Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;kaparthy, post: 94911, member: 57463&quot;]<b>Provenience is the Essence of Attribution.</b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>OK, I can go with all of that.&nbsp; If all of that is true, then it can be accepted as genuine.</p><p><br /></p><p>You have your nose right up to the trees.&nbsp; The bark has a bug on it.&nbsp; Now, step back and appreciate the forest.&nbsp; This not some product from the US Mint.&nbsp; Die wear and uneven areas and stuff like that are totally irrelevant to this.&nbsp; As for that uneven wear, I have a Tibetan Sho coin, still fresh and sharp with one little spot smooth.&nbsp; On RCC, we went around on something like this on the question of how coins were test cut in ancient times.&nbsp; So, I tested a few.&nbsp; Unless you actually practice the craft, you are guessing, and probably guessing wrong.&nbsp; On a different but related matter, how can Roman coins have such compelling protraits of the emperor on one side and crude stick figures on the other?&nbsp; Would you claim that the stick figures were cut and struck in ancient times, but the portraits were done with better tools by better artists much later?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; QX, you have to take the artifact as it is on its own terms within its own cultural context.&nbsp; Considering it thatway, it could have been made at any time.&nbsp; I mean, the COA may or may not say &quot;18th Century.&quot;&nbsp; (Bonedigger is disorganized.)&nbsp; It might be a 19th or 20th century object.&nbsp; It might be 14th century.&nbsp; We will wait and see.&nbsp; What we do know -- apparently -- is that it was not made yesterday for sale on eBay, and that much is good news.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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