Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7420984, member: 110350"]PPRP, I was privately warned about your penchant for being contrary for the sake of contrariness.  I don't even know why I bother to respond anymore. You've descended to the point of maliciousness in trying to denigrate my coin. What? What? This doesn't make any sense at all. Who was ever talking about my coin being stolen from a museum or private collection (in the sense of a burglary, rather than in the sense of a state-sponsored confiscatory forced sale)? Are you now trying to claim that there's something illegitimate about my coin's provenance wholly apart from the Kress connection? What relevance does any of this have to your previous argument (clearly raised in the context of auction catalogs) that I'm unlikely to find pre-1960 photographic evidence of the coin because its low metal value meant it wasn't worth being photographed for an auction and wouldn't have "made it" into a pre-1938 Helbing catalog -- an argument I already proved was nonsensical by showing the many very similar coins illustrated in a 1931 Helbing catalog? Even apart from the fact that it was photographed by Helbing's successor in 1960, and had a comparatively high auction value then? And even apart from the fact that it's clearly very unlikely that the coin was in Helbing's inventory in 1938, so it strains credulity to suggest it was in Helbing's inventory separately, sometime before that? And even apart from the fact that I'm not looking for a pre-1960 provenance anyway? The point of raising the UNESCO Convention, quoting [USER=44357]@AncientJoe[/USER], was not to address your fabricated "coin stolen from a museum or private collection" issue; of course the Convention doesn't insulate stolen goods, and I didn't claim that it does. The point was to agree with [USER=44357]@AncientJoe[/USER] that the coin's value is greater because I now have documentary proof that it was outside the jurisdiction of Turkey, or any other country that might theoretically claim it as "cultural heritage", by 1960, i.e., a decade before the Convention was enacted. Are you serious? There's something special about solidi of Arcadius that made them unworthy of being photographed for a pre-1938 Helbing catalog, unlike the solidi of his brother (Honorius) and son (Theodosius II) and others from that period which are illustrated in the 1931 Helbing catalog, as I demonstrated above? I have to go hunting through all other pre-1938 Helbing catalogs available online to find an illustration specifically of an Arcadius solidus in order to satisfy you? Do you have any idea how asinine that sounds? I'm not your servant. As I already said, what difference does it make even if your speculative theory that my coin was previously mounted were correct? I have no plans to sell it, let alone submit it to a TPG, and it's already been proven at least twice before I bought the coin that your invented history of mounting hasn't affected the coin's visual appeal or market value. And since when would a theorized history of possible mounting prevent a VF grade even if I were to submit the coin to NGC? Which I won't, because I don't care about grades; I care about how a coin looks? Furthermore, your assumption that Busso Peus, one of the oldest and best-established dealers in Germany, knew all along that the coin has something wrong with it, makes no sense. If that's the case, why did they spend ca. 720 € on it including the buyer's fee? You think they weren't as capable as you of detecting this fatal flaw from the photos before they bought it?  As for all your unsupported claims about an insuffiicent profit margin, supposedly proving that there's something wrong with the coin, are you a dealer? Without evidence as to this dealer's profit margins on other coins, or that this coin is an outlier -- or, even if it were, the reasons for it -- I have no reason to pay attention to anything you say.  I already told you that they offer a 5% discount on all of their coins to all non-EU buyers. So you can't rely on that. As for sending me scans from the 1960 auction catalog -- whether from their own library or the previous dealer, who had already mentioned the provenance in their description last year -- most dealers are happy to do that if they have documentation from old auctions. Why shouldn't they share it? I would have been surprised if they didn't. It proves nothing about their supposed eagerness to sell, especially since they sent me the scans after I bought the coin! The bottom line is that I like the coin regardless of what you think, and, apparently, so does everyone else here but you. Nobody's asking you to buy it! So enough already. You're approaching conspiracy theory level. And I won't let you ruin my enjoyment of the coin no matter what you say.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches