Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ByzantiumBabe, post: 6554221, member: 118394&quot;]It is perfectly okay to discuss anonymous collectors. The art world has been doing it for hundreds of years.</p><p>It is also perfectly okay to question a specific coin collecting paradigm. In this case we are questioning the verification and verifiability of &quot;historical pedigrees&quot; many of which are presumed, rumored, secret or simply unverifiable. It seems there are only in very rare cases actual secondary evidence of a past ancient coin owner photographed holding a coin or writing about a specific coin in his collection. Perhaps the future Renfrew archive papers will offer such evidence, unless already destroyed. </p><p><br /></p><p>Unlike antique art or cars or historic buildings where historical Ownership lineages exist and are documented, a mass produced coin is more difficult to pin on an old Owner. I believe Mr. McCabe has recently mentioned his paradigm shift, arising after many years of collecting focus, a realization that the original dominant paradigm of collecting Republican Roman coinage became incompatible with a new, transformative focus of collecting only &quot;historical pedigrees&quot; with provenance, thus facilitating the adoption of a new collecting paradigm. A significant paradigm shift is very admirable, but like all focused paradigms, limitations always exist. I find it very interesting to suggest an &quot;anonymous&quot; collector sale, living or dead cannot be discussed.</p><p><br /></p><p>The very basis of many &quot;historical pedigrees&quot; comes from the rumors, gossip and conjecture abounding in the dealer/salesman/collector community. Eventually, someone is going to get this all down (again), find the secret clues, and have it published as a theoretically valid source of Historic Ownership.[/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