I see that the anonymous ADCAEA dealer "Ancient Relics" (it means they declaratively 'agree' to follow the ADCAEA Code of conduct and put some cash in the kitty of the organization for putting them on the list) still has items from Peru which are listed on the website as "Regretfully (sic), we are unable to sell this item to American clients due to US import restrictions". These comprise Peruvian artefacts (some "Previously in a Florida private collection". Does that really mean Miami airport or what?). There are also Bolivian ones similarly labelled. Surely, the only reason why they might be affected by US import restrictions is if there is no way to demonstrate licit export from the source country according to the two criteria offered by the CCPIA. And if this dealer has such items in his or her stock, why are they still on the ADCAEA list of member dealers? When I pointed this out earlier (PACHI Friday, 19 September 2014, 'ADCAEA Dealer from the UK "Regrets"...' ), I was assured (McGovern Huffmann pers. comm.) that the Associations' President was going to have a word with their member about this. That obviously never happened. In what way is the ADCAEA not a sham? What would be the point in a dealer forking out the demanded $500 to belong to a sham organization? Either the ADCAEA stands for something, or it does not.
Thursday, 20 November 2014
ADCAEA Dealer unable to sell some items to USA?
I see that the anonymous ADCAEA dealer "Ancient Relics" (it means they declaratively 'agree' to follow the ADCAEA Code of conduct and put some cash in the kitty of the organization for putting them on the list) still has items from Peru which are listed on the website as "Regretfully (sic), we are unable to sell this item to American clients due to US import restrictions". These comprise Peruvian artefacts (some "Previously in a Florida private collection". Does that really mean Miami airport or what?). There are also Bolivian ones similarly labelled. Surely, the only reason why they might be affected by US import restrictions is if there is no way to demonstrate licit export from the source country according to the two criteria offered by the CCPIA. And if this dealer has such items in his or her stock, why are they still on the ADCAEA list of member dealers? When I pointed this out earlier (PACHI Friday, 19 September 2014, 'ADCAEA Dealer from the UK "Regrets"...' ), I was assured (McGovern Huffmann pers. comm.) that the Associations' President was going to have a word with their member about this. That obviously never happened. In what way is the ADCAEA not a sham? What would be the point in a dealer forking out the demanded $500 to belong to a sham organization? Either the ADCAEA stands for something, or it does not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment