Today is the last day to save Ancient Coin collecting in America!

[coinman1794]

Aprill 22nd, 5PM, is the deadline for submitting opinions to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding the proposed restriction, by the Italian Government, of classical coinage from free entry into America. Here is my letter. Please send a similar one today:

 

 

April 21, 2010

Cultural Property Advisory Committee

Cultural Heritage Center

US Department of State

E-mail: culprop@state.gov

Fax: (202) 453-8803

 

Hello:

 

I am deeply concerned about the recent talk of restricting the entry of ancient Roman and Greek coins into the United States for several important reasons.

 

First, these coins ceased being the property of Rome (which has no relationship to modern Italy), the moment they left the treasury and were spent. And many were not even coined in Italy. These coins are units of intrinsic value intended to be used in trade all around the ancient world.

 

Second, because these coins flowed freely around the ancient world, there is no difference from a coin found in Rome, Great Britain, or even Syria, for that matter; and Italy has no valid justification for claiming ownership of them or restricting their movement.

 

Third, this new rule would only restrict importing these coins into the United States, arbitrarily and unfairly damaging, both financially and aesthetically, the large and beneficial following that these coins have in America.

 

And finally, the proposition would do more harm than good in the protection of these ancient treasures, as the most sophisticated curators, conservationists, and numismatists (and those who consistently do the best job of preserving coins) can be found only in the United States of America. Companies such as NGC Ancients, and Numismatic Conservation Services, both located in Florida, have developed cutting edge methods of preserving and protecting ancient coinage for posterity.

 

I hope the Cultural Property Advisory Committee will seriously rethink accepting the recently proposed restriction on Classical coinage. The measure has no basis in logic or reason and should be rejected. It presumes that ancient coinage is somehow the property of a government that did not exists until roughly 2000 years later. It unfairly discriminates against one country. And, while claiming to be protecting antiquities, it threatens to completely destroy the infrastructure that has been established in America for the long term preservation of ancient coinage.

 

Thank you for your consideration,

 

[Hoot]

Thank you for this letter and contact information! Very important stuff. I've also sent an email.

 

Hoot

[PerryHall]

Should this rule pass, is it even enforceable? The gov can't stop the flow of drugs or even mexicans from entering the country so how can they keep coins from coming into the country?

[BillJones]

This proposal would have a chilling affect upon the market value of these coins. Every piece that was offered at auction or ads could be subject "an owership review."

 

This is a very silly, xenophobic attitude, but it is the new reality of govenment taking more control over people's lives. I have been silly enough to think that this sort of thing was in our past, at least in weatern European and North American countries, but creeping socialism is making it a reality.

[DC Dawg]

Should this rule pass, is it even enforceable? The gov can't stop the flow of drugs or even mexicans from entering the country so how can they keep coins from coming into the country?

Collectors are easier to catch than drug dealers, except for Israel Switt!

 

This proposal would have a chilling affect upon the market value of these coins. Every piece that was offered at auction or ads could be subject "an owership review."

 

This is a very silly, xenophobic attitude, but it is the new reality of govenment taking more control over people's lives. I have been silly enough to think that this sort of thing was in our past, at least in weatern European and North American countries, but creeping socialism is making it a reality.

Bill... before you spout your anti-government tea-party , try understanding the issue first. These MOUs are initiated by the foreign country which the US has entered into the agreement. In this case, the Italian government came to the United States State Department in 2008 to amend the MOU. The State Department deferred the decision to the new State Department, which is the right thing to do when there is about to be a change in administration.

 

Once the request is made, it must wait one year BY LAW before it can be decided. BY LAW the State Department must solicit and consider public input, which they just did. After soliciting input, the State Department discusses the MOU with the country requesting the change. The Cultural Property Advisory Committee will meet on May 6-7 at the State Department to discuss this matter. The meeting with the Italian government will be later in May.

 

Now, where is the socialism is that? In fact, do you even know what socialism is beyond the right-wingnut rhetoric?

 

Scott

[World Colonial]

Applied to coins, it is still an idiotic requirement regardless of what the protocol is.

[DC Dawg]

It is still an idiotic requirement regardless of what the protocol is.

I never said I agreed with the concept. In fact, I sent a letter which I reprinted here.

 

Scott

[gpnyc]

Wow Scott, interesting that you go after Bill for being misinformed and in the same breath you call the tea party movement anti-government. I think you need to get informed: the tea party movement is not anti-government, its anti-big/intrusive government.

 

And when you start insulting half the people here with statements like "right-wingnut," you can expect some push back. I wonder how you will feel about the government running every aspect of your life when the current party is out of control. Won't be so great then, will it?

 

Before you start calling me names and making assumptions, I will tell you that I am an independent, conservative libertarian who wants the government out of our lives and out of our wallets and leaves us free to succeed or fail on our own merits.

 

If you think that's a horrible position, that's fine. If you want a controlling nanny state, that's fine, but please make your point without attacking people. This is not a political forum!

[DC Dawg]

PM sent

[gpnyc]

Nice. A little flustered are we? Felt the need to lash out a bit? Hope it made you feel better.

 

If you're going to attack someone and their opinions, at least have the courage to do it in public, not in a PM. But, whatever, we will see who is in the mainstream of political views come November.

 

I can see you have some maturing to do so I am done with you. You are now on my ignore list, an exclusive club, so don't bother trying to harass me again. Run along now before you embarrass yourself further.

[World Colonial]

I'm with you on this one. I am one of the "extremists" who actually believes in the entirely novel and shocking idea that people should actually be able to keep their own money and mind their own business.

 

People who believe in expanding government like to call themslves "moderates" (because the term "liberal" carries a negative connotation to many) and are in favor of "compromise". The logical fallacy with "compromise" is that to many or most of these people, "compromise" is simply another word for capitulation to bigger government. It is presented as the false alternatives on the path to socialism or bigger government using the installment method instead of the fast track. The option of actually shrinking government is seldon if ever presented as an option.

 

In terms of this specific proposal, it depends on what the actual result will be on whether it is socialistic or not. If the effect is to consider someone who owns these coins or tries to buy or sell them without having an Italian export license as not having valid ownership and the result is that the coins are confiscated, then that is a form of socialism or authoritarianism. Its as ridiculous as the standards the IRS gets to use and the existence of the asset forfeiture laws under "money laundering" and drug laws. In these two circumstances, the individual is basically presumed guilty until they prove their innocence. Neither of those standards have any business belonging in any free society.

 

If the coins are not consfiscated, what happens? Is the owner compensated? If so, how much and who decides? It sure will not be the collector or real owner.

[DC Dawg]

Nice. A little flustered are we? Felt the need to lash out a bit? Hope it made you feel better.

 

If you're going to attack someone and their opinions, at least have the courage to do it in public, not in a PM. But, whatever, we will see who is in the mainstream of political views come November.

 

I can see you have some maturing to do so I am done with you. You are now on my ignore list, an exclusive club, so don't bother trying to harass me again. Run along now before you embarrass yourself further.

I did it in a PM because as you said, "This is not a political forum!" I agreed and decided to respond in a PM. As I said in the PM, you are practicing, "Do what I say, not as I do." To practice what one preaches is the sign of maturity.

 

If anyone is interested in the message George seemed so offended with, send me a PM and I will forward it to you. This is not a political forum and I will not get into this discussion here.

 

Scott

 

[DC Dawg]

If the coins are not consfiscated, what happens? Is the owner compensated? If so, how much and who decides? It sure will not be the collector or real owner.

If the coins are confiscated, the law does not provide for compensation. The coins are taken by the US government and, in this case, returned to Italy as antiquities. If it is proven that you actually broke the laws that covers the stealing of antiquities (which could be difficult to prove unless they catch you with known items), then you could either be prosecuted in the US for violation of this law or handed over to Italy for prosecution.

 

It is a very bad law which was modified following the invasion of Iraq when people were stealing items from the museums. Rather than write a law that went after those scofflaws, the law was written that could turn any collector of antiquities, whether coin or other artifacts, into criminals. What makes matters worse is that if added to the Italian MOU, it could turn those who collect ancient Roman and Greek coins (those struck in what is now southern Italy during the Greek empire) into a contraband economy. This is phenomenally stupid and should not happen, which is why I wrote the letter in opposition of the change.

 

Scott

[coinman1794]

The "returned to Italy part" is the real problem, as they belong to Italy no more than they belong to Germany, France, Britain, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Spain, Greece, Turkey, et.al.

[World Colonial]

I have heard of that Iraq law you mentioned. And I agree with you that there is a difference. Given that what happened in Iraq was straight theft, I do not see why another law was even required.

 

I do not see any satisfactory solution to the antiquities problem to the extent there actually is one. In addition to coins, there are many other relics - possibly most of them - where it would be absurd to apply this same standard and for the same reason.

 

Even taking an item like the Rosetta Stone which I understand the Egyptians want back, I do not think they should have it and I would not give it to them. It was sitting in the desert for over 2000 years while the Ptolemies, Romans, Byzantines, Mamalukes and Ottaman Turks successively ignored it, could not be bothered to look for it or did not find it.

 

But now that the British have it and it is (presumably) worth a lot of money and considered a national treasure, they want it back. As far as I am concerned, it belongs to the British and they should keep it.

 

You mention the expansion of this law to other ancient coinage. As an exclusive world coin collector, I see the potential as much worse. For example, I see nothing to prevent this law from being applied to the Spanish colonial pillar coinage I collect. After all, the silver was plundered by the Spaniards and the coins were made from this silver, so why not?

[Hard Times]

 

 

 

God Bless!!

 

 

 

 

[coinman1794]

I have heard of that Iraq law you mentioned. And I agree with you that there is a difference. Given that what happened in Iraq was straight theft, I do not see why another law was even required.

 

I do not see any satisfactory solution to the antiquities problem to the extent there actually is one. In addition to coins, there are many other relics - possibly most of them - where it would be absurd to apply this same standard and for the same reason.

 

Even taking an item like the Rosetta Stone which I understand the Egyptians want back, I do not think they should have it and I would not give it to them. It was sitting in the desert for over 2000 years while the Ptolemies, Romans, Byzantines, Mamalukes and Ottaman Turks successively ignored it, could not be bothered to look for it or did not find it.

 

But now that the British have it and it is (presumably) worth a lot of money and considered a national treasure, they want it back. As far as I am concerned, it belongs to the British and they should keep it.

 

You mention the expansion of this law to other ancient coinage. As an exclusive world coin collector, I see the potential as much worse. For example, I see nothing to prevent this law from being applied to the Spanish colonial pillar coinage I collect. After all, the silver was plundered by the Spaniards and the coins were made from this silver, so why not?

 

I faxed my letter, above, using the ACCG website's automated fax-wizzard system, in which they provided a few pre-written responses that you could add to your message.

 

http://www.accg.us/issues/news/fax-wizard-is-open-for-comment-to-us-state-department

 

One of them spoke of whether or not I oppose restrictions on coins 250+ years of age, or not. I do not know what is contained in the actual proposal up for review, but I have a feeling not just ancient coins are at stake. And, with such an arbitray assertion as the basis of this proposal (that ancient coins belong to Italy, and that only the US is not allowed to have them), why not take us all for a ride down that slippery slope, and protect all coinage of 250 years or older from Americans.

[PerryHall]

For example, I see nothing to prevent this law from being applied to the Spanish colonial pillar coinage I collect. After all, the silver was plundered by the Spaniards and the coins were made from this silver, so why not?

 

Didn't the Spanish originally steal this silver from the Aztecs, Incans, Mayans, and other new world native Americans in which case Mexico, Peru, etc has a greater claim?

[World Colonial]

Yes, under this "logic", Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru would have the "valid" claim because that is where the silver originated from and where the coins were made.

 

Taking this line of thinking to its illogical conclusion, its easy to see how completely bogus it is. The example I gave could be extrapolated for many, most or even all coins from elsewhere. Even with US coins that most collectors on this board own, the argument could be made that the silver was "stolen". Same goes for many or any aged artifact since few to none of them have a fully documented pedigree . And why limit it to that? The homes you and I own are located on land that once was "stolen" from somone else. Let's give that back while we are at it. (Never mind that there is no one around who has a valid claim, the politicians will find "someone". That "someone" will just be some crony who supports them or some "interest group" who elects them into office.)

 

Under this "logic", it would make as much sense to go back to the beginning of time and correct every injustice in history. Its the same absurd claptrap which many advocates of income redistribution use to "justify" their political positions.

 

I say that anyone who has purchased their coins (or anything else) in good faith has valid ownership. Prior bad historical acts have nothing to do with the current collector or owner and it is not their problem.

[DC Dawg]

Yes, under this "logic", Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru would have the "valid" claim because that is where the silver originated from and where the coins were made.

 

Taking this line of thinking to its illogical conclusion, its easy to see how completely bogus it is. The example I gave could be extrapolated for many, most or even all coins from elsewhere. Even with US coins that most collectors on this board own, the argument could be made that the silver was "stolen". Same goes for many or any aged artifact since few to none of them have a fully documented pedigree . And why limit it to that? The homes you and I own are located on land that once was "stolen" from somone else. Let's give that back while we are at it. (Never mind that there is no one around who has a valid claim, the politicians will find "someone". That "someone" will just be some crony who supports them or some "interest group" who elects them into office.)

 

Under this "logic", it would make as much sense to go back to the beginning of time and correct every injustice in history. Its the same absurd claptrap which many advocates of income redistribution use to "justify" their political positions.

 

I say that anyone who has purchased their coins (or anything else) in good faith has valid ownership. Prior bad historical acts have nothing to do with the current collector or owner and it is not their problem.

First, let me say that I agree with you!

 

However, there is a long history of the stealing of antiquities throughout world history that many people want to see rectified regardless of how long ago it occurred. When countries make the arguments for the stealing of antiquities, a number of fingers point to Great Britain and the British Museum's Egyptology collection. The collection was built from 19th and early 20th century archeologists who unearthed the treasures and took them from Egypt. Egypt says it has a claim on its antiquities and the world seems to use it as an example.

 

The most recent arguments are made using the looting of Iraqi museums following the US invasion of Baghdad. Laws were changed in order to retrieve these items and return them to Iraq. Unfortunately, the laws were written in such a manner that it opened the door to the situation we have now (did anyone consider this is congress's fault?).

 

I think it would be fair to try to recover items that were stolen from museums or protected lands. I think it is fair for Egypt to try to negotiate with Great Britain in order to return some of the items taken from excavations on Egypt soil. I also think it is fair for a country to try to recover items that may have historic interest that may have left the country under less than ideal circumstances. I read a story somewhere about how France charged a collector with espionage until a Napoleon uniform was returned even though it was obtained while Napoleon was exiled to Elba. But that has some historic significance.

 

But where does it stop? When does the statue of limitation end? Will this mean they can go after my crusty old 1794 large cent because it could have been carried by someone important? IMHO, unless the claim is that the coin or any antiquity was stolen and there is evidence to support the claim, these governments should leave it alone and let the collectors collect!

 

Scott

[World Colonial]

When it comes to museums, the situation to me is more straight forward. Theft is theft and it is reasonable to return this property in many though not necessarily all instances.

 

To me, the standard is whether the collector or current owner acquired it in good faith and by that I mean, could they or should they have reasonably known that the item they bought was or could have been stolen property. That will vary with the item in question (whether a coin or otherwise). If the item is really rare or one of a kind as many Iraqi antiquities might be, that would be one indication of bad faith. Another standard is that if the offer price is too good to be true (subjective as these prices may be in a thinly traded market), then it probably is and turning a blind eye is not acceptable.

 

When it comes to governments and items such as the Rosetta Stone, of course I do not blame the Egyptian government for trying to get it back, I just do not believe they are entitled to it and if I were the British government and British Museum, I would tell Egypt to go take a hike.