alla fine, zitti zitti ,qualcosa è successo...

[numizmo]

E anche::

---------------------------The Import Restrictions "Check Valve"

http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2011/01/import-restrictions-check-valve.h

tml

In my last post I discussed political and moral implications of the latest

State Department outrage against the US collecting community. There is

another side to this decision, however, which must also be considered.

As an engineer I am very familiar with a mechanical device known as a "check

valve." It is used to control the flow of fluids and gases in order to

ensure that these substances pass only in one direction.

The State Department has just placed a "check valve" into the flow of

ancient coins between the USA and the rest of the world. The effect of this

is to prevent certain types of ancient coins from coming into the USA

without documentation that for most practical purposes will prove to be

impossible to obtain.

There has since been a great deal of discussion about the practical

implications of this "check valve" upon the international numismatic market.

Granted, for the moment it applies only to a small subset of all ancient

coins. However, the intention of the AIA and its minions in the State

Department is clearly to work toward gradually expanding import restrictions

until they apply to all ancient coins.

Whilst the ACCG and to some extent the ANA, together with numismatic trade

organizations, are fighting to prevent such a development, it seems clear

that the State Department intends to continue to behave as though it were a

wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of the AIA. No amount of public

input, it seems, has any effect upon such decisions. Nor does there seem to

be any respect for hallowed concepts such as due process of law, legislative

intent, or fairness to the US citizens affected by these decisions.

Archaeologie ueber alles!

The only constraints that appear to have any prospect for derailing this

anticollecting juggernaut are legal and legislative action.

Legal action has indeed been initiated, and thus far the results (although

not completely successful) have been encouraging. There is good reason to

expect that the ACCG's FOIA lawsuit decision will be overturned on appeal,

perhaps forcing additional and potentially very interesting disclosures

regarding the secretive back-room deals that led to the Cyprus and China

MOUs.

Meanwhile Italian (and forthcoming Greek) import restrictions add grist to

the mill of the Baltimore test case lawsuit. Perhaps the court may take a

different view from that of the State Department regarding the importance of

public comment and the legislative intent of the 1983 CCPIA. In this

observer's opinion, State has been skating on very thin ice for years in its

one sided interpretation of this law and in its failure to comply with

mandated reporting responsibilities.

While passage of legislation to permanently remedy these inequities will be

a lengthy and difficult process, there is a new mood in Congress these days

about "Big Brother" style government. Nowhere are such abuses of power more

evident than in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Twelve

Members of Congress have already voiced their concerns about the one sided

manner in which this out of control agency has mismanaged US implementation

of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The Secretary of State has thus far not seen

fit to take action to satisfy these concerns. The logical next step would be

investigation of this agency by a Congressional subcommittee.

While such reactions to these import restrictions develop and expand, US

collectors and dealers must now consider how they should conduct their

activities so as to mitigate, as far as possible, the adverse effects of

these import restrictions. The first step is to develop a clear

understanding of what they mean in practice.

Peter Tompa has provided useful guidance in this article:

http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-impact-of-impor

t-restrictions.html

One of the murkiest aspects of these restrictions is that they are

prospective. Coins of "Italian types" on the Restricted list (like coins of

Cypriot and Chinese types before them) are assumed to have been "first

found" in the modern state within whose borders they were struck. That is

not, however, the accepted legal definition of discovery and it remains

quite likely that this assumption will not be sustained when the Baltimore

test case eventually progresses to its conclusion.

Meanwhile importers will be required to satisfy a requirement to provide an

export permit from the state with which the relevant MOU was negotiated, or

evidence that each item involved was outside that state on the date the MOU

was agreed to, or ten years prior to the date the item was shipped. The

exact nature of such documentation is not specified, however in the past

Customs has shown a strong bias toward photographic evidence.

Importers may expect significant inconvenience (and perhaps also expense) if

their shipments are detained in Customs. Should Customs elect to detain

anything that resembles illustrations in the guidelines with which they are

provided, many types of ancient coins that are not actually covered by these

restrictions may be detained, with the burden of proof falling upon the

importer. It would be wise for US collectors and dealers to whom coins are

shipped from auction houses and dealers outside the US to obtain agreements

from their sources that the documentation necessary to satisfy Customs will

be sent with the coins. At this moment, it is unfortunately not clear as to

exactly what form of documentation will be required.

Those who export ancient coins from the USA also have a concern: the ethics

of exporting coins without first providing assurance that they may

subsequently be reimported. Collectors, even if they are selling out without

expectation of collecting again, have an ethical obligation to their fellow

collectors in the USA to ensure that their coins do not leave the country

without possibility of return. Dealers, even if they do not expect their

shipments to be reimported, have a similar obligation. Here again, there is

no clear standard as to the required format for documentation. The matter is

presently under discussion and hopefully a standard will soon emerge.

If effective action is not taken by US collectors and dealers to provide

assurance that their export shipments may subsequently be reimported, the

import restrictions "check valve" will gradually deplete all coins on

"restricted lists" from the US market. That would have adverse consequences

for collectors and the trade, but also for archaeology. The resulting price

rises would create a strong incentive to bring such coins into the USA

illicitly, perhaps even adding to existing motivation for looters.

[numizmo]

questa sopra è una fotografia abbastanza chiara di come vedano gli americani questo accordo e quali siano le zone d'ombra da eliminare

Modificato 30 Gennaio, 2011 da numizmo

[numa numa]

Io mi sono già messo le mani nei capelli..

e se cimettessimo a collezionare bottiglie di vino.. male che vada quelle ce le possiamo bere e nessuno ce le sequestra :lol:

[piakos]

Che poi non è che lascio, solamente che una sezione legislazione deve essere affidata a legali di professione, mentre io sono e rimango un poliziotto, con pregi e difetti...Io sono stato onorato di fare da apripista ma era come avere un elefante dentro un negozio di cristalli. Adesso la sezione è maggiormente rappresentata e lo dico con cognizione di causa.

Tanto per rimanere in un tema che a me non sembra meno importante della discussione debbo manifestare il mio pieno dissenso al Comandante.

Non so l'amico bizerba, ma io sono qui solo per imparare e per dare una mano.

Peraltro la cosa è stata da me posta quale condizione al momento della trattativa con lo Staff, circa la nuova nomina.

Quindi, mi dispiace per Lei, Comandante, ma io sono qui in veste di giovane di studio.:D

E non ho alcuna remora a dichiararlo.

Ad ognuno la specializzazione...a prescindere da titoli che possono nella prassi quotidiana lasciare il tempo che trovano.

Se poi la collaborazione mi permetterà di formarmi...potrò sempre vantare il mio pregresso status di allievo, anche con qualche orgoglio.

Quindi...qualora non fosse ancora chiaro, in effetti lo Staff ha solo ritenuto di fornirLe dei collaboratori...che nel caso del Collega Bizerba si traduce in un lusso, attesa la chiara valenza professionale del medesimo.

Tale aiuto si è ritenuto di assegnarLe proprio in quanto le tematiche legislative nella numismatica sono pressanti ed assorbenti...come anche questa discussione sta a dimostrare, ove ce ne fosse bisogno.

Quindi se Lei pensava di andare in ferie...od in pensione (riguardo al Forum) temo che dovrà ripensarci.

:)

P.S.

Per Numa.

Egregio Numa, temo che lo stato attuale delle cose e l'aria che tira in tema di legislazione afferente la numismatica da collezione Le lasci due alternative:

- perdere il sonno;:D

- aprire ad organetto il portafogli (i prezzi saliranno!) e partecipare alle grandi e primarie aste internazionali che, oltre alle monete, inviano e forniscono chili di cartaceo: catalogo/ghi ricchi di foto particolareggiate, descrizioni, note storiche, PEDIGREE e dati delle monete, commissione di acquisto, fattura/e, copia del bonifico per il pagamento delle aggiudicazioni, sdoganamento ove necessario...e quant'altro.;)

Così potrà anche afferrare a cosa (anche...) effettivamente servono le nuove regole in esame.;););) nel settore dell'investimento numismatico.

Tertium non datur...

almeno sino a quando i Curatori di questa Sezione, approntando opportune sinergie, non riusciranno con il decisivo ausilio delle Associazioni e rappresentanze del Settore, ad ottenere prima ascolto e quindi proficua udienza TECNICA presso chi di dovere...sperando in bene.

:)

[Guest utente3487]

Tanto per rimanere in un tema che a me non sembra meno importante della discussione debbo manifestare il mio pieno dissenso al Comandante.

E va bene....cedo alla violenza :D

Modificato 31 Gennaio, 2011 da elledi

[Liutprand]

Io mi sono già messo le mani nei capelli..

e se cimettessimo a collezionare bottiglie di vino.. male che vada quelle ce le possiamo bere e nessuno ce le sequestra :lol:

Infatti io già sto "diversificando" con Brunello e Nobile.......così se le cose si mettono male.......me le bevo. :lol:

[numa numa]

Io mi sono già messo le mani nei capelli..

e se cimettessimo a collezionare bottiglie di vino.. male che vada quelle ce le possiamo bere e nessuno ce le sequestra :lol:

Infatti io già sto "diversificando" con Brunello e Nobile.......così se le cose si mettono male.......me le bevo. :lol:

Grande Liut,

se tu porti Nobile e Brunello io posso contribuire con Barbaresco e Amarone.. due grandissimi quando si scelgono le cantine giuste

ce li berremo alla salute di chi pensa di aver capito tutto del mercato .! :lol:

[Alberto Varesi]

al fine di evitare ulteriori polemiche, posto il link al testo degli accordi; ognuno tragga le sue considerazioni.

http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop/itfact/pdfs/it2001mouit.pdf

Non mi pare che si parli, da nessuna parte, di provenienze extra-italiane......

[numizmo]

non l'ho creata dal nulla,è in uno dei due allegati in lingua,che sono il primo risultato della lettura dell'accordo da parte di un membro dell'ANA. Poi se ho capito male meglio...

The more relevant question is how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) will treat "coins of Italian type" which do not have a known find spot and/or whose whereabouts cannot be traced back before January 19, 2011, i.e., presumably an ever increasing number of coins as time passes. In the test case brought by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild concerning Cypriot and Chinese import restrictions, CBP has taken the position that “country of origin” for purpose of the CPIA is synonymous with country of manufacture because Cypriot and Chinese coins may be found where they are manufactured. The Court has yet to rule on the validity of this claim.

Modificato 31 Gennaio, 2011 da numizmo

[Alberto Varesi]

non l'ho creata dal nulla,è in uno dei due allegati in lingua,che sono il primo risultato della lettura dell'accordo da parte di un membro dell'ANA. Poi se ho capito male meglio...

The more relevant question is how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) will treat "coins of Italian type" which do not have a known find spot and/or whose whereabouts cannot be traced back before January 19, 2011, i.e., presumably an ever increasing number of coins as time passes. In the test case brought by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild concerning Cypriot and Chinese import restrictions, CBP has taken the position that “country of origin” for purpose of the CPIA is synonymous with country of manufacture because Cypriot and Chinese coins may be found where they are manufactured. The Court has yet to rule on the validity of this claim.

Sono certo che non l'hai creata tu.....

Io mi sono limitato a postare il testo integrale, pubblicato sul sito del Governo USA.

Poi, ribadisco, ognuno legga ed interpreti liberamente.

[numizmo]

Fresca di giornata:

An Open Letter to "Indiana Jones"

Dear Dr. Jones,

As a General Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America, you must be

well acquainted with the AIA position on cultural property. Your fans will

recall those immortal words from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- "It

belongs in a museum." That might well be true for the Ark of the Covenant,

but did you really mean to say that EVERY cultural object, from broken

pottery to long-lost pocket change, belongs in a nationalist state museum

near the place it was found? I rather doubt it, but that is precisely what

your esteemed AIA colleagues lobby for and exactly what their "friends" in

the U.S. State Department (DOS) are delivering through a stream of bilateral

agreements with cultural property nationalist countries. Make no mistake,

we're not just talking about rare objects from the dawn of civilization, but

about ordinary objects that can range from musical instruments to postage

stamps. Under the UNESCO Resolution of 1970, that cultural nationalists

consider their Bible, millions of common objects made at the beginning of

the 20th century are already classified as "cultural property" and are

subject to import and/or export controls.

Think about it - a mid-level bureaucrat working for the U.S. Government

essentially decides whether an American citizen can legally import something

as mundane as a postage stamp. Crazy idea? Orwellian? Yes, it is, and they

would have thought so in 1911 as well -- but similar restrictions have

already been imposed here in the "land of the free." Contrary to its own

law, the American government is restricting the importation of minor

utilitarian objects, including common coins, under the guise of protecting

cultural property.

Why? Because archaeologists believe that trade encourages looting? What

would the State Department gain by restricting trade in old coins and the

like? Is this some sort of quid pro quo for diplomats to repay favors from

nationalist governments--including some who deny personal property rights

and even basic human rights to their own citizens? What do archaeologists

gain for their support of these nationalist regimes? Approval of excavation

permits in foreign lands? Why do these cultural property nationalist

countries even care about coins? The evidence seems to suggest that some

probably don't - that they didn't even ask for restrictions that have been

imposed by the State Department on coins. It's all quite convoluted and

masked behind a wall of secrecy.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here Dr. Jones. Maybe it's time for

you to ask some serious questions of your own in those closed-door board

sessions and consider whether you really do want to lend your fame and

fortune to the ideological warfare that the AIA and DOS are waging on the

rest of America.

[piakos]

Io mi sono già messo le mani nei capelli..

e se cimettessimo a collezionare bottiglie di vino.. male che vada quelle ce le possiamo bere e nessuno ce le sequestra :lol:

Infatti io già sto "diversificando" con Brunello e Nobile.......così se le cose si mettono male.......me le bevo. :lol:

Grande Liut,

se tu porti Nobile e Brunello io posso contribuire con Barbaresco e Amarone.. due grandissimi quando si scelgono le cantine giuste

ce li berremo alla salute di chi pensa di aver capito tutto del mercato .! :lol:

Bene!

Io conosco anche le cantine giuste!...oltre al mercato.;)

Facciamo così.

Mettiamo qui un segnalibro.

Se i prezzi del bronzo imperiale saliranno ancora, da qui ad un anno...numa esce dall'ombra e trova il tempo di pagare cena e vino di quello buono...in quel di Lugano?

Se i prezzi flettono...offro io coca cola light a litri. (Inutile propongo di offrire del Gravner...tanto non scendono).

:lol:

[numa numa]

Fresca di giornata:

An Open Letter to "Indiana Jones"

Dear Dr. Jones,

As a General Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America, you must be

well acquainted with the AIA position on cultural property. Your fans will

recall those immortal words from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- "It

belongs in a museum." That might well be true for the Ark of the Covenant,

but did you really mean to say that EVERY cultural object, from broken

pottery to long-lost pocket change, belongs in a nationalist state museum

near the place it was found? I rather doubt it, but that is precisely what

your esteemed AIA colleagues lobby for and exactly what their "friends" in

the U.S. State Department (DOS) are delivering through a stream of bilateral

agreements with cultural property nationalist countries. Make no mistake,

we're not just talking about rare objects from the dawn of civilization, but

about ordinary objects that can range from musical instruments to postage

stamps. Under the UNESCO Resolution of 1970, that cultural nationalists

consider their Bible, millions of common objects made at the beginning of

the 20th century are already classified as "cultural property" and are

subject to import and/or export controls.

Think about it - a mid-level bureaucrat working for the U.S. Government

essentially decides whether an American citizen can legally import something

as mundane as a postage stamp. Crazy idea? Orwellian? Yes, it is, and they

would have thought so in 1911 as well -- but similar restrictions have

already been imposed here in the "land of the free." Contrary to its own

law, the American government is restricting the importation of minor

utilitarian objects, including common coins, under the guise of protecting

cultural property.

Why? Because archaeologists believe that trade encourages looting? What

would the State Department gain by restricting trade in old coins and the

like? Is this some sort of quid pro quo for diplomats to repay favors from

nationalist governments--including some who deny personal property rights

and even basic human rights to their own citizens? What do archaeologists

gain for their support of these nationalist regimes? Approval of excavation

permits in foreign lands? Why do these cultural property nationalist

countries even care about coins? The evidence seems to suggest that some

probably don't - that they didn't even ask for restrictions that have been

imposed by the State Department on coins. It's all quite convoluted and

masked behind a wall of secrecy.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here Dr. Jones. Maybe it's time for

you to ask some serious questions of your own in those closed-door board

sessions and consider whether you really do want to lend your fame and

fortune to the ideological warfare that the AIA and DOS are waging on the

rest of America.

A parte che il verbo belong regge il "to" piuttosto che "in"

E' una lettera che è stata poi inviata o una lettera aperta che sta a significare una presa di posizione

precisa riguardo all'operato dell'AIA ?

L'unica idea che mi sono fatto finora è che ci sono molti, troppi, punti non chiariti

dal cambio di normativa appena approvato dagli USA.

Potrebbe essere, come qualcuno ha suggerito, che quello appena inaugurato voglia

essere un periodo di osservazione. Il fatto di avere approvato restrizioni solo per alcune categorie di

monete potrebbe suffragarlo.

Vorrei tanto che l'interpretazione "buonista" di Alberto Varesi fosse quella corretta (e magari lo è..

non sempre a pensare male ci si coglie :lol: ).

L'unica cosa che si può dire è che occorre aspettare. Vedremo, nel prosieguo, l'evoluzione e gli aggiustamenti

delle normative (se ve ne saranno), l'introduzione di norme applicative (mi paiono inevitabili)

e soprattutto la dinamica del mercato, poi dopo, passato un pò di tempo , potremo tirare qualche inferenza.

[numizmo]

Fresca di giornata:

An Open Letter to "Indiana Jones"

Dear Dr. Jones,

As a General Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America, you must be

well acquainted with the AIA position on cultural property. Your fans will

recall those immortal words from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- "It

belongs in a museum." That might well be true for the Ark of the Covenant,

but did you really mean to say that EVERY cultural object, from broken

pottery to long-lost pocket change, belongs in a nationalist state museum

near the place it was found? I rather doubt it, but that is precisely what

your esteemed AIA colleagues lobby for and exactly what their "friends" in

the U.S. State Department (DOS) are delivering through a stream of bilateral

agreements with cultural property nationalist countries. Make no mistake,

we're not just talking about rare objects from the dawn of civilization, but

about ordinary objects that can range from musical instruments to postage

stamps. Under the UNESCO Resolution of 1970, that cultural nationalists

consider their Bible, millions of common objects made at the beginning of

the 20th century are already classified as "cultural property" and are

subject to import and/or export controls.

Think about it - a mid-level bureaucrat working for the U.S. Government

essentially decides whether an American citizen can legally import something

as mundane as a postage stamp. Crazy idea? Orwellian? Yes, it is, and they

would have thought so in 1911 as well -- but similar restrictions have

already been imposed here in the "land of the free." Contrary to its own

law, the American government is restricting the importation of minor

utilitarian objects, including common coins, under the guise of protecting

cultural property.

Why? Because archaeologists believe that trade encourages looting? What

would the State Department gain by restricting trade in old coins and the

like? Is this some sort of quid pro quo for diplomats to repay favors from

nationalist governments--including some who deny personal property rights

and even basic human rights to their own citizens? What do archaeologists

gain for their support of these nationalist regimes? Approval of excavation

permits in foreign lands? Why do these cultural property nationalist

countries even care about coins? The evidence seems to suggest that some

probably don't - that they didn't even ask for restrictions that have been

imposed by the State Department on coins. It's all quite convoluted and

masked behind a wall of secrecy.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here Dr. Jones. Maybe it's time for

you to ask some serious questions of your own in those closed-door board

sessions and consider whether you really do want to lend your fame and

fortune to the ideological warfare that the AIA and DOS are waging on the

rest of America.

A parte che il verbo belong regge il "to" piuttosto che "in" ( se non lo sa lui che è di madrelingua....) :D E' una lettera che è stata poi inviata o una lettera aperta che sta a significare una presa di posizione

precisa riguardo all'operato dell'AIA ?

L'unica idea che mi sono fatto finora è che ci sono molti, troppi, punti non chiariti

dal cambio di normativa appena approvato dagli USA.

Potrebbe essere, come qualcuno ha suggerito, che quello appena inaugurato voglia

essere un periodo di osservazione. Il fatto di avere approvato restrizioni solo per alcune categorie di

monete potrebbe suffragarlo.

Vorrei tanto che l'interpretazione "buonista" di Alberto Varesi fosse quella corretta (e magari lo è..

non sempre a pensare male ci si coglie :lol: ).

L'unica cosa che si può dire è che occorre aspettare. Vedremo, nel prosieguo, l'evoluzione e gli aggiustamenti

delle normative (se ve ne saranno), l'introduzione di norme applicative (mi paiono inevitabili)

e soprattutto la dinamica del mercato, poi dopo, passato un pò di tempo , potremo tirare qualche inferenza.

E' una lettera aperta, come si legge.

Ma questo non vuol dire che Indy non l'abbia avuta anche personalmente, anzi...

Indubbiamente c'è un bel po' di confusione relativamente alla definizione di "origine" di una moneta, e ogni tentativo di chiarirla non fa che aumentarla, come diceva M.Marchesi

Quindi io suggerirei di dare tempo agli americani,che se la sono fatta e cantata, di smussare gli angoli a forza di capocciate e poi muoversi a palle ferme.Adesso mi pare prematuro agitarsi.

Modificato 1 Febbraio, 2011 da numizmo

[numa numa]

Fresca di giornata:

An Open Letter to "Indiana Jones"

Dear Dr. Jones,

As a General Trustee of the Archaeological Institute of America, you must be

well acquainted with the AIA position on cultural property. Your fans will

recall those immortal words from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- "It

belongs in a museum." That might well be true for the Ark of the Covenant,

but did you really mean to say that EVERY cultural object, from broken

pottery to long-lost pocket change, belongs in a nationalist state museum

near the place it was found? I rather doubt it, but that is precisely what

your esteemed AIA colleagues lobby for and exactly what their "friends" in

the U.S. State Department (DOS) are delivering through a stream of bilateral

agreements with cultural property nationalist countries. Make no mistake,

we're not just talking about rare objects from the dawn of civilization, but

about ordinary objects that can range from musical instruments to postage

stamps. Under the UNESCO Resolution of 1970, that cultural nationalists

consider their Bible, millions of common objects made at the beginning of

the 20th century are already classified as "cultural property" and are

subject to import and/or export controls.

Think about it - a mid-level bureaucrat working for the U.S. Government

essentially decides whether an American citizen can legally import something

as mundane as a postage stamp. Crazy idea? Orwellian? Yes, it is, and they

would have thought so in 1911 as well -- but similar restrictions have

already been imposed here in the "land of the free." Contrary to its own

law, the American government is restricting the importation of minor

utilitarian objects, including common coins, under the guise of protecting

cultural property.

Why? Because archaeologists believe that trade encourages looting? What

would the State Department gain by restricting trade in old coins and the

like? Is this some sort of quid pro quo for diplomats to repay favors from

nationalist governments--including some who deny personal property rights

and even basic human rights to their own citizens? What do archaeologists

gain for their support of these nationalist regimes? Approval of excavation

permits in foreign lands? Why do these cultural property nationalist

countries even care about coins? The evidence seems to suggest that some

probably don't - that they didn't even ask for restrictions that have been

imposed by the State Department on coins. It's all quite convoluted and

masked behind a wall of secrecy.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here Dr. Jones. Maybe it's time for

you to ask some serious questions of your own in those closed-door board

sessions and consider whether you really do want to lend your fame and

fortune to the ideological warfare that the AIA and DOS are waging on the

rest of America.

A parte che il verbo belong regge il "to" piuttosto che "in" ( se non lo sa lui che è di madrelingua....) :D E' una lettera che è stata poi inviata o una lettera aperta che sta a significare una presa di posizione

precisa riguardo all'operato dell'AIA ?

L'unica idea che mi sono fatto finora è che ci sono molti, troppi, punti non chiariti

dal cambio di normativa appena approvato dagli USA.

Potrebbe essere, come qualcuno ha suggerito, che quello appena inaugurato voglia

essere un periodo di osservazione. Il fatto di avere approvato restrizioni solo per alcune categorie di

monete potrebbe suffragarlo.

Vorrei tanto che l'interpretazione "buonista" di Alberto Varesi fosse quella corretta (e magari lo è..

non sempre a pensare male ci si coglie :lol: ).

L'unica cosa che si può dire è che occorre aspettare. Vedremo, nel prosieguo, l'evoluzione e gli aggiustamenti

delle normative (se ve ne saranno), l'introduzione di norme applicative (mi paiono inevitabili)

e soprattutto la dinamica del mercato, poi dopo, passato un pò di tempo , potremo tirare qualche inferenza.

E' una lettera aperta, come si legge.

Ma questo non vuol dire che Indy non l'abbia avuta anche personalmente, anzi...

Indubbiamente c'è un bel po' di confusione relativamente alla definizione di "origine" di una moneta, e ogni tentativo di chiarirla non fa che aumentarla, come diceva M.Marchesi

Quindi io suggerirei di dare tempo agli americani,che se la sono fatta e cantata, di smussare gli angoli a forza di capocciate e poi muoversi a palle ferme.Adesso mi pare prematuro agitarsi.

Pienamente d'accordo.

Quello dell'origine della moneta assomiglia ad un concetto "quantistico", impossibile determinare origine e appartenenza di una moneta

(quanto è impossibile determinare conetmporaneamente posizione e quantità di moto di una particlela, secondo il principio di indeterminazione di Heisemberg) :D

Chissà se i signori funzionari ci arrivano, e sì che la moneta, per sua propria natura, è fatta per lo scambio, per circolare, non per immanere

Molto saggio il buon Marchesi

[attila650]

Cito questa frase di un membro di un gruppo internazionale:

"Help me to see if I understand this correctly: if I order from an overseas Vcoins dealer a relatively common bronze coin from Neapolis, 270 BC, Head of Apollo/ Man-headed bull crowned by Nike, but a customs agent in the US (who apparently has no other significant work to do to protect our borders) seizes it because it was somehow found to not have proper documentation... now I can at least rest assured that the system is working and Italian cultural heritage is thus being preserved?"

Traduco:

Faremi capire, un americano ordina da un Commercainte su Vcoin un bronzo comune di Napoli 270 AC testa di apollo/Nike ma un agente della dogana lo ferma perchè appare che non abbia adeguata documentazione...quindi adesso si può assumenre che il sistema funziona e l'Italia è in grado di preservare il patrimonio culturale

é esattamente quello che penso io.

Aggiungo inoltre (mio parere personale) che la criminalità organizzata è sempre la prima ad avere i fogli a posto, a loro potremmo avere fatto un favore non certo a noi onesti collezionisti.

Alessandro

[attila650]

Be sono sempre esuberante scusate, volevo solo suscitare il dibattito con fare un po provocatorio sperando di trovare valide argomentazioni contro le mie...

Alessandro

[cliff]

Scusate sarebbe interessante tornare a parlare dell'oggetto della discussione, introdotta da Numizmo.

Credo sia un argomento abbastanza importante , i cui sviluppi possono sicuramente interessare a molti utenti.

Al contempo si potreb be aprire un altro thread per seguire le vicende di Elledi, anche quell di rilievo e interesse

sia personale che per i risvolti che potrebbero interessare indirettamente il Forum (pubblicazione delle foto, etc.)

che ne dite ?

Sono contrario, ho già dato troppo da mangiare a vermi e serpenti...d'ora in poi se vorranno leggere qualcosa è meglio che aspettino le carte del Tribunale.

Credo di essermi perso qualcosa a questo punto. E' possibile venire aggiornato a grandi linee, magari anche con PM?

E' infatti noto che negli ultimi anni alcuni conservatori del bronzo imperiale avevano smesso in quanto preoccupati...alcuni avevano addirittura dismesso, almeno nell'ambiente nostrano...ma non solo. Adesso in molti si sentiranno più tranquilli ove fossero anche in possesso di buona documentazione.

Anche qui e' possibile essere piu' espliciti? Non ho contatti nell' ambiente del restauro e mi piacerebbe capire che cosa e' successo e perche'.

No answers....Non erano domande da fare?

[Guest utente3487]

Per quanto mi riguarda, non avertene a male, ma preferisco tacere. Ormai mi è difficile distinguere tra amici e ...lasciamo perdere. Anche perchè ormai mi sono rivolto alla A.G. anche io per la tutela dei miei e non solo miei diritti.

[numizmo]

Cominciano ad arrivare le tracce per l'interpretazione dell'accordo dagli USA e cominciano a rivelarsi limiti e problemi intrinseci..staremo a vedere che succederà praticamente...

A good deal has lately been said about acquisition and documentation of ancient artifacts, and I wanted to provide the group with some relevant information.

Yesterday I visited the Long Beach show on a buying expedition. In the course of about two hours I examined several thousand ancient coins and acquired many hundreds of them, all individually displayed in “flips” or 2x2 coin holders. The examination process allocated perhaps two minutes for each coin, including discussing its value with the seller.

I expect to sell most of these coins for less than USD $100 each, in the process creating a high resolution digital image of each side of each coin and cataloguing it to a standard of detail similar to that prevailing in typical auction catalogues. These details are included in coin listings on the Classical Coins website. Creating these images and cataloguing and uploading listings takes perhaps 20 minutes per coin on average.

NGC (the most prominent grading/slabbing provider) had a booth at the show where they presented the services available and, I believe, had grading experts present who were actually carrying out “walk-through” certification of coins for exhibitors. NGC’s list of services and fees is presented online here:

http://www.ngccoin.com/services/services.asp

Clearly NGC has mastered the process of describing and documenting coins to a standard that should be adequate for any reasonable provenance requirement, with traceability to a particular date of acquisition. Their fee for “walk-through” certification is typically $125 per coin at a show. Dealers can get “economy” certification of large numbers of coins for as little as $17 each in about three weeks.

Whilst “slabbing” is detested by most collectors of ancient coins, also by many dealers including myself, it is an accepted solution for modern coins, and the companies that do this have on the whole gained a great deal of acceptance in the numismatic market for such coins.

The point of presenting the above details is to illustrate what is feasible regarding the amount of time that can practically be spent evaluating a coin at a show, the cost of certification and its dependence on turnaround time.

Classical Coins offers a Certificate of Authenticity for coins we sell which I believe should satisfy any reasonable provenance documentation requirement, with traceability to a particular date of acquisition. The charge is $10.00 per coin and details are presented here:

http://www.classicalcoins.com/product1604.html

(the certificate includes past provenance details and the weight of the coin)

In the past, critics of the numismatic market have alleged that collectors and dealers ought to be held to a Unidroit provenancing standard which they consider to be the ethical norm for “responsible” collecting. This is currently practiced by many museums. I have seen reports that up to 40 hours of curator time per acquisition is required to document provenance to that standard.

It would presently be technically and economically feasible to document acquisition of a coin at a cost of between $10.00 and $17.00 per coin in a manner which should satisfy any reasonable provenance requirement, with traceability to its particular date of acquisition. That documentation would add perhaps two to three weeks to the acquisition process.

Apart from the rather involved question of the acceptability of “slabbing,” it seems to me that the next issue to be discussed is cost. One must think of this prospective documentation process as a sort of “transaction tax” to be paid to governments or critics of collecting to secure their acquiescence in the licitness of a transaction. Currently that standard is set at about 17.5% for transactions in the EU, which charges VAT at that level. If we take $15 per transaction as an average documentation fee and work backward from that, the result is $86.00 per coin. This is also about the same percentage as a buyer’s fee at a typical auction. It reflects the work required in creating the documentation, which is similar to that required to catalogue a coin for auction.

The above, I believe, clearly delineates what is presently feasible in a manner independent of the exact details of how a documentation database would be managed and who would be responsible for it. Such details obviously must be discussed and resolved, however they won’t affect the economic conclusion.

The current value threshold at which the cost of provenance documentation would be accepted by large numbers of collectors is roughly $85.00 per coin.

Very large numbers of ancient coins are presently being traded at prices below $85.00 per coin. Classical Coins presently sells large numbers of coins at prices below $50.00 per coin, and I am not including “specials” (multiple coin lots) for which certification is not available. Clearly there is a “value threshold” that must be considered, and any demand that documentation be provided for a transaction to be licit becomes economically unreasonable below that threshold.

[numa numa]

Grazie Num

riflessi economici molto interessanti da osservare per il materiale di fascia bassa

Vedremo cosa succederà per il materiale di fascia media e alta. Oltre ai costi di documentazione che sicuramente incideranno, anche se relativamente per monete di valore superiore, occorrrerà vedere cosa succederà alle transazioni delle monete stesse, ovvero se ve ne saranno meno, se in qualche modo rallenterà il mercato, o alcontrario vi sarà una maggiore specializzazione da parte di alcuni Paesi/Operatori. etc.

Vedremo il test delle prossime aste (USA sotto la lente di ingrandimento..)

[Paleologo]

Non ho capito da dove viene fuori la cifra di $86.00

[numizmo]

Non ho capito da dove viene fuori la cifra di $86.00

da quì:

Clearly NGC has mastered the process of describing and documenting coins to a standard that should be adequate for any reasonable provenance requirement, with traceability to a particular date of acquisition. Their fee for “walk-through” certification is typically $125 per coin at a show. Dealers can get “economy” certification of large numbers of coins for as little as $17 each in about three weeks.

e da quì:

Currently that standard is set at about 17.5% for transactions in the EU, which charges VAT at that level. If we take $15 per transaction as an average documentation fee and work backward from that, the result is $86.00 per coin.

86$ è il valore minimo di una moneta per giustificare il costo della tracciabilità. Di fatto tutte le monete al di sotto della soglia diventerebbero antieconomiche nel momento in cui vaddano dotate di documentazione di provenienza.

....credo....

[Paleologo]

Ok, cioè fa l'equivalenza VAT=costi di documentazione e quindi dice che il 17.5% applicato a 86$ viene 15$... Mah, il discorso generale ci potrebbe anche stare ma questa mi pare ginnastica contabile ;)

[numizmo]

Ok, cioè fa l'equivalenza VAT=costi di documentazione e quindi dice che il 17.5% applicato a 86$ viene 15$... Mah, il discorso generale ci potrebbe anche stare ma questa mi pare ginnastica contabile ;)

E lo è.......... stava solo facendo il cosiddetto" conto della serva" per trovare il breakeven point di prezzo per una moneta al di sopra del quale è ancora remunerativo commerciarla e al di sotto del quale no. E come dice lui : ci sono un sacco di monete trattate sotto gli 86 dolari sul mercato...

Modificato 7 Febbraio, 2011 da numizmo