Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3045978, member: 19463&quot;]I don&#039;t really collect Chinese coins but find it fascinating just how different specialists in these and specialists in &#039;Classical&#039; (Greek and Roman) coins see things.&nbsp; A major factor in the authentication of a Chinese coin seems to be &#039;patina&#039; which is usually beyond what Western collectors would call by that name.&nbsp; Crust and damage are almost expected/preferred which a perfectly preserved specimen would be hard to accept as genuine.&nbsp; There are many more coins that fall in the category of possibly fake even to the eyes of experts.&nbsp; People sell coins that are described as uncertainly genuine with less stigma as if there were three acceptable levels of merchandise (real,fake and &#039;who knows?&#039;).&nbsp; Is a Chinese coin fake until proven real or real until proven fake.&nbsp; How is such a coin going to be &#039;proven&#039; when the flags so obviously conflict?&nbsp; These things happen in Greek/Roman also but I don&#039;t note it with the same frequency.&nbsp; Relatively few Greek/Roman collectors prefer coins maintained with the completely crusted look.&nbsp; Cleaning down to the minimal, smooth patina is much more acceptable and coins with surfaces like the ones shown here would sell poorly as damaged goods. This is not a matter of one view being right and the other wrong but it is something a collector of either group might have trouble accepting if trying to collect coins from the other.&nbsp; I suspect some of this explains why people of my background can not get into collecting Chinese coins.&nbsp; I wonder if it is also why people who love spades and knives have no interest in tetradrachms.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Am I missing something here?[/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