"Discretion" a necessary priority for the no-questions-asked marketeers

Alfredo de la Fe was describing on the Moneta-L forum a new database he was setting up similar to the CoinArchives site which, as I mentioned earlier, has priced itself out of the range of the casual or average collector. It was gratifying to observe that he and his advisory group were contemplating including a section which would allow the movement of coins from owner to owner to be followed and also reconstruct associations (such as coins coming from the splitting of hoards). This seems a step on the road to a fuller transparency in dealing with archaeological artefacts by this branch of the market and is to be welcomed. Not, however by the no-questions-asked dealers who apparently have reason to feel uncomfortable that somebody could look over their shoulder. Thus Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh was quick off the mark to "warn":

Considering the hunger Paul Barford and others of his ilk have for obtaining this sort of traceability information, caution is necessary to insure (sic) that it does not get into the hands of those who seek to discredit ancient coin collecting. It is unfortunate that collectors must think of such
considerations when considering the wisdom of information sharing regarding their holdings and acquisitions, however the reality today is that there are enough zealots out there whose goal is to abolish collecting, to make discretion a necessary priority.

Priority over what? Transparency? I wonder what is the difference for the ACCG and its officers in "discretion" and secrecy? When it's the State Department exercising discretion about its dealings with foreign governments (as US law allows and diplomatic protocol requires) its regarded as reprehensible by US no-questions-asked dealers. They want to import whatever they make a quick buck on without having to be asked by an impudent US customs officer where the export licenses are. But when it involves the deliberate suppression of information about where those artefacts are coming from and going, that is OK, because then it is ("necessary") "discretion".

There is nothing very discrete about the way Mr Welsh tries to cover his no-questions-asked tracks. Yes, I asked him outright (three times) about the origin of the Balkan dugups he is selling as special lots. I asked him (twice) about a group of Parthian coins he was selling (discussed here, here, and here). He said the latter came from "Spain", the Balkan ones he effectively refused to discuss. I have no "hunger" for the information, I asked him, I got singularly evasive replies, which we can all see and check and ponder over. I think we may all fairly draw whatever inferences we make on what Mr Welsh sells on their basis.

Once again, we see the same blatant misrepresentation of the facts of the case. Welsh asserts that "there are zealots out there whose goal is to abolish collecting". Where, precisely? I've been through all this before (see also here), but Mr Welsh still uses the same tired old mantras to try to whip up the indignation of the masses. Of course he knows his audience, sheep like "Fred S." are obviously gullible enough to believe any old nonsense the pro-no-questions-asked-market activists like him try to foist off on them, without checking the facts for themselves.

So once again, but this time I will write it in exasperated mauve and I'll write it in big letters for the 'hard of reading' in the portable antiquity collecting community:

When will collectors get it into their heads that what is being urged here is a more ethical, responsible, sustainable, accountable and transparent trade, not its abolition?

By all means however let us abolish from the legitimate market those who cannot and will not exercise due dilligence to cut down the ease with which illicit items enter and circulate in the market, those who deny the need for it, those who refuse to even consider that the "Petrarch collected coins like this" status quo is unsustainable in the twenty-first century.

I suppose the existence of the imaginary "zealots" is supposed to act as an excuse for why "collectors must think of such considerations when considering the wisdom of information sharing regarding their holdings and acquisitions". It could not possibly be, of course that collectors who buy from certain dealers have something to hide? Mr Welsh sounds here so much like a certain group with the UK "metal detecting" milieu. Interestingly though, when he came onto the Britarch forum to spread his poison, even the "metal detectorists" rejected him.