Ancient Coins

You are of course entitled to express the opinions you have amassed from your various chats and gossips Michael.

`Truth' however is not based upon such chats/ gossips or anyone else's chats, nor is it based upon what dealers think or say.

Truth is based upon cold hard evidence. Whether it comes from scans or some other form of substantive evidence is immaterial. Truth isn't a sour dealer bumping his gums together and voicing ire at someone for spotting fakes before they did (especially if the fakes being spotted are in THEIR inventory!!).

Truth is...if it's got webbed feet, lays eggs, says `quack', likes swimming in the rain, and has a strong aversion to orange sauce, then you have an extremely high probability of being correct in calling it a `duck'. Truth is...if you see a picture of a duck do you need to hear it go `quack' before making a call?

Of course dealers are valuable repositories of knowledge, but many live in their own self perceived `ivory towers'. Technology and communication has moved out of the dark ages and it's really up to dealers to keep pace and EARN continued respect. Personally, I don't think they are capable of filling the information / knowledge gap that is developing or getting up to speed fast enough. THAT causes me concern. Staying the same is not a viable option for them OR the hobby. Inept criticism of CFDL as a smokescreen for their own inadequacies in filling the `PR' gap is not exactly a good example of enlightened self interest.

Ian
(also an ANA menber)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ian, I agree that, ideally, collectors warning each other of dubious auctions is a good thing. What bothers me about CFDL is that I saw a coin from CNG, if I recall correctly, a sestertius of one of the Five Good Emperors, condemned because "it does not look right." I have to ask, "Compared to what?" On CFDL people with no documented expertise issue opinions without basis.

On the other hand, a dealer -- especially an ANA/ANS/PNG/IAPN dealer -- puts a lot on the line when they offer something for sale. They stand behind the product. If it turns out to be false, they accept the return and the loss. What is at stake when someone with no ponies in the race, so to speak, condemns a coin or other object? Nothing that I can see.

Looking for a win-win here, as I said, collectors benefit each other with warnings. Do you not feel some reservation at the willy-nilly judgments of apparently unqualified arbiters?

Michael

 

Michael,

The big mistake being made is the one you mention about `certifiable credentials' and comments like `willy nilly judgements of apparently unqualified arbiters' and `people with no documented expertise issue opinions without basis'. No disrespect intended mate, but it does sound to me like you have just come out of having another `gossip' having had an earful from the ireful. ;-)

Where else are you getting the idea that the people on CFDL are `unqualified'. THAT is precisely the red herrings that are being bandied around with no `qualification'. The smokescreen being thrown up to mask the failings of individual dealers and the dealer network as a whole.

The people who populate CFDL consist of dealers, academics, curators, serious collectors, a smattering of reformed smugglers and no doubt a few forgers subscribe to the group too (unfortunately). It also has relative newbies and probably one or two `out there' on the fringes, but which group do you know doesn't? It is ok to post `opinion' to that list. It is after all a discussion group. That does not mean that `opinion' is taken as gospel by all on the list. Remember, the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked.

This is a consumer society we live in. It's a society that rewards suppliers for providing excellence. it's a society that punishes suppliers of goods that are `defective', not `fit for purpose', or for supplying fraudulently (Kowloon manufactured / `Gucci' labelled) etcetera. I just live in it, although in my very own small way, I do try to influence it for the better. Dealers are subject to the same criteria. Just because a dealer has something at stake does not mean to say it is safe to leave things entirely in their hands. Sure, dealers livelyhoods can be at stake as can their reputations. It is true that many dealers invest in both. It is also true that many are very slip shod indeed, much the same as some slabbing companies are reputed to be. Separating the two out is not my task here.

There is much evidence to suggest that fakes aren't only entering the marketplace via electronic auctions like ebay, but then again, nothing new about that. What IS new is that it is being noticed a lot more AND it's being broadcast a lot more effectively.

Have a look at this ebay auction currently in progress. Tell me if there is anything you find scary about it? ...Hint. The thing that is scary for me isn't the coin itself. It isn't the seller of the coin either.....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3930460506

Rather than looking down their noses at groups like the CFDL, dealers might be better advised to enter into meaningful dialogue rather than tasteless diatribe. Perhaps pre-internet (a lifetime ago now) collectors were a lot less savvy? They were certainly a lot less sophisticated. These days are gone. Collectors are increasingly less reliant on dealers for information, information that is generally a few clicks away on Google or such. There is a potentially dangerous gap there in that `information' is no substitute for experience, and many collectors can be `took'. That is where *intelligence* also kicks in. Remember the Abdera piece on r.c.c? Once the piece was highlighted, how many `unqualified' people made a substantive determination based on nothing more than scans, an obscure reference and their inate ability to make cognitive deductions? The process and end result saved one of the r.c.c. members over $900 as you may recall.. Why should you believe that CFDL members aren't equally capable, if not more so? ;-)

Ian

 

This is not at all the case. I initiated the chats that I referred to. The dealers did not. It is my judgment that CFDL carries a lot of wild claims by anonymous people. Some dealers knew of CFDL; others did not.

It is my judgement. It is hard to "qualify" people who have no names, other than username@email.internet.com. And that is the point. These people have no stake in their own opinions. If a dealer (especially an ANA/ANS/ etc. member) sells something, they stand behind their opinion. These CFDLers can claim anything with impunity.

Let me ask you this, as a matter of sauces, geese and ganders: Why is it noble and important for these participants to condemn coins, but suspect for me to condemn the writers? Perhaps we need an FNDL: Fake Numismatist Discussion List. This would allow us to identify the phony authorities.

You seem to know them much better than I do. I took a look and left. What I did not see was anyone coming back to VALIDATE the coins condemned by the individuals who you admit are "out there." The net result is a witch hunt complete with guilt by association.

You will have to point it out to me. I do not see it. I am not an eBay buyer or seller, so I have to read the entire presentation and I do not always see what is "obvious" to eBay veterans.

That is an interesting case in point. The deterimination came not from comparing one phony on a website with another phony on a website. The truth came out because someone found a picture of the coin in a BOOK and the difference was obvious at the macro level.

Also, to me, the lesson was really to avoid these online venues. If a reputable dealer who has a real life also has an online sales site, then that is one thing. If you click up www6.reallyrarecoins.ki and paypal them $900 for a coin you know nothing about, that is another problem entirely.

Anyone who wants to start in ancient coins is advised to FIRST subscribe to The Celator. Some of the dealers there -- many of them, perhaps -- have online sales. A collector is much better off going to a dealer like that, someone with some visible investment in the hobby.

Michael

 

This is getting to be a bit long, but I had to respond to your points.

You accurately quoted me as saying:

"The big mistake being made is the one you mention about `certifiable credentials' and comments like `willy nilly judgements of apparently unqualified arbiters' and `people with no documented expertise issue opinions without basis'. No disrespect intended mate, but it does sound to me like you have just come out of having another `gossip' having had an earful from the ireful. ;-)"

you replied with:

"This is not at all the case. I initiated the chats that I referred to. The dealers did not. It is my judgment that CFDL carries a lot of wild claims by anonymous people. Some dealers knew of CFDL; others did not."

To which I offer:

You are entitled to your viewpoint Michael. I have no problem with you expressing one. As to `wild claims'?... If someone makes any `claims' one only needs to have a look at what is being said, evidence it or not and make a judgement based upon that. It is a discussion group. Things are presented for `discussion' much the same as any other group. How you react to it is up to you.

You then quote me with:

"Where else are you getting the idea that the people on CFDL are `unqualified'. THAT is precisely the red herrings that are being bandied around with no `qualification'."

Then contend:

"It is my judgement. It is hard to "qualify" people who have no names, other than username@email.internet.com. And that is the point. These people have no stake in their own opinions. If a dealer (especially an ANA/ANS/ etc. member) sells something, they stand behind their opinion. These CFDLers can claim anything with impunity."

To which I state:

I don't agree that `these CFDLers can claim anything with impunity'.
From what I see of the list, if someone makes any outrageous remarks or claims, there are people around who are equally quick to point that out to them. Just because a dealer has a stake in their own opinions, doesn't mean that others don't, or because of any such `stake' that anyone has an automatic claim to being `right'.

You also added:

"Let me ask you this, as a matter of sauces, geese and ganders: Why is it noble and important for these participants to condemn coins, but suspect for me to condemn the writers? Perhaps we need an FNDL: Fake Numismatist Discussion List. This would allow us to identify the phony authorities."

To which I say:

I do not condemn you for questioning. I do however hold as suspect the logic that leads you to conclude that because you only have an email address to go by that the person at the other end of it is therefore `unqualified'. *That* is the assumption you are making that I consider to be your particular leap over gaping chasm in reaching that conclusion. What `qualifications' do you feel it is necessary for YOU to have before anyone should listen to or otherwise pay any attention to your questions? That is, other than that you should be given some respect in the first place as a matter of courtesy?

You quote me with:

"The people who populate CFDL consist of dealers, academics, curators, serious collectors, a smattering of reformed smugglers and no doubt a few forgers subscribe to the group too (unfortunately). It also has relative newbies and probably one or two `out there' on the fringes, but which group do you know doesn't? It is ok to post `opinion' to that list. It is after all a discussion group. That does not mean that `opinion' is taken as gospel by all on the list."

Then add your reply:

"You seem to know them much better than I do. I took a look and left. What I did not see was anyone coming back to VALIDATE the coins condemned by the individuals who you admit are "out there." The net result is a witch hunt complete with guilt by association."

To which I remark:

I've recently returned to that list since departing from it a good few years ago. I note some fairly good observations (and very good calls) being made there. I am not denying your experiences Michael (whenever they may have been). Just pointing out that they do not correlate with my own. That may of course change. However as an example Barry Murphy isn't someone I would disregard just because he posts to the list. Neither does his posting to the list make him `guilty by association'. I have also bought coins on a number of occasions from the list owner. He also knows his stuff (IMHO). As an aside, living on the right hand side of the pond, it isn't particularly practicable for me to have little chats with US dealers excepting those very few I sometimes have ocasion to email, and those i meet via forums such as this on, CFDL, Moneta-L etcetera (all `electronic'). As such I would not claim to know anyone other than through their cyber- selves. Yourself included.

I referreg you to the URL of an ebay auction showing a coin slabbed by IPG with the following:

"Have a look at this ebay auction currently in progress. Tell me if there is anything you find scary about it? "

You respond with:

"You will have to point it out to me. I do not see it. I am not an eBay buyer or seller, so I have to read the entire presentation and I do not always see what is "obvious" to eBay veterans."

To which I point out:

Although I said it wasn't the coin that bothered me, it IS the strarting place. It is a fake, but it is a fake in a slab. As such it has been authenticated by an expert at IPG (one presumes). It is now presented on ebay as `authentic'. Seller has every right to believe that it IS authentic. Potential buyer has every right to believe that it is authentic.

This item was highlighted on CFDL by CFDL list member Ed Snible...of the `on-line' Historia Numorum fame (another party guilty by association?). As to ICG...well I suppose `To err is human' and all that but doesn't it make you just a teeny weeny bit concerned when you see slabbed ancients turning out to be fakes? After all , what is the purpose of slabbing an ancient? I also wonder who sold the coin to the person who had it slabbed? Did it come from an online auction to start with? A `respectable' dealer? Via a mainstream auction?....... your guess n'all that.

You quote me saying:

"Remember the Abdera piece on r.c.c? Once the piece was highlighted, how many `unqualified' people made a substantive determination based on nothing more than scans, an obscure reference and their inate ability to make cognitive deductions? The process and end result saved one of the r.c.c. members over $900 as you may recall.. Why should you believe that CFDL members aren't equally capable, if not more so? "

You respond with:

"That is an interesting case in point. The deterimination came not from comparing one phony on a website with another phony on a website. The truth came out because someone found a picture of the coin in a BOOK and the difference was obvious at the macro level."

I am compelled to add:

I note that you didn't amswer my question as to why you feel that CFDL list members might be any the less capable in making such determinations?

If you were being honest, the Abdera coin was first and foremost pronounced on r.c.c. as fake by a certain individual through direct comparison of the coin being sold with that of a known fake. The assertion he made was of course 100% correct. Continuing with the same line of honesty : That you and I and others felt the need for further verification does not detract from the fact that it was `outed' on the basis of being nigh on identical to a known forgery from Bulgaria. The original poster did not need the verification. WE did. That did not mean HE was wrong. He certainly wasn't.

You also added:

" Also, to me, the lesson was really to avoid these online venues. If a reputable dealer who has a real life also has an online sales site, then that is one thing. If you click up www6.reallyrarecoins.ki and paypal them $900 for a coin you know nothing about, that is another problem entirely."

To which I add:

While it is laudable that you appear to be holding out for the good old days before ebay and other electronic venues, the world has indeed moved on. There are rewards for being intelligent and applying intelligence. There are penalties to be paid for getting it badly wrong. That is true no matter which venue you choose to buy your goods from. A bad choice on ebay is perhaps a one off event. A bad choice of dealer can have ongoing consequences. Fortunatley, I have never experienced spending $900 on a coin I know nothing about. I suspect you haven't either. As such, i can fairly conclude that there is no substitute for intelligence regardless of the `venues' involved.

To be frank, at times I wonder if there are more fakes on ebay than genuine coins. That does not mean that I would recommend people to discount it entirely, nor would I chase people into the arms of dealers merely because they have a `presence ' and a `stake'. It all comes down to the money that is in YOUR wallet and the intelligence you use in determining what happens to it. If you are in any way uncertain i'm sure there are myriads of people who would be happy to alleviate the problem for you ;-)

You also added:

"Anyone who wants to start in ancient coins is advised to FIRST subscribe to The Celator. Some of the dealers there -- many of them, perhaps -- have online sales. A collector is much better off going to a dealer like that, someone with some visible investment in the hobby."

To which i respond with:

Michael, you WRITE for The Celator. For you to say anything other than what you have said would be shooting yourself in the foot. I do not share your passion for The Celator (as in,`not a subscriber'), I can see from the above that you are therefore likely to consider me to be `ill advised'.

On a reciprocal `sauce for the goose' kind of thing, let me put another perspective to you. If you were an honest collector (with principles and a keen sense of personal integrity) and you were seeking to dispose of some coins, would you try to sell directly to a fellow collector or would you sell only to those dealers with a presence in The Celator, (because you believe that they are the only people collectors should be buying from) ?

Ian
an ANA member
CFDL RCC War Wounds and Bar
+ other things that might or might not `qualify' me

 

1. Granted that we have different experiences from and perceptions of CFDL. I am willing to re-open my mind based on the names you have dropped, Murphy and Snible. I just gave Ed Snible a nod in my "Internet Connections" column for his good work on behalf of the hobby.

2. The fake ancient in an ICG slab is another problem, deeper still. I spoke to J. P. Martin at the Pittsburgh ANA. They say that they hemmed and hawed over the second round of Bulgarians, and decided that they were genuine. They were not. ICG maintains that it bought back all the outstanding fakes they had slabbed. It seems that one got by.
(I believe that ICG will buy the coin back anytime.)

I just read CIRCULATING COUNTERFEITS OF THE AMERICAS, an ANS "Coinage of the Americas" conference anthology. PCGS has slabbed counterfeit Bust Halves. It happens.

Warning each other is what collectors do.

3. If I _were_ an honest collector? Do you mean that you think I am not? We'll let the Freudian slip go by, and I will agree that if I were to sell, selling directly to another collector would be preferred. It would allow me to make more and sell to them for less, a good thing all the way around. That is what avenues such as eBay were supposed to be all about. As you say, times change.

As for the good old days, I have a story from my old hometown coin club involving a Lincoln Cent and it ends with the one collector telling the other, "Buyer beware" and walking away.

Michael