The attraction of ancients (to Barry)

I posted this in another thread and was accused of "snobbery with
respect to ancients":

"After picking up where I had left off as a 15-year-old, I bought the
kinds of U.S. coins I salivated after but couldn't afford back then,
and afterward graduated to ancients. The older the more interesting,
and when you add in that some of these coins represent the pinnacle of
numismatic aesthetics and were minted by peoples whose thinking and
culture formed the very foundation of Western civilization, it's
hugely interesting."

I don't think it's snobbery to find ancients the most interesting
coins to collect. Far from it. It's a well-established fact that
collectors of ancient coins ARE superior to other collectors. A snob
is generally someone who pretends to be superior, though I suppose
there are other shades of this definition.

Just joking! U.S. and world coins can have their immense attractions
too. Any collectible in fact is collectable to those who collect it.
Ergo, my little set of holed U.S. type coins obtained for under $10,
coins others regard as culls -- junk.

Some collectibles are more popular than others, but you could make a
strong argument that it makes sense to collect what others don't to
get the best deals and find the rarest specimens, if rarity is a
quality you desire. Though the less popular, I suppose, the less
information will be available about it, with exceptions to this I'm
sure out there. On the other hand, the less popular a collectible
category, the more feasible it will be to create new knowledge about
it. On the third hand, I personally like some coin types that are very
common ... and very popular. To each her own.

Here's a page I've updated recently, based on a Coins magazine article
I wrote a few years ago, about getting started with ancient coins:

http://rg.ancients.info/guide/ancients.html

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
.....
I don't think it's snobbery to find ancients the most interesting coins to
collect.

It depends, of course, on what one is interested in.

I've always thought that the essence of collecting is discrimination - not
in a negative social sense, but in being able to recognize and appreciate
variations, similarities and differences between specimens. It is such
discrimination that drives collectors and professional numismatists in
charge of collections to carry out monumental studies and labors of love
that result in achievements such as Price's compilation of Alexandrine coins
and Michel Vlasto's collection of Tarentine coins.

Following that thought, one comes to the question of what is the most
fertile field for a collector to work in. That very much depends upon the
collector, but a few generalizations may be in order.

A field in which there are no differences between specimens is barren. One
specimen characterizes the whole. There's no scope for discrimination.
A field in which every specimen is altogether unique is likewise barren. No
specimen can usefully be related to any other. There's no scope for
classification.

Thus, collectors seek a field in which differences between specimens, but
also similarities, make it possible to recognize, describe and classify a
structure that characterizes the whole. Within that conceptual framework
there are great differences between collecting fields, and I think this
explains why some collectors find ancient coins fascinating, while others
prefer modern coins: their personalities best fit the structure of the field
that they prefer.

On the one hand we have the collector who prefers a highly ordered, minutely
organized collecting structure in which there are few variations in how
specimens may be collected, and one's efforts are measured by the depth of
understanding of all elements of the structure, completeness of one's
collection and the standard of condition and attractiveness. Collecting US
coins could be thought of as a field of this type. It has been possible in
the past to form a complete collection of US coins, although I doubt that
this could be done today.

On the other hand we have the collector who prefers a less ordered, more
loosely organized structure in which there are many variations in how
specimens can be collected and one's personality finds scope for expression
in choosing a collecting theme. In a field of this type one's efforts can be
measured and appreciated in very different ways. Collecting ancient Greek
coins is a field of this type.

The diversity of such a field may perhaps be best appreciated by describing
two significant Greek coin collections. On the one hand we have the
collection of Calouste Gulbenkian, whose theme is artistic interest. The
most beautiful coins ever produced, according to Gulbenkian's discerning
eye, were gathered without any concern about cost and without much interest
in historical and numismatic context. The result is an awe inspiring,
enormously valuable accumulation of magnificently artistic coins in the
highest imaginable standard of condition, now housed in a beautiful museum
in Lisbon.

On the other hand we have the collections, now dispersed but carefully
catalogued, of Greek bronze coins formed by Henry Clay Lindgren. I don't
imagine that this eminent collector spent one thousandth of what Gulbenkian
did on his collections, yet in my view his is the greater achievement. The
Lindgren collections are primary attribution references, particularly for
Roman Provincial coins. Many examples are (as Lindgren put it) "in less than
fine condition" and though of little monetary value, these unattractive
specimens are keys to understanding an immensely complicated coinage.

The scope of ancient coins as a collecting field is enormous, no such thing
as a complete collection of ancient coins even being imaginable. A
comprehensive reference library on the subject (such as the one Joel Malter
assembled) would fill a large room with thousands of linear feet of shelf
space, and is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Joel once remarked to
me that his bookcases cost him more than his first house. This vast scope
appeals to certain types of collectors, while it repels others.

My own personality is definitely more oriented toward ancient coins,
although I dealt in US coins long enough to understand their appeal. I
suspect that many US coin collectors selected that field by default, not
imagining that there was any other choice if one wanted to collect coins.
Some of these might be happier collecting ancients, if they had opportunity
to become exposed to that subject.

Let's recognize, accept and even celebrate our diversity and the differences
between collectors. That's what makes our avocation so interesting. There's
no one choice that is best for everyone.

Dave Welsh
Classical Coins
www.classicalcoins.com

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:41:14 -0700, "Dave Welsh"
wrote:

A field in which there are no differences between specimens is barren. One
specimen characterizes the whole. There's no scope for discrimination.
A field in which every specimen is altogether unique is likewise barren. No
specimen can usefully be related to any other. There's no scope for
classification.

And this in turn depends on how finely you tune your variety meter.
Some collectors (nondiscriminating!) of ancients would say that U.S.
coins are boring because all of any given type look the same. But even
though it's true that the varieties are less obvious than with
ancients, the varieties of course still exist.

Another example: Classical "Standardized" Athenian Owls, dated by Sear
(after Starr) c. 449-413 BC. Some find this series, to use your word,
barren, and these coins boring because of the lack of varieties -- no
mintmarks or other obvious ways to differentiate. But there are in
fact differences, subtle differences, similar in subtlety as the
differences that exist with U.S. coins ... if you look carefully. And
that's the key -- looking carefully. Some dealers do differentiate
standardized Owls by assigning them different dates within the c. 449
to 413 BC period. Most don't.

Some dealers use different dates entirely for standardized Owls, but
that's another issue: Knowledge with ancient coins is on less firm
ground than with modern coins. Some people find this greater
uncertainty unsettling. Others are attracted to it. The uncertainty
applies to other areas as well, most notably forgeries. As with
attributions, some find the greater uncertainty regarding forgeries an
unsettling aspect of ancient coins while others find it attractive,
enjoying the greater challenge.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" But there are in
fact differences, subtle differences, similar in subtlety as the
differences that exist with U.S. coins ... if you look carefully. And
that's the key -- looking carefully.

Actually I enjoy the similarities, ie the ancient influences which are found
on modern coinage. Early 20th century American coinage was greatly
influenced by Greek coinage, large in part to the sponsorship of Theodore
Roosevelt, a collector.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:53:18 -0400, "Sibirskmoneta"
wrote:

Actually I enjoy the similarities, ie the ancient influences which are found
on modern coinage. Early 20th century American coinage was greatly
influenced by Greek coinage, large in part to the sponsorship of Theodore
Roosevelt, a collector.

Me, too. Roosevelt carried an Athenian Owl as a pocket piece and also
admired Alexander gold staters, remarking about their beauty in a
letter to Saint-Gaudens when discussing with him the redesign of U.S.
coinage. Both Owls and Alex staters happen to be among the areas I
follow, and even though it's not for this reason, it does add an
interesting side light to these coins.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos