Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Ancient Fourees?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="EWC3, post: 3019601, member: 93416"]Just to clarify my position - especially in the light of a post coming in as I wrote yesterday. It seems likely that there was something like organised crime involved with mass production of some of these fourees, in a sophisticated way, at some periods. And no doubt that contradicts (to some extent) my stated general position, without necessarily refuting it. And I have no idea to what extent ancient events involved false vs stolen dies etc. Sure, all this stuff is interesting to study.</p><p><br /></p><p>However looking at it from my own angle - what was going on with these Roman coins looks to me quite a lot like what went on the British pound coins - which were faked on a massive scale in recent decades by organised criminals (in Holland as I recall?) Is that matter interesting - yes. Does it interest me as much as say the political forces behind the official abandonment of silver in British coins after 1947 - no.</p><p><br /></p><p>What really interested me in the above was trying to figure out where Crawford stood, in connection to the quoted passage (linked by Ed Snible). About 20 years back Crawford was heavily criticised in NC by Howgego. I read that as Howgego being correct, and Crawford being way too close to the sort of ideology projected by Moses Findley.</p><p><br /></p><p>Back then I wanted to try to be fair minded, so I tracked down a little book on late Republican politics Crawford wrote (with a younger version of the TV star Mary Beard as I recall). I came away puzzled - since the work seemed fair and balanced to my non-expert eye. I am even more puzzled now to find him aggressively rejecting Pliny - since I think he was spot on there. Clearly things are more complex than I once thought.</p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps I should add I do know quite a lot about Moses Findley, and corresponded with his official biographer on certain matters. I do not think he was a straightforward individual. About 20 years back people on discussion groups seemed shocked when I said such things. Since then a new generation of professors has grown up, I judge (post-Howgego) almost all the prominent ones are rejecting Findley, I can even find one who hints in print at what I had earlier said, on chat groups.</p><p><br /></p><p>I find few interested in discussing these sort of matters, which seem to me the most important</p><p><br /></p><p>Rob[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="EWC3, post: 3019601, member: 93416"]Just to clarify my position - especially in the light of a post coming in as I wrote yesterday. It seems likely that there was something like organised crime involved with mass production of some of these fourees, in a sophisticated way, at some periods. And no doubt that contradicts (to some extent) my stated general position, without necessarily refuting it. And I have no idea to what extent ancient events involved false vs stolen dies etc. Sure, all this stuff is interesting to study. However looking at it from my own angle - what was going on with these Roman coins looks to me quite a lot like what went on the British pound coins - which were faked on a massive scale in recent decades by organised criminals (in Holland as I recall?) Is that matter interesting - yes. Does it interest me as much as say the political forces behind the official abandonment of silver in British coins after 1947 - no. What really interested me in the above was trying to figure out where Crawford stood, in connection to the quoted passage (linked by Ed Snible). About 20 years back Crawford was heavily criticised in NC by Howgego. I read that as Howgego being correct, and Crawford being way too close to the sort of ideology projected by Moses Findley. Back then I wanted to try to be fair minded, so I tracked down a little book on late Republican politics Crawford wrote (with a younger version of the TV star Mary Beard as I recall). I came away puzzled - since the work seemed fair and balanced to my non-expert eye. I am even more puzzled now to find him aggressively rejecting Pliny - since I think he was spot on there. Clearly things are more complex than I once thought. Perhaps I should add I do know quite a lot about Moses Findley, and corresponded with his official biographer on certain matters. I do not think he was a straightforward individual. About 20 years back people on discussion groups seemed shocked when I said such things. Since then a new generation of professors has grown up, I judge (post-Howgego) almost all the prominent ones are rejecting Findley, I can even find one who hints in print at what I had earlier said, on chat groups. I find few interested in discussing these sort of matters, which seem to me the most important Rob[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Ancient Fourees?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...