"As our papers show, the U.S. market for ancient coins is relatively small compared to the European market" said one speaker at this week's CPAC hearing. All those Europeans collecting ancient dugup artefacts (and coins are artefacts) from the soil of the territories within the European Union however do so in accordance with the laws which apply to that activity. There are laws which apply to the export of coins outside the EU, and all the MOU extension is requiring is that these laws are respected by those importing ancient dugup artefacts for the US market. Why would ancient coin COLLECTORS in the US condone the breaking of laws?
Whether that market is larger, the same size or smaller than any other is not actually relevant. The fifty thousand US ancient coin collectors claimed by the ACCG seems quite a sizeable drain on the supply of dugups on the legitimate market over here in continental Europe.
Since the lobbyist raised the point that coins of Italian mints are found elsewhere in the Empire and that the movement of ancient coins from Britain for example is not (yet) affected by any extension of existing MOUs, if a collector wants a coin of Emperor Pustillentius IV from the Aquileia mint to fill a hole in a coin tray in a Wisconsin back bedroom, then why does it have to be imported from Italy, and not from a find made in the UK and duly recorded by the PAS and then imported on a proper British export licence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment