completely unaddressed was the fact that these would be bilateral agreements, meaning that only importation of artefacts into the United States would be restricted. Illegal trade could continue in pretty much the entire rest of the world, meaning that even if the restrictions could be reasonably enforced (a major, separate issue), there would still be a vast market for these items. Meanwhile, legitimate collectors, dealers and institutions in the U.S. would be unfairly faced with onerous, confusing and inconsistent processes.

In countering these arguments, Myers cited the regional nature of coins and of the history of countries whose borders today do not match anything from any previous period of history. For example, North Macedonia is a new nation altogether, and there are legitimate questions as to whether coins were ever minted within its borders.

Tompa pointed out that the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), under whose aegis the MOUS are being proposed, requires correlation between where an item was made and where it was found. Very few coins are ever found where they were minted, since the definition of coinage is to be circulated via commerce. This is especially true of ancient coins; Tompa noted that Roman coinage served as world currency, and Roman coins have been found from England to Sri Lanka.

While Committee members had few questions for other speakers, CPAC member Anthony Wisniewski directed a number at Tompa, affording him the opportunity to elaborate on several key points, and to further distinguish coins from the other items covered in the proposed MOUs. Specifically, he noted that coins are not “ethnographic objects”, whose protection is the purpose of CPIA. Tompa has written and spoken extensively on these issues, and those interested in the subject should read his considerably more detailed observations.

After observing the Committee meeting, it seems clear that if collecting ancient and world coins is to be protected from unnecessary restriction and overreach, coins simply must be distinguished from art, artefacts and antiquities. Coins are a category unto themselves. Their purpose was commerce; as such, they were intended to circulate over wide areas. They are not parts of physical structures, nor are they associated with religious and/or cultural heritage.

The ongoing trend is towards more, and broader, MOUs of this nature. That tide seems unlikely to turn soon, and if coins are not to be swept up in it, they must be separated out of the discussion to the highest possible degree.

Keith Twitchell is a writer, nonprofit consultant and coin collector living in New Orleans. He enjoys music, tennis, travel, people, and the ancient world, and writing about all of them. He has been an Ancient Coin Collectors Guild member since 2017.

I agree with these sentiments, but I won't hold my breath.

[Sol_Invictus]

3 hours ago, DonnaML said:

 

It seems to me that there's some room for argumentation in this list: the Eid Mar aureus, for example, was not a "Roman Provincial" coin that "circulated primarily in Turkey." So even if hypothetically some Roman soldier brought an Eid Mar aureus (or indeed any Roman Republican or Roman Imperial coin, or any Roman Provincial coin that primarily circulated in, say, Syria) to Anatolia and lost it or spent it there, and it were discovered in Turkey 2,000 years later, I would argue that any such coin should not, by the terms of the MOU, be subject to its restrictions despite having been found in Turkey and exported from Turkey without a permit.

I may not understand this correctly, but I thought that if there is convincing evidence that a particular coin was found in Turkey and was exported without a permit, then whether or not the MOU applies is irrelevant. The US (and possibly other governments as well) would consider it stolen property of Turkey and would return it to Turkey. The MOU serves to define a set of coins that US customs *assumes* to be Turkish government property unless proven otherwise (by providing an export license from Turkey, or proving that to it was out of Turkey before the MOU went into effect). This I think is one of the unjust aspects of these MOUs - Turkey doesn’t have to prove that it’s their coin to take it, you have to prove it isn’t theirs to keep it.

I don’t think the EID MAR aureus is covered by the US MOU with Greece (which I thought actually excludes gold coins, and only covers coins minted in Greece anyway). So presumably it was returned to Greece not because of the MOU, but because there is some compelling evidence it was found in Greece and exported without a license.

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Sol_Invictus said:

I may not understand this correctly, but I thought that if there is convincing evidence that a particular coin was found in Turkey and was exported without a permit, then whether or not the MOU applies is irrelevant. The US (and possibly other governments as well) would consider it stolen property of Turkey and would return it to Turkey. The MOU serves to define a set of coins that US customs *assumes* to be Turkish government property unless proven otherwise (by providing an export license from Turkey, or proving that to it was out of Turkey before the MOU went into effect). This I think is one of the unjust aspects of these MOUs - Turkey doesn’t have to prove that it’s their coin to take it, you have to prove it isn’t theirs to keep it.

I don’t think the EID MAR aureus is covered by the US MOU with Greece (which I thought actually excludes gold coins, and only covers coins minted in Greece anyway). So presumably it was returned to Greece not because of the MOU, but because there is some compelling evidence it was found in Greece and exported without a license.

I suspect you're right. It's  not really  a loophole at all. Just a difference  in the burden of proof.

Edited March 29, 2023 by DonnaML

[Captch]

Can I just say that I really appreciate the quality of the discussion here as opposed to the old forum. While there is definitely some disagreement in this thread about "the right thing to do" here, there is so much less willful ignorance and fewer bad-faith arguments compared to the threads on CT.

[robinjojo]

Thank you for the article, Donna.  It seems to me that, as broad as these proposed MOUs are, in the end, as far as coins are concerned, with the vagaries of origin for the vast majority of ancients entering the market, the import restrictions become (actually have been for a long time) a game of whack a mole for Customs authorities.  There is a definite need to preserve cultural sites that are prone to looting, especially in poorer countries, but this is an issue that can only effectively addressed by world governments coming to terms with the fundamental underlying issues that have beset humanity for centuries: poverty, war and corruption.  The MOUs are Band-Aids and not terribly effective ones at that.  

Edited March 29, 2023 by robinjojo

[Prieure de Sion]

11 hours ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

Sorry I didn’t read the last 500 replies...

... neither do I. So I still don't know if I have to switch to the stamp collectors 😎

[DLTcoins]

44 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

... neither do I. So I still don't know if I have to switch to the stamp collectors 😎

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but "cultural property" as defined by the 1970 UNESCO Convention includes "postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections".

https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-means-prohibiting-and-preventing-illicit-import-export-and-transfer-ownership-cultural

[Deinomenid]

I disagree.The CPAC proposal shown on the previous page quite clearly states that any collector of Uzbek stamps from before 50,000BC will be completely fine. 

 

 

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, Prieure de Sion said:

... neither do I. So I still don't know if I have to switch to the stamp collectors 😎

Yes. we had a vote. It's stamps for you. 🥲