I welcome your comments and I'd be astounded if your annoyance with
my seemingly moralising stance are not shared by a few other members
also!
I'll try to address your points:
Provenance/"provenance": I don't find my provenances very impressive
either: I'd much rather be able to write more information as it can
only add interest and value to each item.
I simply state what I believe to be the truth, not based on greed
and/or naivety but based on professional assessment of the
information which is presented to me with an item. By information, I
don't just mean a vendor's assurances, I mean that I apply common
sense and the tit-bits of kowledge I've picked up from trading.
Your contempt for provenance declarations is entirely justified in my
opinion! It is damned easy to lie and thus someone who does not care
for their reputation can manipulate value, at least in the short
term. My argument would always fall back on the age-old value that
reputation is worth more than a quick sale but its well documented
that this business is crammed full of creeps and crooks: if they'll
lie about authenticity of course they'll lie about provenance. This
is again why I'm proposing common-sense guidelines to collectors, not
a set of idealised values behind which dealers can hide. What I'm
trying to do is make people engage their brains before they hand over
their money: if someone is selling a pile of cuneiform tablets or
Indus Valley pots (90% of which are fake on the UK market anyway!)
and they just rabbit on about old collections but can't argue their
case... walk away... don't buy!
If you think about it, I'm actually trying to produce a fairer
business where a collector has the right to question goods and not a
system where self-righteous pompous whatevers think they're above the
law. But for this to work, the law has to apply to each and all. If
its illegal its illegal, if its "irresponsible" we're into a
different domain. What made me nip at your ankles was not your
verbose defence of dealing (you may speak for more people than
myself, I don't know, but its an interesting thought) but because you
were defending the purchase and dispersal of illegally acquired
antiquities.
As long as colleagues (and I consider you a colleague as we both sell
antiquities, unlike the aforementioned con-men) claim its fine to
knowingly trade in smuggled or clandestinely excavated goods its my
duty to the preservation of my own business to speak against you. You
have your opinion, and I have mine, but I will make sure that its
clear that you're not speaking for all dealers when you flippantly
advocate crime.
You basically argue that provenance is a load of self-indulgent
elitism at best and downright lies at worst. I can't speak for all
dealers for obvious reasons so I'll speak for myself: I provide as
much info as possible because it adds interest and value to an item
(aside from the fact that it adds interest for myself and provides
potentially relevant info to researchers, however piffling). If the
provenance is oblique its because a vendor was oblique, this is
precisely what I'm trying to change! I don't need to lie as I have
more customers than stock to sell, and I don't want to lie because
one slip-up can come back to haunt me at any time in the future.
Obtuse dating of collections: most collections were not acquired in
one decade and unless I have receipts/invoices/certificates/import
docunmentation/publication info pertaining to an individual object
I'd be lieing if I placed an exact acquisition date on an individual
piece. I.e. I can only relay what is given to me and allow my clients
the opportunity to make their own decision. Do you see what I'm
getting at? I could be a fantasist and it could all be lies, but the
tax man requires me to keep 7 years of purchase and sale receipts
which all state this info; furthermore I issue COAs with photographs
of each itemwhich state what I believe to be the correct culture,
description and provenance of an item: though these COAs mean nothing
in legal jargon they provide an incentive for a buyer to keep a paper
trail and thus any known provenance as an item passed through my
hands is hopefully passed on. I feel the photo is essential (we only
introduced this a few years ago) so that descriptions can not be
swapped in order to give other items an artificial identification/
authentication or provenance. Shoot me down, but it all seems
perfectly simple and logical which is why I don't understand why all
dealers don't do it?
I think its fair to assume that well over 99% of items (legally) on
the market are unprovenienced but that does not mean that they are or
have to remain unprovenanced - apologies if I'm wrong, but I think
you are mixing the meaning of these two words. Provenance means that
Kevin next door owned a pot until I bought it last week, provenance
can also mean that Lord Elgin owned the pot 200 years ago. If we
don't record that Kevin owned it last week and someone later finds
out that Kevin bought all his items from Lord Elgin's great-great-
niece, that link would be lost. That's why provenance is important,
however dull and mundane it may seem to record it now. When you rage
at Paul's concerns for provenance-recording I think that a lot of
people are misunderstanding the term and think that I'm somehow
condoning repsonsible collecting guidelines which rely too heavily on
provenience (which refers to the exact location of excavation).
As it happens, I received a marble foot yesterday, part of a group of
antiquities in a small provincial auction. The auctioneer sold them
as "ex. deceased estate" - that could mean they were bought yesterday
in Iraq and the guy died the same evening... it means nothing... as
it happens many of the items were accompanied by old labels (yes,
they can be faked also!) The marble foot had a label saying it was
found in Ephesus in 1904 by AE Henderson, this could be total
nonsense but in my professional opinion there was no reason to doubt
the paperwork accompanying the collection. If you bought the
collection you'd throw the labels in the bin, in my way of dealing I
try to research Henderson (and it turned out he excavated at Ephesus
in the early 20thC) - I believe this is responsible dealing but in
consequence I will also get a higher price for the fragment: quod
erat demonstrandum!
Steve, I don't want to brow-beat you, I'd like you to see the sense
in what I'm saying and thus give serious consideration to the idea of
responsible guidelines for collectors... you're a bright guy so
please think about it rather than go into a rage, it detracts from
the valid points which you make.
"Ex. private collection, UK" - yep, it means very little in this day
and age, but it means that a reasonably responsible dealer in 2008
was prepared to put a semi-legal "terminus post quem" on something
which would otherwise remain potentially unprovenanced and thus in
some people's eyes forever "tainted" - which is worst? If that 2008
description survives 50 or 100 years it may ad interest to the item
just as old receipts do now. They have limited historical meaning and
presumably no scientific value but that does not mean they hold no
meaning to future collectors. Likewise, a receipt/invoice/coa (call
it what you want, but a link to a past dealer) adds value if its
issued by a someone in reasonably good standing and actually
diminshes value if its issued by someone with a bad reputation.
Thanks to anyone who could be bothered to read this prolix diatribe:
you're more patient than myself!
Cheers,
Rolf
> Rolf,
>
> Only because you took a swipe at me, I will swing back. I know you
> are considered some sort of demi-god on here so any response will
be
> unpopular.
>
> I am not all that impressed with your "provenances." Can you state
> with certainty that everthing on your website was excavated 100% by
> the letter and spirit of the law of the source country? And
exported
> by the same standards. Can you give a meaningful paper trail for
each
> item with meaningful descriptors such as exact measurements,
weights,
> photographs, etc. to prove that the item matches the paperwork?
>
> A lot of your inventory has the vague provenances that I find
> ridiculous, misleading and, in this instance, even hypocritical.
You
> often say "from an old UK collection or ex. private collection UK."
> So what? That does not mean it was legally excavated or legally
> exported. It may just mean that it was looted a in 1975 and has
been
> in an old collection since. What defines an old collection? The
> statement "from an old collection" is meaningless verbage and does
> nothing to establish a legal claim of export or ownership. If the
> object is Egyptian, was the "old collection" completely formed
before
> 1970 and can you document that claim with precision?
>
> You must not even know who the collectors were that formed these
> numerous "Old German" and "Old English" collections or you would
> certainly put that in the description for the benefit of potential
> buyers. If you can't even name the collector, what makes you so
> certain that these objects are any cleaner than the little things I
> buy from metal detectorists? If you can't even name the
collector,
> you certainly can't claim any knowledge of the collector's buying
> habits or ethics so you really don't know a damn thing about the
> legality of the item you are selling. At least I am up front about
> this problem.
>
> A good deal of your Egyptian antiquities say "old collection,
> acquired 1970's-1980's." So which was it, 1970's or 80's? You
> obviously don't have a clue as to exactly when the piece was dug
and
> exported from Egypt or you would state an exact date and not a
vague
> range. If it was 1970 or later, the legality is problematic; if it
> was post 1983, it is illegal. So this provenance is as meaningless
as
> the COA's and "documentation" I get and throw out so I won't
mislead
> my buyers with made up stories.
>
> Your Egyptian beads and Danubian cup, among many other items, claim
> no provenance so I guess you think that legal excavation and export
> only applies to pricier items. Do you not realize that it does not
> matter if a looter finds a gold necklace or just a few of your
> Egyptian beads, the site is still destroyed for arcehological
> purposes? At least I know with that my little metal items are
surface
> finds without context; someone had to dig a hole to loot your cup.
>
> Don't climb up on your moral high horse with me. Your inventory is
no
> cleaner, and probably a lot dirtier, than mine. The difference is I
> don't play word games and hide behind 'From an old UK collection"
> nonsense.
>
> SGM
>
>
>
>
> -- In Ancientartifacts@yahoogroups.com, "rolf5568"
> <heliosgallery@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the people who told me that this was the wrong place for a
> > constructive debate on modern collecting were right. Its a pity
> that
> > the intelligent comments and criticisms which have been made by
> some
> > members are utterly obliterated and therefore wasted by the
> > irrelevant rants of others. I thought that this debate could be
> > inclusive so that the broadest possible range of collectors,
> dealers
> > and academics could be heard but this has sadly proven impossible
> > here.
> >
> > A change in attitude to collecting is not something alien or
> > ethereal, its already happening, and anyone unwilling or unable
to
> > understand it will simply be left behind, put out of business or
> see
> > their collection devalued over the coming decades.
> >
> > I have no interest in upholding the interests of the dealers or
> > collectors who are not willing to address the impact of illicit
> > excavation, and it seems that many of these short-sighted
dinosaurs
> > who will trade in smuggled/stolen/illicit antiquities are to be
> found
> > here. As I've said before, this was an idea intended to set broad-
> > based standards which people can then apply or ignore as they
wish;
> > life's too short to explain the many reasons again and if some
> > members are too simple to understand self-preservation I suggest
> they
> > visit a library and ask for a copy of The Origin Of Species.
> >
> >
> > If you want ten-dollar-artifacts which have been illegally
exported
> > (stolen) then you can shop at Steve M.'s place: the stuff looks
> both
> > genuine and cheap. If smuggling, theft and fakes are not a
> > consideration in your collection I'd recommend you shop at
> > Artemission, Eftis, Sadigh & 100's of other low-life scum set-ups
> > spouted by the internet and ebay. Just don't claim to give a hoot
> > about culture and don't expect to be able to sell the stuff in 10
> or
> > 20 years time.
> >
> > Without action from the collecting/trading community our shared
> > interests will become the subject of further legislation, of that
> > there is no doubt to anyone who bothers to read up on the subject
> and
> > the idea of clinging to the "status quo" is optimistic if not
> > downright absurd. As an ADA member and "white elitist" with a
> > advantageous educational background including a degree in
> archaeology
> > I may just get a dealing license in the new system... but if I
do,
> I
> > won't be buying anything without a provenance and nor will anyone
> > else. Go figure....
> >
> > Please, try to make sense of a set of responsible guidelines with
> an
> > agreed balance or the matter will simply be taken out of your
> hands.
> > That's democracy in action, so let's not bark about civil
liberties!
> >
> > Rolf
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ancientartifacts/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Ancientartifacts-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Ancientartifacts-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Ancientartifacts-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
