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.

US Coiney Arguing like a UK Metal Detectorist

.
[category: antiquity dealer lobby nonsense]

It looks awfully like somebody got invited to the Washington employment law lawyers' end-of-year party and had a little too much shandy and when they got back into the office added something to their blog:

"Addendum: In some end of the year foolishness, Prof. Gill has suggested he had nothing at all to do with organizing the above submissions of academic papers. [...] I wonder if he is being far too modest and have asked him to clarify in the comments section of his blog. He has yet to post my comment or to respond. Perhaps he can do so as a New Year's resolution.

Frankly in his place I'd have told Tompa to get stuffed, but David is too polite. This is the epitome of the problems with any discussion, be it with UK metal detectorists or the US coineys and dealers lobby:

1) They make some ludicrous claim,
2) Somebody engages them in discussion and points out in a reasonable manner that what they've said is ludicrous and why,
3) An independent witness corroborates that the initial claim is without foundation,
4) The person implicated points out there has been a misunderstanding,
5) the coiney persists in his error ,
6) Again the allegation is checked against the facts known to a witness,
7) The Coiney adds an addendum "In some end of the year foolishness, Prof. Gill has suggested he had nothing at all to do with organizing the above submissions of academic papers". In other words repeating the initial allegation.

One might think from the persistence that he pursues this case that Peter Tompa was the editor's secretary and saw the correspondence between David Gill and PIA's editor Brian Hole. But he is not, and since both David Gill, myself, so two people actually involved who should know what was going on as well as Brian Hole the editor who allegedly submitted to David Gill's persuasion are trying perfectly reasonably to explain to Tompa that this is not the way PIA works there must be some other reason for his utter refusal to admit that he was WRONG. Wrong in his assumption, wrong to make it, and wrong to maintain it in the face of all the evidence.

This situation is repeated time and time again with these folk, they get some idea in their head (about "where ancient coins come from, not-ancient-sites, soldiers on the eve of battle, bury -die - aaaargh found accidentally by coin fairies and put on the market by coin elves" and similar rubbish). Even when the idea is shown by reasoned counterargument to be false, they stick to their guns. Tompa is convinced that Gill "engineered" the discussion in PIA and nothing is going to change his mind. What foolishness.

But there is a reason for this isn't there? Tompa has to present this as a "conspiracy" against the collector in order to "protect" the idealised picture of the PAS which serves his lobbying as a political pawn to pressurise the US Government to do what the coin collectors want. I wonder if that is the sort of protection the PAS need at the moment?



Vignette: One of the Elders of Archaeon, architects of the alleged conspiracy against collectors.