Tuesday, 24 February 2015

North American Coineys on the Ball - as Ever


For fifteen years, there has been an MOU between Italy and the US regulating the import of fresh antiquities and which - we are asked to believe - has huge implications for the way coin dealers go about their business. Huge, so huge, that the coineys are being asked to urge the US gubn'mint to abandon it. To do that, I guess it really behoves them to actually know what it is about. But do they? Coineys? Ha!  So on moneta-l we find the following gem from veteran dealer Robert Kokotailo referring to the straw man argument of the IAPN and PNG lobbyist Peter Tompa: 
Seems to say they are considering extending the Italian restrictions through the Imperial period, but does not say if coins are being considered for that or not.  Does anyone know any more about this [?].
Well, it remains to see if any of them know anything about anything. Mr Kokotailo sure as eggs is eggs is unaware that for the past fifteen years there has been an MOU which he as a coin dealer should know about the title of which is "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Italy Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical, and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy".  Too many words for coineys I guess. 

11 comments:

Mr X said...

The existing Italian MOU does not cover Italian coins of the imperial period.
Which you could have discovered for yourself if you had bothered to read the designated list for Italy.

Mr X

Paul Barford said...

Quod erat jolly well demonstrandum. So, "Eksy", too many words, maybe? Look at the one that reads "extend" and try and understand to what it refers. OK?

Nathan Elkins said...

Paul,
Some observers need it spelled out.

1) The lobbyist Tompa created the straw boogeyman that there is some attempt to "extend" restrictions to "Roman imperial coins" in order to rile up opposition to the MOU. This is a baseless claim on his behalf and it is line with other straw man tactics he and his cohorts typically deploy. As you pointed out, the last MOU with Italy covered Roman imperial material of various sorts, although "Roman imperial" coins were not on the designated list (nor were Roman Republican denarii). Locally circulating coins were: provincial and colonial coins, Greek coins from Italian cities, pre-monetary instruments, Etruscan coins, etc.

2) There is nothing in the proposed language of the renewal that is different than the last document in that regard. It too included "Roman imperial" material, although not the imperial coinage in the designated list. The title of the proposed agreement has not change since the last MOU. But the lobbyist's deception is serving the purpose of getting the unobservant riled up.

Paul Barford said...

If you remember, Tompa tried the same sneaky tactic in the previous renewal, he raised the false spectre that "Roman Imperial coins" might be included and the knee-jerk airheads jumped to cue instead of checking it out for themselves.

Tompa is trying to pull a fast one, counting on coiney gullibility. I think that is not a tactic that a lobbyist representing the IAPN and PNG should be using.

Tompa should be representing coiney members of the IAPN and PNG, not exploiting the naive stupidity of some of them. Not that the PNG and IAPN appear to actually give a tinkers about what he's doing with any of their members' money they pay him. Disgraceful state of affairs.

Chris Freeman said...

Have any of you even asked yourselves why coins are even on the list? I actually support unprovenanced artifacts from import. I do not support looters. The "problem" with coins is they were MADE to be traded. Huge hoards of greek and roman gold coins have been found in India, Scandinavia, etc. Why should Italy have any say in coins found in other countries? That is the problem with attaching bans on importation of coins, there are no way to know where they were found. Besides, coins are not found at archeological sites. Nearly every large hoard is found buried in the countryside. Think about it, if you didn't have a bank are you going to bury your life savings in the middle of town or in a field in the middle of nowhere?

Paul Barford said...

>>Why should Italy have any say in coins found in other countries? <<

And why should America?

Sam Ofnett said...

"Think about it, if you didn't have a bank are you going to bury your life savings in the middle of town or in a field in the middle of nowhere?"

I would bury them under the kitchen floor, under the fridge, where I could keep an eye on them. But what on earth has that to do with export licences? Is it you getting confused or me?

Mr X said...

Oh yeah - extend - now I get it.

Mr X

Paul Barford said...

>>Oh yeah - extend - now I get it.<<

It is called "reading and thinking", observably not the forte of many collectors.

David Knell said...

"Besides, coins are not found at archeological sites. Nearly every large hoard is found buried in the countryside."

Really?

Paul Barford said...

Well, the thesis that many coineys are as thick as planks seems to be well demonstrated by those who show that they really ARE incapable of thinking something through instead of parroting irrelevancies.

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.