The market in ancient coins and self-regulation

I have been reflecting on a series of questions to answer at a conference next week. One of them asks this, Is self-regulation the way forward?

One of the ways that this could be answered is by looking at the responses of auction-houses or galleries when 'toxic antiquities' are identified. The organisations can either open negotiations with the source countries or they can press ahead with the sale. But the second approach is not always successful because potential buyers can get 'spooked' and the objects get left unsold and perhaps unsellable.

But then there is the topic of freshly surfaced ancient coins. Does the market self-regulate? Or do national bodies have to set up procedures?

I have read with much interest the reaction to a scholarly article by a North American academic in a high profile archaeology journal that addresses aspects of this issue.

A Washington lobbyist who is paid for his services by the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) has reacted sharply to this piece of academic research, and has even complained that the author of the article shared an electronic offprint with colleagues ("provided advance copies of his article to his fellow archaeo-bloggers"). (There has also been an unsightly discussion of how those who deal in ancient coins seem to define collegiality.)

It gets worse: the lobbyist appears to misunderstand that copyright rules that restrict the author (or anyone else) from posting the article in a place where it can be downloaded for free.

And this same lobbyist has been outspoken about the movement of archaeological material removed from Syria to western markets.

And what has the IAPN said about one of its members linked to a recent incident?

It appears that IAPN spent $40,000 on lobbying for 2014, and $10,000 so far this year (to Messrs Bailey & Ehrenberg). (But I rely here on information that has been made available in the public domain to aid transparency.)

If the IAPN does not 'reign in' its paid lobbyist, it could suggest to the academic and policy-making communities that 'self-regulation' does not work in the area of ancient coins.

And, if I can use a soccer image, the lobbyist will have scored an 'own goal' and encouraged North American authorities to intervene more closely in the market in ancient coins.

| |

Freedom of Information and Coins

In 2009 I noted the filing of papers by Scott A. Hodes on behalf of "non-profit numismatic groups". This was followed by the turning down of the request. Last week I observed the ruling that there had indeed been no "cover up" by the US State Department.

Hodes has now issued a statement about the appeal. But he has also been less than transparent. He refers to comments made by an "ancient coin collector" without noting that this same "collector" is in fact a paid Washington lobbyist for the three numismatic organisations who appear to have fronted the FOIA request.

It is also interesting that the IAPN and the PNG continue to be silent on the FOIA request made in their names.

No cover up: coin conspiracy theory falls

I note that the Courthouse News service is reporting that there was no concealment of evidence as alleged by the IAPN, the PNG and the ACCG. This must come as a blow to the paid Washington lobbyist who has argued for a cover-up. This will hopefully bring an end to the shameful attack on the late Dr Danielle Parks whose emails have been the subject of interest by the request made by the three organizations. | |

Washington Lobbyist and Coins from Bulgaria

I have recently noted that the sale of some medieval coins from Bulgaria had been stopped. It now appears that Classical Numismatic Group Inc. (CNG), with an office in Bond Street, London, has issued a press statement. The release included this statement:

On 5 November, CNG's London office received a faxed letter from the Bulgarian Embassy in London notifying CNG that "The Bulgarian authorities have reasons to believe" that one of the lots in the CNG auction was part of a collection reportedly stolen in Bulgaria in 2007, and requesting CNG to withdraw the Bulgarian coins from the auction in order to allow the Bulgarian authorities to further investigate the matter.

The interesting thing is that the press release does not appear on the CNG website (as far as I can see). Is there a reason?

So where does the press release appear? On a paid-lobbyist's blog - and if you want to read the release you can click here because this same Washington lobbyist has thoughtfully left the text on Looting Matters. (There is a link to the lobbyist's original page.)

It appears that this same lobbyist is currently retained by two organisations: the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN), and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).

The IAPN has apparently paid Bailey & Ehrenberg $20,000 this year for lobbying. (In 2009 is was $10,000.)

IAPN has also apparently paid $10,000 in 2010 to the DLM Group, and specifically to William B. Driggers and Marc P. Lupin.

CNG is a member of the IAPN.

Will the CNG disclose the name of the anonymous private collector who is reported to have consigned the coins at issue?

FOIA Appeal Announced by Coin Collectors

It comes as no surprise (as I anticipated on November 24) to find that the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) have appealed against the opinion on the FOIA case brought against the US statement (for details). The appeal was filed on December 22, 2009 (Press Release; statement and document on ACCG website).

The statement, issued under the name of Wayne Sayles, states:

The appeal seeks to overturn Judge Richard J. Leon's November 20th decision to uphold the State Department's (DOS) repression of information about the process by which import restrictions were placed on common collectable coins of Cypriot and Chinese types.

The case of coins from Italy no longer seems to be on the agenda for the three plaintiffs (see court case papers, Count IV: "documents evidencing the potential inclusion of coins on the list of items subject to import restrictions with Italy"). Has something changed?

The press release also makes its view of President Obama clear:

the Judge's decision in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit came less than a month before President Obama's "Open Government" Progress Report to the American People--where the President proclaims: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government..."

Yet the statement overlooks the wording of the original ruling:

... the State Department has established that it conducted a reasonable search, that it properly withheld the disputed information under FOIA exemptions, and that it complied with its obligation to segregate the exempted material from non-exempted material.

The plaintiffs do not appear to appreciate that the FOIA allows exemptions under certain circumstances.

This appeal is so important to two of the three plaintiffs that they have yet to comment on the appeal (or for that matter on the decision, or the case) on their respective websites (PNG, IAPN). No doubt there will further calls for funding from coin-collectors to help the cause. How much have the three plaintiffs had to find so far?

CPAC review of MOU with Italy: the AIA version

I have already given a comment on the CPAC review of Article II of the MOU with Italy that related to "the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods of Italy".

I had noted that Sebastian Heath's presentation on behalf of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) had caused concern. A collector advocacy group issued a press release in the wake of the review and described the AIA presentation as "a wakeup call for thousands of private collectors, museums and independent scholars".

Sebastian Heath has now placed a report (as well as the text of his submission to CPAC) on the website of the AIA ("Politics & Archaeology: A First-Person Account of the CPAC Meeting Reviewing Italian Import Restrictions"). He commented on the response from the museum community:

When we had all finished, I was pleased to note that the speakers representing museums generally praised the cooperation of their Italian counterparts in efforts to arrange loans to American institutions. It is clear that museums in this country would like to display Italian objects for longer periods than is currently possible, which seems to be a reasonable request. Only one museum representative, from the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, seemed to question the premise that it is appropriate to use the MoU to restrict import of antiquities from Italy with the goal of protecting sites and preserving information on the context of ancient art.

No doubt the Minneapolis Institute of Arts is wanting to deflect interest from the Athenian red-figured volute-krater that was reportedly acquired from Robin Symes.

I was particularly interested to read Heath's version of the discussion about ancient coins. I had earlier observed:

Tompa asserted that "Italy has done a poor job taking care of the coins at state institutions and archaeological sites".

Now we can read the perspective of the AIA representative:

Another voice heard at the CPAC meeting was that of ancient coin collectors and dealers. Like many AIA members, one of the areas in which I’ve published scholarly articles is ancient numismatics so the protection of coins is of great interest to me. Archaeologists are members of the numismatic community, and it is important that our voice is heard. Speaking for coin dealers, Peter Tompa, who represented both the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild and who has also released a summary of his written submission, suggested that Italian museums are not good stewards of their numismatic collections and that Italian archaeologists do a poor job publishing excavated coins. My experience suggests that neither is the case. The Palazzo Massimo in Rome has a superb numismatic display that features excavated material, including hoard finds, to trace the rise and use of coinage from the Republican period onwards. The website www.fastionline.org reports the discovery of coins and often places them in context by discussing the sites on which they were found. Unfortunately, the current MoU does not include coins as a protected category. If Italy does request that coins be included in a future agreement, it is likely that the AIA would support such a move.

Heath seems to suggest that Tompa was either deliberately presenting misleading information to CPAC or was unaware of the true situation in Italy. Such a conclusion is surprising given that Tompa is a director of the Cultural Property Research Institute (CPRI). What does Tompa's presentation say about the quality of the "research" that is likely to be produced by the CPRI? (For earlier reservations see here.)

Tompa's apparent misrepresentation of evidence would seem to strengthen the case for including coins in any future review of the MOU with Italy.

Heath's account comes close on the heals of the outcome of the FOIA case relating to the import of coins from Italy.

Looting Matters: Coin Dealers and Collectors Lose Case Against the US State

Looting Matters: Coin Dealers and Collectors Lose Case Against the US State



| |

"This litigation was in many ways a win for the plaintiffs": The ACCG responds to FOIA decision

Yesterday I drew attention to the decision over the FOIA case brought by the ACCG, the IAPN, and the PNG. A short statement subsequently appeared on the ACCG website, "Ruling in FOIA case condones DOS intransigence". Judge Richard Leon is described as holding "pro-government views".

Although the decision went against the plaintiffs (ACCG, PNG, IAPN), the ACCG statement proclaims, "Despite the disappointing decision, this litigation was in many ways a win for the plaintiffs."

There is also fighting talk:

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild still plans to pursue a test case regarding whether those import restrictions were promulgated in an arbitrary and capricious fashion.

This apparently relates to coins from Cyprus and China brought into the US through Baltimore (see the helpful discussion by Paul Barford).

This FOIA case was so critical to two of the plaintiffs that they have yet to comment on the outcome (PNG, IAPN).

The ACCG, IAPN and PNG FOIA Case: Opinion Delivered

The long-running FOIA related case (Civil Case No. 07-2074 RJL) brought against the US Department of State (Defendant) by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN), and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) (Plaintiffs) appears to be drawing to a conclusion. On Friday last week (November 20, 2009) Judge Richard J. Leon delivered his opinion [download here].

... the State Department has established that it conducted a reasonable search, that it properly withheld the disputed information under FOIA exemptions, and that it complied with its obligation to segregate the exempted material from non-exempted material. The Court will therefore GRANT the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY the plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

I notice that one of the FOIA requests included: "Count IV: documents evidencing the potential inclusion of coins on the list of items subject to import restrictions with Italy".

This means that only one week before this conclusion, the representative of the IAPN and the PNG was presenting the issue of coins to CPAC as part of the review of the MOU with Italy. The ACCG also issued a press release in the wake of the CPAC meeting attacking the AIA. Indeed only today, in spite of knowing the decision of of Judge Leon, Wayne Sayles ("Symbiosis Lost and Nuance in New York", Coinlink November 24, 2009) of the ACCG could write:

The die is cast, I fear, and the present struggle will continue until archaeology has established its dominance or private collecting its independence. I would predict that neither will happen soon nor without considerable animosity and a terrible loss of opportunity.

Sayles' position is hardly in keeping with the outcome of the FOIA request.

I suspect that the plaintiffs will be mounting an appeal but it is surprising that they have been unusually quiet on the decision.

Numismatic dealers raise concerns about the AIA

The Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) has at long last broken its silence about the Freedom of Information Act suit that was filed against the US Department of State in response to the restriction of ancient coins from Cyprus back in November 2007 (see my original comment). On Wednesday last week (August 19, 2009) the PNG issued a press release on its website, "PNG Assists in Combating Import Restrictions".

The PNG defines itself as follows:

The Professional Numismatists Guild, Inc. is the only numismatic organization in the United States that restricts its membership to dealers who possess and demonstrate three essential qualifications: Knowledge, Integrity and Responsibility.

Robert Brueggeman, the Executive Director of PNG (and of Positive Protection Inc. [as stated on the PNG website]), is quoted:

The PNG Board of Directors unanimously agreed to contribute the funds to assist IAPN in its lobbying efforts to combat unfair import restrictions. We are concerned that overzealous Customs Bureau agents may unfairly misconstrue even well-meaning regulations by mistakenly claiming that any undocumented ancient coin is a stolen cultural property artifact of another country.

Paul Montgomery, the new President of PNG (and President of Paul Montgomery and Associates of Houston, Texas) says:

This is a frustrating and ironic situation ... The U.S. already has agreements with Cyprus and China that hinder the importation of coins that may have widely circulated centuries ago and, in fact, are now easily available for purchase by the public in those countries. Yet, Customs officials are seemingly doing nothing to stop the egregious importation into the U.S. of counterfeit coins from China and elsewhere.

The PNG is now offering to support "the work" (i.e. "to oppose irrational bans on the importation of coins into the United States") with $12,000.

The Belgium-based International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) has yet, as far as I can see, to make a formal statement on its own website; however, a press release was posted on the ACCG website in December 2007.

The PNG goes further in its press statement.

PNG and IAPN officials are concerned about efforts by the Archaeological Institute of America to train Customs inspectors to detect and seize coins suspected of being imported in violation of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act.

What this means is that officers of the PNG and the European-based IAPN hold the view that US Customs inspectors cannot receive specialist training to detect potentially "stolen" archaeological material. Why? Are there commercial concerns?

The issue is explained by "attorney Peter K. Tompa of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC." (I note that Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC appears to be "retained" by the IAPN and the PNG.)

The use of trainers from the archaeological community with ‘an axe to grind’ against professional numismatists and collectors carries with it the danger that unfair enforcement will actually result ... Historical coins have been traded for at least 500 years as collectibles and traditionally have no provenance track record, other than relatively recent sales receipts. It is unreasonable to assume that a coin is ‘stolen’ or illegally imported merely because the holder can not establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source.

It is worth reflecting on the archaeological material that had (to use Tompa's phrase) "no provenance track record" which has been returned to Italy and Greece (see the names of North American institutions listed in the Nostoi exhibition). Why?

And how many of those archaeological items now returned to Rome and Athens had been acquired from so-called "reputable sources"?

Antiquities, ancient coins and changing attitudes in North America

Over the last few years over 100 antiquities have been returned to Italy from major North American museums. The piece that attracted the most publicity was the Sarpedon krater by Euphronios; it was returned by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. Other items include a Roman portrait statue of Sabina, and quantities of pottery made in Apulia, southern Italy. These voluntary returns, offered without active legal action, have done much to restore the patinated reputations of museums.

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) that serves as an umbrella organisation for museums has now changed its policies on the acquisition of undocumented antiquities. The AAMD now advises constituent organisations not to buy objects that are unknown prior to 1970, the date of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. A public object registry has been launched by the AAMD with the object of letting interested parties check what is passing into public collections. (The scheme has had limited use since its launch with a total of four items in the register by mid-June 2009.)

Some senior figures in the North American museum world --- for example, James Cuno --- have continued to voice their disquiet over the changing situation. But such views appear to be in a minority. Museum curators who handle archaeological material understand the issues and are aware of the level of destruction sustained by archaeological sites around the world to supply "museum quality" objects for the market.

The growing realisation that action needs to be taken about the antiquities market has been reflected in the work of the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC). The most noticeable action was over antiquities from Iraq in the wake of the Second Gulf War and the looting of the Baghdad Museum. However there have also been memoranda of agreement with countries such as Italy, China and Cyprus.

The workings of CPAC are now under scrutiny. A Freedom of Information Act suit (FOIA) was filed against the US Department of State back in November 2007; this was in response to the restriction on the imports of ancient coins from Cyprus. This action was supported by three bodies: the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG), the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN), and the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).

The purpose of the FOIA suit is made clear on the ACCG website:

The State Department recently imposed unprecedented import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus—requiring importers of even a single common coin of “Cypriot type” to provide unfair, unworkable and unnecessary documentation.

Why have these bodies taken such action against the US Department of State?

The IAPN, based in Brussels, Belgium, states on its website:

The IAPN is a non-profit organisation of the leading international numismatic firms founded 1951. The objectives of the Association are the development of a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade conducted according to the highest standards of business ethics and commercial practice.

The PNG describes itself as follows:

The PNG is a nonprofit organization composed of the world's top rare coin and paper money experts. As numismatic professionals, our primary mission is to make the hobby safe for collectors and investors by maintaining rigid standards of excellence for our member dealers.

This is clarified as follows:

The Professional Numismatists Guild, Inc. is the only numismatic organization in the United States that restricts its membership to dealers who possess and demonstrate three essential qualifications: Knowledge, Integrity and Responsibility.

Is this alliance of three organisations in reality acting over freedom of information? Could there also be an implicit commercial interest in the liberalisation of the market in ancient coins?

The US State Department, as Defendant in the case, seems to suspect ulterior motives and made this statement in their formal reply (dated May 19, 2009):

Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims that they are advocating the public interest are properly viewed with some skepticism given ACCG’s “two phase” “coordinated plan” to attempt to rescind the import restrictions, which would commercially benefit a number of its benefactors, who appear to be U.S.-based dealers and brokers of ancient coins.

This statement has been refuted by the Plaintiffs (the ACCG, the IAPN, and the PNG).

In April 2009 the ACCG tested the agreements with Cyprus and China by deliberately bringing a set of ancient coins in the USA by air ("Coin Collectors to Challenge State Department on Import Restrictions", PR Newswire May 13, 2009).

As mandated, U.S. Customs detained the coins upon arrival. The ACCG now plans to use this detention as a vehicle to strike down the unprecedented regulations banning importation of whole classes of ancient coins. The collectors' advocacy group claims that, among other abnormalities, the decision process for these agreements was orchestrated contrary to the spirit and intent of governing law.

The ACCG seems intent on criticising a policy that is intended to offer some protection to the archaeological heritage of Cyprus and China by placing restrictions on the movement of material that may have been derived as a result of illicit diggings on archaeological sites.

So will the legal action and test case merely serve to inflame the situation? Do such actions present to the world an image of North American collectors of archaeological material (and that includes ancient coins) who are more interested in owning objects than preserving archaeological contexts and integrity?