"What being an ancient coin dealer is really like" (http://www.classicalcoins.com/)

.
Dealer Dave unable these days to produce any original material of his own, done his usual cut and pasting of a huge chunk of other people's texts to bulk out his own feeble comments. This time his eye fell on my post on tekkie attempts to thwart an examination of what they are up to. He has appended a comment which can only be described as incredibly mean-spirited even by the usual lowbrow and vindictive standards of US discourse on cultural property issues. He calls his post "Poland Discredited" which makes no sense at all in the context of what he writes, but I think we've all long ago given up looking for any underlying sense in the writings of the ACCG coiney loony brigade. Aware that his is a fringe position he announces "[toxic URL suppressed to avoid contributing to its statistics]" but I'll give his: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unidroit-L/message/3927. It is also cross posted to three other forums it is on Tim Haines' grimy Ancientartifacts forum, CoinCom and the Dave Welsh Numismatica blog.

It now appears that ArchaeoGollum has managed to discredit [...] the entire nation of Poland...

That is pretty ironic coming from a group of people whose activities in cahoots with certain Congressmen and others against US attempts to control the flow of illicitly exported antiquities onto their market are doing a vast discredit to the decent folk of that country.

Vignette: Dealer Dave (photo taken in 1983 during the Great Californian Shampoo Strike when residents were forced to use corn oil instead).

Dealer Dave not Happy

.
It's still a dark Sunday over in the States while we have progressed to a lovely sunny Monday morning over in Europe. Bungalow Dave seems unhappy with my reply to his "inquiry" (read: "interrogation"). But instead of deciding that discretion is the better side of valour, still seems determined to get his boot in.

Nevertheless, whatever this guy wants to think, I do hold degrees in archaeology ( last time he asked I answered on his Unidroit-L forum, I really do not feel inclined to repeat myself). Frankly I do not think it matters, I could be a burger flipper in a well-known syndicated US junk-food chain and it would not make any difference in whether I say is logical or not. I think an argument hangs on its internal logic, the facts that are used to support it and how they articulate with other facts. Not who said it and how many exams they passed.

I think we all have a right to question how resources are used on this planet, and in a demiocracy a duty to question how a government's policies affect those resources, I do not think one has to come to the question always from the same angle and I certainly do not believe that to be conservation-aware you need a degree.

Mr Welsh is a strong supporter of individual liberties, I claim my individual liberty to criticise the trade in dugup antiquities without first being subject to Mr Welsh's requirement to first get a Masters' Degree in "Criticising-Antiquities- Trade-ology" .

That's not "evading the question" it is stating a belief that no "qualifications" are required to blog about Ms Spears' latest hits or J-Lo's Butt, the fate of Polar Bears or why the antiquities trade needs to clean its act up. Yes, it is a "rant". That's what blogs are for. If you don't like my blog, Mr Welsh, or don't think that I know what I am talking about, DON'T READ MY BLOG. Simple.

But allow other people their individual liberties to decide whether they want to read it, and leave them their individual liberties to decide for themselves whether they want to believe some, none, or all of it. OK?

Somehow it is important to Mr Welsh whether or not I want to learn more about something he calls "numismatic science" (in which he claims to be a proficient "professional"). Frankly, I do really not care what "numismatic science" is if its source is illegally obtained material illegally exported from a source country at the expense of the illegal destruction of a finite and fragile resource which I happen to care about. In the same way as none of us care what "results" Jozef Mengele obtained from any of his immoral "experiments" in concentration camps. These are data that no ethical scientist is going to use (though I believe some in the US military have been known to do so).

"Coin dealing" (as Mr. Barford puts it) can indeed become a scientific activity, to the extent that one involved in it goes beyond simple commerce and becomes involved in making numismatic discoveries and educating collectors.

Then we obviously differ at the fundamental level of what actually constitutes "science". Making a commercial website is not "science".

One example is this monograph, published on the Classical Coins website: Lathe Machining of Bronze Coin Flans http://www.classicalcoins.com [..] /flans1.html Another example is this compilation of diagnostic and conservation methods for coins and other artifacts suffering from "bronze disease" :
http://www.classicalcoins.com/bronze_disease.htm

Oh, pleeeease.... the shopkeeper is merely making a buffoon of himself. "Monographs", "white papers" - no. I do have a little bit of an idea what an academic paper looks like, written quite a few myself, edited even more. These are not academic publications by a long chalk (and there's only two of them!). This is pseudoacademic, one is "an untested idea I had" webpage, the other a compilation of other people's work - though no sources are given. Welsh is talking chalk and cheese. Where is the bibliography to this so-called "monograph", the literature survey?

Dealer Dave's Numismatic Qualifications

Welsh also claims that his period as a professional numismatist (ie selling coins) is longer than my archaeological career. His two years at Willoughby's, then two years freelance, that's four, then a break and then 2003 - the present, nine years. I make that thirteen years selling coins. He says 13 years is twice as long as 37 years, so with calculating abilities like that I think we can see why Welsh is no longer an engineer.

I also seem to remember when the ACCG was attacking numismatist Nathan Elkins because he was talking about the less salubrious side of the ancient coin trade Welsh and Hooker coming out with the statement that you could not be considered a "real" numismatist until you'd "at least twenty years experience" under your belt. Well, thirteen years as a "Professional (i.e. commercial) numismatist" falls below the standard he himself considered adequate.

His own answer to the first question he posed me, applied to his own "qualifications as a professional numismatist":
1) No, he does not hold a degree in numismatics, archaeology, art history, classical history or philology, anthropology or any of the humanities. He has an engineering degree gained from a Jesuit university.
And yet he claims the right to judge what archaeologists do and say nevertheless.

2) He has no numismatic or historical publications to speak of, a few articles in trade magazines, two texts on his website which he - but few others I suspect - considers "scientific". He claims "my qualifications in that field are as good as Mr. Barford's qualifications in the field of archaeology."
no, no they are not. Not by a long chalk.

3) He has in fact no qualifications which would entitle him to represent himself as being an expert in numismatic science alongside those who work in academic institutions and museums with many publications and books to their name. Not even a scholarship. He is a coin seller.

4) He says that although he has no real academic qualifications in the field he has "the same right any professional does to criticize those who engage in unjustified innuendoes and accusations regarding my profession". Absolutely, we can agree on that. I justify my accusations (I think I pretty well say what I think rather than using innuendos, don't I?), I have a blog full of them. I'll be having some papers and a book out soon, so perhaps Mr Oh-So-Professional can get beyond mere "criticism of the person" and get on with countering their arguments.

Otherwise you are no better Mr Welsh than the "Candice Jarman"s and "Frettening language farmhand Steve Taylor" and " Spammer Personal Coach Norman Kennedy" and all the rest that figure on the pages of this ghetto blog.

The "Science" of the Clean Trade ?

.
Scott Semans makes some comments about how ancient coin dealers in the US will "have to" get around US customs by misrepresenting the contents of packages with coins in them, I comment that they could instead just import the coins legally, and in reply Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh calls me out:

Well, Mr. Barford, it now seems appropriate to inquire a bit further into the question of who you are, to presume to instruct US coin collectors or dealers as to what we may or may not ethically do?

I am not clear why you think it "appropriate", the word is "enquire", which introduces an indirect question (so no question mark), but I thought we'd been through all this "Barford's qualifications" stuff before.

First: Do you hold a baccalaureate (or higher) degree in archaeology from any accredited university?

yes thank you.

Second: What have you accomplished in the field of archaeology qualifying you to pronounce upon matters regarding numismatic science?

Coin dealing is not a science. Neither is shopping for coins a science any more than buying or selling fashion shoes, house plants, Agatha Christie books or old Beatles LPs. We are talking about "clean" commerce in the public interest.

Third: Apart from your brief archaeological career, what qualifications do you claim, to represent yourself as being an expert in numismatic science?

None whatsoever, but we are talking about a commercial activity, not any kind of "science" [37 years is not really all that "brief", its longer than you've been a coin seller]

Fourth:

but you said "three questions"!

If you do not (as I believe) have significant demonstrable qualifications in the field of numismatic science, why do you venture to assert that you have any right to criticize and instruct those who do have such significant demonstrable qualifications in the field of numismatic science, as to what they may or may not ethically do?

Because we are not talking about a "science" of importing coins legally. There is no such discipline. I think we can all agree that the archaeological heritage is not something to be squandered for the entertainment and PROFIT of a few who get their hands on it. Like tropical hardwood trees, green spaces in our cities (not many left where you live), pandas, whales, rhinos and oil. I believe the protection of the cultural heritage is everybody's concern. We only have one archaeological record, when it is trashed by looters there'll be no more. So let's stop the looters looting, the smugglers smuggling and the no-questions-asked coin importers aiding them by passing off their packages as something else, as ACCG member and supporter Semans advocates. After all, the ACCG itself warns AGAINST such practices here and here as does Dave Welsh here.

I have as much right to disapprove of a form of commerce in archaeological artefacts which is leading to damage to sites and monuments as I do to express my disapproval of the form of commerce, exploitation and consumption that endangers whales, rhinos and our urban green spaces. In other words, every right since I live here on this planet and I belong to a generation which because of the increased pressure that is placed on resources is one of the last who will be able to do something about these things, and I think we all of us, even you, have a duty to look after its resources as best we can. And that we all have a duty to discuss how that can be achieved. Don't you?

Now shopkeeper, although I do not think it appropriate to pry, since you have done me that discourtesy, and since you not infrequently use the term "professional numismatist" to describe yourself, I think we have the right to enquire a bit further into the question of who you are, to presume to instruct others as to what ethical or conservation concerns they may express. I'm going to ask the same four questions of you, "not that I really believe there is any possibility you would respond with an honest factual reply".

First: Do you, David Welsh, hold a baccalaureate (or higher) degree in numismatic science from any accredited university in the US or abroad?

Second: What have you, David Welsh, accomplished in the field of numismatic science (publications in accredited peer-reviewed numismatic journals, book chapters, conference papers not cribbed from Wikipedia) qualifying you to claim the academic authority to pronounce upon matters regarding numismatic science?

Third: Apart from your brief career as a part time numismatic dealer, what qualifications do you claim, David Welsh, to enable you to represent yourself as being an expert in numismatic science?

Fourth: If you do not (as I believe) have significant demonstrable academic qualifications in the field of numismatic science, why do you, David Welsh, venture to assert that you have any right to criticize and instruct others as to what conservation concerns they may or may not raise about the no-questions-asked commerce in dugup ancient artefacts of any type?

I think there is a great difference between a professional numismatist working for a museum, such as the British Museum, or the Fitzwilliam, or Yale University and a string of peer reviewed and academic publications to their name, and somebody who merely sells dugup coins. That's like calling somebody who sells dead horses to the glue-maker an "equestrian".

[If you like, you can replace the words "numismatic science" in the questions above with the word "archaeology" or "the theory and practice of the conservation of the historic record". I suspect it would make no difference whichever you choose.]

But let's hear the answers please.

Or stop your nonsense.

I've got an idea, what about a blog called "Ancient Coins" discussing ancient coins and not "Paul Barford"? Give us a chance to see what you know about ancient coins by blogging about ancient coins on an ancient coins blog.

Even such a notoriously unbalanced extremist as Paul Barford - would have been a better and much wiser choice.

.
Disappointed by the news that Patty Gerstenblith has been appointed Chair of the CPAC, coin dealer Dave Welsh blogs:

Even such a notoriously unbalanced extremist as Paul Barford - would have been a better and much wiser choice

(That's the Dave Welsh who is notoriously unbalanced and extreme in his views himself). One problem, I'm not an Amerkin. He seems to be livid at President Obama's choice:

a dishonorable and unethical mockery of everything that the CPAC was originally established by Congress to accomplish...

(I thought it was set up to advise the President how best to help protect the cultural heritage. Wasn't it?)

This catastrophic and cynical appointment once again reveals the evil and unethical conspiracy through which the State Department manipulates and twists its administration of the CPAC and the 1983 CCIA. Stealth Fighter Maria Kouroupas, and her ideologically motivated gang of activists, have again shown that they are nothing more than mere unthinking tools and creatures of the AIA, the archaeology lobby and those foreign governments who yearn to exterminate the international antiquities trade. This malignant cancer gradually penetrating, pervading and corrupting the heart of our Government must be removed at any cost and at all hazards, or it will inevitably destroy everything we stand for and all that we hold dear - including what we think of as the American way of life.

Here's an interesting bit:

Bob Korver unquestionably paved the way for this immeasurable disaster by resigning, and must accept responsibility for what has happened and what will happen.

raising again the question, did he go or was he pushed?

Public fantasies of Public Execution in Washington

.
I have remarked upon this sort of thing before, but this seems to be a repeating pattern in the case of the ACCG. This from Tim Haines' Ancient Artifacts collectors' discussion group:

"In any genuinely democratic society, Kouroupas and her Satanic minions would long since have been strung up along Constitution Avenue, bearing placards warning other "government servants" against such misbehavior. Neither Osama Bin Laden nor all the rest of Al-Quaida have yet wrought anything remotely resembling the damage these ideologues have inflicted upon innocent citizens they are charged with "serving," whom they in every possible way have betrayed, and sought to dispossess of their constitutional and legal rights. These insidious bureaucrats are deadly public enemies, who dishonorably and culpably use their influence to inflict terrible injuries upon American citizens whom they have sworn to protect".

This is here also. It seems to me that this is criminal, potentially calling for the murder of federal employees.

In this writer's Bible, we learn that for the sin of administering the CCPIA, a US government official "should spend eternity in Hell, marching endlessly whilst bearing a ton of leaden garments, accompanied by the likes of Benito Mussolini". The book of Jared no doubt.

According to the writer of this disturbing text, what these people should be punished for is helping to protect the archaeological heritage from commercial looting. The writer is an ACCG coin dealer and ACCG Board Member who obviously needs professional help. Let us hope he gets it before he does himself and perhaps others harm. Are these really the people US coineys want the wider public to see as their leaders and spokesmen?

Unidroit-L has Another Commentator?

.
Over on the Unidroit-L microforum for dealers in and collectors of dugup ancient artefacts (especially round ones with pictures on) the sole content these days has been a series of postings by its owner - coin dealer Dave Welsh, to which he appends his own "comments". Most of the other members of the forum apparently sleep through Welsh's monologuous renderings of why the entire preservation-orientated archaeological and museum world is evil. So it is a pretty quiet forum

There was the inevitable post about former CPAC member Korver's letter of resignation to President Obama leaked to the coiney press, and to my surprise I find that instead of Welsh's lengthy "comments" at the bottom, there is a whole post cut-and-pasted (without the embedded hyperlinks) from my 'Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues' blog labelled "Commentary by Paul Barford in his Blog" (sic - should have read "one of his blogs").

Surely it would have been enough to insert a link?

Anyhow, let us see how many of his members are bothering to read to the bottom of Welsh's posts and feel constrained after reading my post taken from another context and provocatively inserted into Welsh's monologuous crassfest to join in the debate on whether resource preservation is about helping US commerce to profit from illegally exported antiquities...

I am sure there are many on that discussion list who think precisely in the same way as Korver .

The Technique of Deflecting Criticism from Antiquity Collecting

Like a ten year old boy little Dave Welsh tries to shift the blame for the outbreak of controversy on an artefact-collecting discussion list onto me. He writes:

I am sorry Kerry Drew finds this tiresome - I do too. It's unpleasant to realize that many don't understand how such acrimony began and who is responsible. If Mr. Drew went back to the beginning of the thread he would find that it originated in a nasty attack by Barford upon the integrity of coin collectors and the numismatic trade. Mr. Barford is very provocative in what he says, especially the insulting manner in which he says it. I try to ignore his provocations, but at times they must be answered. I do my best to stick to facts and respond civilly.
There is a price for a list allowing Barford to participate - constant acrimony. If Kerry Drew does not like that, let him complain to the listowner. Meanwhile it's unfair to say "a plague on both your houses" without knowing where the acrimony originated. That's what Mr. Barford wants - and his real reason for doing this. Dave Welsh

The guy has a nerve. Since few onlookers will by now remember where the fracas began, let us look at the history of this as this. This is not just an exercise in putting the record straight. This thread is quite typical of the techniques used by metal detectorists to inflame discussion on archaeological and responsible collectors' lists. They do this so that list members cease to pay attention to any mention of "treasure hunting", "metal detecting", "artefact collecting" etc. in the fear that another 'flame' war will break out. As we can see, another aim is to provoke list owners into taking action against the person whose stand against irresponsible artefact hunting and collecting.

What happened:
1) I published two texts on my blog. MY blog. (There are about 800 texts there on various aspects of portable antiquities collecting and the justifications offered by collectors for what they do - most of which on closer examination can be found wanting)
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/so-much-for-old-ancient-collections.html
I made a second post on the same topic just a bit later:
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/half-ancient-coins-on-us-market-are.html (Note the "new study shows").

2) Dave Welsh (not me) pulled the entire text over to an external artefact discussion list. He does not give the URL allowing readers to see it in its context of the blog.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53557

In his commentary he provocatively calls me a "liar" (though in fact the figures are perfectly verifiable if you follow back the links - to prevent which he deleted them from the original before posting it)


3) He did the same thing on Museum Security List. This one has an open archive and appears in Google searches.
http://groups.google.com/group/museum_security_network/browse_thread/thread/aff687097df2394a

4) back on Ancient Artifacts, I replied, giving the link he had omitted
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53558
(see also here http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/barford-liar.html )

5) Many people looked on and said nothing (as usual). Things like this lead me to conclude that the notion of fair play is very rare in artefact collecting circles. Nobody will stand up to bullies like Welsh. A couple of people (including at least one dealer) however gleefully joined in the happy slapping.

6) One list member stands up to Welsh (only one)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53560

7) That person is then put down. This is why people do not want to stand up to bullies like Welsh on lists where they feel intimidated to step out of line. In the process Welsh attacks a third person (common tactic among detectorists too - to widen the conflict)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53587

8) Not wanting to prolongue the thread on the discussion list (by this time a parallel discussion is going on with the moderator of Museum Security network too), I reply to that, again on my blog.
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-character-assassination-from.html
The person attacked also replies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53593

9) Welsh then "puts the record straight", once again attacking Elkins.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53698

10) Kerry Drew, a collector from San Francisco says "enough"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53706

11) Welsh replies as above.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53719

List member Adrian White sums up Mr Welsh's tactics perfectly:

Once again radical anti archaeology lobbyist Dave is attempting to smear a respected archaeologist on this site. Scurrilous attacks by him and his fellow travellers are typical of the extreme controversial political lobby group he heads. He and his sycophantic apologists always use the same tactic: putting up a straw man (in this case the archaeological, scientific and curatorial community) and then hammer away at him with mendacious and mean spirited attacks, while at the same time spewing out long, pompous and extremely tedious posts attempting to justify the unjustifiable:- the continued looting of the world's ancient history for monetary gain. As to the amount of coins in tons which are shipped to greedy and uncaring collectors in the USA and elsewhere it doesn't matter whether the amount is 350k or 700k in looted coins, either figure is a scandal and a tragedy for the scientific study of ancient history.

This follows other such pearls of wisdom as for example "More Barfordian Bile" (15th Feb 2010) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53352

His contribution under the name "Any support for a Barford-free group?" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/message/53418 and so on.

Let us note that he initially wheedles "Mr. Barford is very provocative in what he says, especially the insulting manner in which he says it. I try to ignore his provocations, but at times they must be answered". The place for answering a post on my blog is a comment posted to the blog, not copying my post wholesale to a totally diffferent forum. Mr Welsh's motives for doing this are as clear as can be. Of course it would have sufficed to answer it in the format: "this message is an answer to Paul Barford's post at http://blogpost... Note though that he did not post any of this to HIS OWN Unidroit-L forum to "answer" it. That would not have the potential of creating the same amount of fuss, anyway its the Ancient Artifacts forum he wants me chucked off as he cannot control my posts there like he can on his own forum.

In reality, I think the problem is that Welsh realises that in the face of the sort of analysis of the pro-collecting arguments which the preservationists present, the arguments for the maintenance of the no-questions-asked nineteenth century model of artefact collecting are simply untenable and bankrupt. So instead of trying to further justify what Adrian White correctly identifiers as the "unjustifiable", Welsh simply attempts to silence the critics. Since he has elected not to attempt this by fair means, he feels justified in utilising the option of foul means.

But it's "not my fault Miss: Barford started it.... wahhhh!!!"