Tatler:
"Hrrrm... it's easy to imagine scholars like him referencing coins
without a provenance dating back to 1970 for their papers, hrrrrm...".
Wayndorf:
"Anyone who has read the man's diatribe in "All the King's Horses" will
understand immediately that this is not someone with a balanced view of
social intercourse...".
Tatler:
"What? "
Old Man Wayndorf might like to explain why he considers a relatively balanced account of "
The Trade in Fresh Supplies of Ancient Coins: Scale, Organization, and Politics by
Nathan Elkins a "diatribe" and what kind of "social intercourse" anyone can expect with no-questions-asked coin dealers and their lobbyists like these two caricatures-in-denial. Time
these two stepped down from their balcony and let others carry on the
"social intercourse" in the form of a dialogue, not their bawling down
anyone who presents a view they cannot accept.
If dugup coin collectors and dealers disagree with what Elkins writes, the way to deal with it is show where he is wrong, by detailed presentation of evidence and falsification of the preservationist arguments, not by the typical techniques of the Black Hat Guys and the PAS of simply dismissing anything which does not say what they want people to say about collecting and its effects.
2 comments:
The deceptions certainly continue. The lobbyist's comment about the 1970 benchmark in reference to the article is a complete misrepresentation. Pages 105 state "With the masses of ancient coins on the market and the number of active collectors today, it would be both impossible and impractical to try to hold collectors to a circa-1970 provenance standard on acquisitions, a date increasingly adopted by institutional collections and by archaeological professional groups like the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)." The discussion continues on alternatives and the necessity of compromise. The fact of the matter is that the lobbyist and the leader of the dealer lobby are not interested at all in compromise or change; they seek only to maintain a status quo. That, I suggest, is the reason for the deliberate misrepresentation of my statements and of the issues at large.
I really would not bother about them, the intellectual level of their arguments is transparently self-evident.
I would hate to think that this is the best collecting can do, and that one day when these jerks retire from the scene the more reasoning and reasonable ones will find a voice. But the wait is a frustratingly long one.
Post a Comment