Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Questions on Coins with "Historical Pedigrees"
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="ByzantiumBabe, post: 6537554, member: 118394"]Thank you for this excellent example above, Carausius.</p><p><br /></p><p>Before I comment, I must say the coin is beautiful and the original struck bronze design exceptional and wonderfully clear. I can only imagine what it feels like to hold and can only imagine its untouched patina.</p><p><br /></p><p>When I began more serious collecting, a dealer/collector told me this basic axiom, "to understand these (ancient coins) you must first pay special attention to the object itself, then understand its relation to other coins. All else is external and essentially secondary to collecting."</p><p><br /></p><p>As it seems to me, provenance is important, but I believe is a secondary level endeavor, especially if a past ownership claim lacks evidence. </p><p><br /></p><p>Unfortunately, the struck Janus As example exemplifies my questions on "historical pedigree" claims. This example above demonstrates that the original ownership history has not been verified, perhaps it will never be proven. In this case, neither by the dealer (primary source) nor by evidence from the original owner (secondary source). I believe this example is a "rumored" to be owned by a "baron" previously. I won't repeat my original post questions, but propose this revision (in the interest of truth and accuracy) to the provenance and "historical pedigree" you've note above:</p><p><br /></p><p>Provenance: Rodollo Ratto Sale, 23 January 1924, lot 264.</p><p>Historical Ownership: Alleged to be from the Baron Dr. Pompeo Bonazzi di Sannicandro collection (Spring, 1880-1980, page?)</p><p><br /></p><p>I prefer “Historical Ownership” for two reasons.</p><p><br /></p><p>First, I don't really like the word "pedigree" because it often gets confused with provenance and, to me, refers to the genetic linking of generations of hybrid dogs, cats, horses, etc, to call them "purebred" and upper class, plus a little elitist too.</p><p><br /></p><p>Second, I feel it is important for the public to understand that most extant ancient coins had a private “Historical Ownership” previously, whether known or unknown. Even the coins in most museums and coin societies.</p><p><br /></p><p>Nevertheless, I think most collecting criteria are valid and motivations for choosing coins very personal. For me, I think for now I'll follow a mentor's axiom and always stay focused on the coin itself, facts and evidence.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, thank you for the exceptional Roman struck bronze post! Perhaps someone will find verifiable “historical pedigree” evidence for the As before spring time?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="ByzantiumBabe, post: 6537554, member: 118394"]Thank you for this excellent example above, Carausius. Before I comment, I must say the coin is beautiful and the original struck bronze design exceptional and wonderfully clear. I can only imagine what it feels like to hold and can only imagine its untouched patina. When I began more serious collecting, a dealer/collector told me this basic axiom, "to understand these (ancient coins) you must first pay special attention to the object itself, then understand its relation to other coins. All else is external and essentially secondary to collecting." As it seems to me, provenance is important, but I believe is a secondary level endeavor, especially if a past ownership claim lacks evidence. Unfortunately, the struck Janus As example exemplifies my questions on "historical pedigree" claims. This example above demonstrates that the original ownership history has not been verified, perhaps it will never be proven. In this case, neither by the dealer (primary source) nor by evidence from the original owner (secondary source). I believe this example is a "rumored" to be owned by a "baron" previously. I won't repeat my original post questions, but propose this revision (in the interest of truth and accuracy) to the provenance and "historical pedigree" you've note above: Provenance: Rodollo Ratto Sale, 23 January 1924, lot 264. Historical Ownership: Alleged to be from the Baron Dr. Pompeo Bonazzi di Sannicandro collection (Spring, 1880-1980, page?) I prefer “Historical Ownership” for two reasons. First, I don't really like the word "pedigree" because it often gets confused with provenance and, to me, refers to the genetic linking of generations of hybrid dogs, cats, horses, etc, to call them "purebred" and upper class, plus a little elitist too. Second, I feel it is important for the public to understand that most extant ancient coins had a private “Historical Ownership” previously, whether known or unknown. Even the coins in most museums and coin societies. Nevertheless, I think most collecting criteria are valid and motivations for choosing coins very personal. For me, I think for now I'll follow a mentor's axiom and always stay focused on the coin itself, facts and evidence. Again, thank you for the exceptional Roman struck bronze post! Perhaps someone will find verifiable “historical pedigree” evidence for the As before spring time?[/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
>
Questions on Coins with "Historical Pedigrees"
>
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...