Collectors and numismatic pros

Started by EWC, May 13, 2015, 10:27:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EWC

Quote from: Figleaf on May 13, 2015, 10:00:46 AM
Disgusting. We don't condone personal attacks here either, but don't mix it with commercial interests. Ever.

Thanks Peter.  The context of the matter is this.  I flagged up that the British Museum had withdrawn a facility it had offered for many decades (perhaps centuries) - to identify limited numbers of coins for members of the public.  An uninformed group member, who collects very rare and expensive English coins, defended the actions along the lines that the BM staff have very important work to do, and should not have their time wasted by ordinary members of the public.  A legitimate viewpoint, but not one I share.  He claimed that the policy would have people queuing round the block - which was clearly false - as for many decades it never did.

The comment was forcefully made, so I objected forcefully -  calling the opinion "priggish".  IMO that is a correct comment on the opinion that had been publicly stated - which specifically denigrated  beginner collectors coming with ordinary sorts of coins.

An ad hominem would be to attack the guy personally on a matter of no relevance to the issue at hand.  Something I would never dream of doing.

Of course I realise others may not agree with my stance, or my tactics in taking it forward.  But expulsion without notice or reason seemed to me a very troubling step to take.





constanius

The BM still offers this free identification service but it is now, since 2014, subject to an 1970 UNESCO Agreement, which severely limits its scope.

The Department of Coins and Medals offers an object identification service, covering coins, tokens, coin-weights, paper money and commemorative and art medals. Please note that the British Museum supports international efforts aimed at preventing damage to archaeological sites and the illicit trade in cultural objects. We cannot therefore give an opinion on ancient coins made and/or found outside the United Kingdom where the provenance is uncertain or contrary to national or international law.

Objects can be brought to the department during opening hours (Monday-Wednesday, 10.00-13.00 and 14.00-16.00). The service is free, but no more than ten objects can be shown at one time.


Here is an interesting opinion on that https://www.academia.edu/6947055/The_British_Museum_UNESCO_1970_coin_collectors_and_me 


Pat

Pat

EWC

Thanks Pat – very interesting.  Here are my reactions

The identification service formed an important link between collectors (Joe Aspergers as that writer amusingly calls us) and academics.  My first interaction with the BM was that way.  I sent a few grotty coins for comment, Martin Price spotted a Byzantine overstrike the Museum would like to get, and did a swop for a common but nice Indo-Greek copper in their spares box.  Like many in his generation, Price had roots in collecting, and had considered being a dealer before he joined BM staff.

Such was common then.  Grierson had roots in collecting, as did Mark Blackburn.  There are still a smattering of such people about.  Excellent professional academic numismatists like Lutz Ilisch at Tuebingen, or Kenneth Jonsson at Stockholm, both entered academia after coin dealing.

The general trend in culture however, over several decades, is towards academic professionalisation.  A matter that troubles me, as I fear it narrows the scope of debate, stifling criticism, and allowing  political propagandsing (via funding)  to flourish at the heart of academia.  In numismatics this move is towards the recruitment of numismatists from academic archaeology.  And amongst that intake there are certainly a minority who are actively hostile to collecting.  That attitude seems to track back in part to political stances taken by such as Karl Polanyi and Maynard Keynes, and fed into archaeology by such as Moses Finley.  But it is held by some archaeologists today merely because they were taught that way, and had not the wit to criticise.

I do not agree with the sort of tactics the writer adopts, building a rift between collectors and professional academics.  In connection with that – I make two points:

1)   It seems likely to me that there is a silent majority within the academic community that wishes to co-operate, and the bad out turns are associated with a smaller group of rather vocal zealots.  Building bridges is better than building walls

2)  If collectors are a bunch of "Joe Aspergers" then we ought to be throwing up more displays of cranky brilliance than is so far happening, at least on web groups.  Standards of knowledge are often depressingly low.  I shall continue to offer blunt criticism when I think appropriate, and if folk do not like it, they can throw tomatoes back.  Its clear there are a bunch of thoughtful folk on WOC, but I wish they would pitch in more to correct and debate.  Not at all a criticism of WOC – I have been chucked off nearly every numismatic group I ever joined that is moderated out of the USA, and Brits have been depressingly slow to voice concerns on that.

Thanks again

Figleaf

I wholeheartedly support the idea of building bridges between collectors, numismatic pros and archeologists. I know from the experience of working with detector pilots that coins have started reacting away under the pressure of artificial fertiliser. I know from museum stats that coin finds are increasing exponentially since detectors have become popular. In other words, collectors are finding single coins and even hoards that archeologists would not have found for lack of means and that pros need for quantitative analysis.

The three groups can achieve much together, but animosity between them will destroy it all. While archeologists are tightly organised, pros come in all shades and collectors are amorphous. Archeologists are therefore best placed to make peace. Instead, they harbour a vocal group of extremists who haven't got the first glimpse of the beginning of a clue that most coins are common, even if they are 1700 years old.

However, in this case, there is no need to seek for a plot. UNESCO is a big bureaucracy in Paris, that practices "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" every day. Not worrisome in principle, because they have no legal power. The trouble is that there are ministries in every country where top bureaucrats believe UNESCO quid-pro-quos and compromises are safe for the career, useful and practical. They can force a museum's hand...

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

EWC

Quote from: Figleaf on May 14, 2015, 05:32:22 PM
However, in this case, there is no need to seek for a plot. UNESCO is a big bureaucracy in Paris, that practices "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" every day. Not worrisome in principle, because they have no legal power. The trouble is that there are ministries in every country where top bureaucrats believe UNESCO quid-pro-quos and compromises are safe for the career, useful and practical. They can force a museum's hand...

That's a valid viewpoint, with a lot of truth in it.  But I think there are more things to say. 

Unlike the text at the start of this thread - I do not want to seem simplistic or hot headed – but I add these points for balance.

Back in 1935 the philosopher Bertrand Russell went into the prediction business – Aldois Huxley (Brave New World) and Orwell (1984) sort of followed in his footsteps

Russell sarcastically wrote

"The idea of one universal truth has been abandoned; there is English truth, German truth, Montenegran truth, and truth for the principality of Monaco."

Around 1949 a Russell associate Julian Huxley abruptly resigned as head of UNESCO, and UNESCO was shunted from London to Paris.  That has never been properly explained.

In 1952 Levi-Strauss gave a key note speech to UNESCO in Paris called "Race and History".  In 1987 Finkielkraut wrote a book attacking UNESCO in general, and the direction charted by Levi Strauss in "Race and History" in particular.

The policies Finkielkraut found in Levi-Strauss look very similar indeed to those Russell had predicted 50 years before.

30 years on - with ISIS at the gates of Palmyra – well - it would be simplistic and hot headed of me to blame that on UNESCO.  But perhaps some mistakes have been made along the way that are not entirely irrelevant?



constanius

Quote from: EWC on May 14, 2015, 11:03:59 AM
Thanks Pat – very interesting.  Here are my reactions

The identification service formed an important link between collectors (Joe Aspergers as that writer amusingly calls us) and academics.  My first interaction with the BM was that way.  I sent a few grotty coins for comment, Martin Price spotted a Byzantine overstrike the Museum would like to get, and did a swop for a common but nice Indo-Greek copper in their spares box.  Like many in his generation, Price had roots in collecting, and had considered being a dealer before he joined BM staff.

Such was common then.  Grierson had roots in collecting, as did Mark Blackburn.  There are still a smattering of such people about.  Excellent professional academic numismatists like Lutz Ilisch at Tuebingen, or Kenneth Jonsson at Stockholm, both entered academia after coin dealing.

The general trend in culture however, over several decades, is towards academic professionalisation.  A matter that troubles me, as I fear it narrows the scope of debate, stifling criticism, and allowing  political propagandsing (via funding)  to flourish at the heart of academia.  In numismatics this move is towards the recruitment of numismatists from academic archaeology.  And amongst that intake there are certainly a minority who are actively hostile to collecting.  That attitude seems to track back in part to political stances taken by such as Karl Polanyi and Maynard Keynes, and fed into archaeology by such as Moses Finley.  But it is held by some archaeologists today merely because they were taught that way, and had not the wit to criticise.

I do not agree with the sort of tactics the writer adopts, building a rift between collectors and professional academics.  In connection with that – I make two points:

1)   It seems likely to me that there is a silent majority within the academic community that wishes to co-operate, and the bad out turns are associated with a smaller group of rather vocal zealots.  Building bridges is better than building walls

2)  If collectors are a bunch of "Joe Aspergers" then we ought to be throwing up more displays of cranky brilliance than is so far happening, at least on web groups.  Standards of knowledge are often depressingly low.  I shall continue to offer blunt criticism when I think appropriate, and if folk do not like it, they can throw tomatoes back.  Its clear there are a bunch of thoughtful folk on WOC, but I wish they would pitch in more to correct and debate.  Not at all a criticism of WOC – I have been chucked off nearly every numismatic group I ever joined that is moderated out of the USA, and Brits have been depressingly slow to voice concerns on that.

Thanks again

This comment of mine below was in regard to your post but it was left behind by a topic split.  It makes no sense in the other half of the split but I have copied it here.

I think the writer was having somewhat of a bad day ;) but he was clearly frustrated.  I agree with you, that it is better to try and extend a bridge than increase the divide.

Luckily I only collect old commemorative medals & tokens, not coins, so my dealings with museums have all been positive, whether I am the one seeking advice or I am providing corrections or information to them.  The other benefit is less fakes & more affordability.

Your track record of banishment is pretty impressive, please try to avoid becoming persona non grata on WOC ;D

Pat

Pat