Ed Snible's Fouree and Views on the Egypt MOU

In general, I regard Ed Snible's "Gift for Polydektes" blog to be one of the more intelligent in the coiney blogosphere, miles ahead of the bitter ranting, posturing and conspiracy theorising of the ACCG herd. Sadly, fuzzy thinking is never far away in collecting circles. Mr Snible (Friday, April 25, 2014) decided to try and garner support for opposition to the Egypt MOU currently under consideration. he does so with reference to a coin he "could not buy because of the MOU" which he says is a die link with a chewed0-up one he already has in his collection ("Let's not forget to comment on the ancient Egyptian coins for the proposed MOU"). Now, I do not think that the two coins, though obviously the same type,  are in fact die-linked [look at the relationship between stock and shank of the anchor and the position of the crayfish within the anchor for example], but that was merely a secondary rhetorical device. My concern was with the way Mr Snible quite clearly misunderstands the CCPIA. I commented on his initial post:

Did you actually ask the seller whether details needed to comply with the CCPIA were out of the question? What did he say? Did you actually ask, or did you just assume?

 http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/97-446.pdf section 307. Since you are importing from Germany and not Bulgaria, the requirement section 307 (a) does not apply. Your import would, in the event of any queries, come under section 307(b) and (c).

Note the requirement in (c) is for the importer to supply customs with one of two types of documents. These are in fact "best belief" statements.  Could you not do that if you believed that the coin you bought was indeed legal to import into your own country under the CCPIA? The wording of the CCPIA involves quite a lot of wiggle-room, don't you think? It actually is an incredibly poorly-drafted law.

So, how do you think that coin reached Germany? If you believe (or ascertained) that the German dealer could not assure you that it was by squeaky-clean legitimate means, then is the MOU not doing its job?  Other countries have similar legislation, a UK buyer could not legally buy it if it was illegally excavated and smuggled (2003 Dealing in Cultural property (offences) Act).

[...] As for Egypt, why would anyone  want to oppose an MOU on a whole range of artefacts because you Americans want the "freedom" to buy loose coins without having to ascertain whether they were on the international market outside Egypt before a certain date? Given the degree of thefts from museum stores and sites 2011 onwards, why would anyone WANT to buy such items blind? Surely anything which cleans up the US market should be welcomed by buyers?

His reply totally ignored most of the issues raised. He was very concerned to convince me that the two coins were die-linked. Despite me laying it out in black and white for him, he dodges the question of what documentation he actually needed to legally import that coin from Germany to the US  and admits that his approach was assumption rather than checking. He ignores the point about cleaning up the antiquities market, which is disappointing. In reply to the point I made about his caution as a buyer and the MOU doing its job, he gives an astoundingly wonky definition of what he sees as the intention of the MOU/CCPIA and 1970 UNESCO Convention.This is my reply to his fact-dodging response. I began by suggesting we agree to differ about the die link - a subjective coiney picture game:

You wrote: "I did not ask the auctioneer about the possibility of documentation"

So I do not see how you can use this as an example of why the MOU is in any way a hindrance. Your problem was your own fear and misapprehensions, than the actual status of that coin.

The problem seems to be that instead of finding out what the CCPIA, together with the Convention mean for you, you have let yourself be led astray by the dealers' lobbyists and tub-thumpers.

We see this here: "I see the MOU's job as getting accidental finders to report discoveries to the Bulgarian authorities instead of having them handed off to antiquities "runners" .  Eh? How on earth do you get from the texts of the CCPIA and 1970 Convention to that odd conclusion? I suggest you stop uncritically accepting what the lobbyists are telling you, and start looking for yourself. Your interpretation 100% parroting Peter Tompa and the ACCG and is 100% wrong.

"I can't think of a system that would have the effect you want except a PAS-like scheme implemented on the Bulgarian side."

Ummmm. I suggest you really have not the foggiest what it is the proponents of the CCPIA consider its only function. Please read it up. It has nothing to do with any "PAS" - this is another Tompa/ACCG red herring which you have allowed to mislead you. If you are going to oppose the MOU, then please at least do it actually knowing what it is and is not and not parroting what others have told you to think.

This is dreadful, Ed Snible seems to me to be one of the more intelligent and thoughtful of the US dugup ancient coin collectors one can meet online. If someone like him is being so badly misled by the ACCG and their propaganda machine, what hope is there for the less well endowed intellectually? Wayne Sayles and Peter Tompa are personally responsible for this and have a lot to answer for. In pursuit of their own agenda, they have consistently (and I am inclined to believe deliberately) totally misled the US coin collecting community. It is astounding to realise that there are people out there collecting coins without the foggiest idea of the context. These are the sort of people that will believe the stories about the coin fairies and coin elves and all of the other worthless junk-arguments of the no-questions-asked trade.  Disgustingly, instead of helping collectors understand their position and obligations, the ACCG and other dealer-interest-groups working in the same direction are exploiting their intellectual weakness and confusion to the furthest extent. Absolutely sickening, totally legal, but morally reprehensible.