tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4914712220641136227.post7532607155061952660..comments2023-06-30T01:09:01.332-07:00Comments on Numismatics and Archaeology: Good Faith, Due Diligence, and Market ActivitiesNathan Elkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13060145336179440359noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4914712220641136227.post-24857343432968285912008-07-02T02:20:00.000-07:002008-07-02T02:20:00.000-07:00Peter,Thank you for your comments. I was aware th...Peter,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comments. I was aware the money was returned to CNG as there was no indication CNG did not act in "good faith." The two online articles cited indicate this as well as the fact that Customs officials seized the cash from the suppliers at the airport on their return trip. I do not doubt that CNG acted in "good faith," for me the question is 'how rigorous is the due diligence process.'<BR/><BR/>If you would like to read the article "Cultural Property on the Move...Legally, Illegally" and don't have access to the International Journal of Cultural Property, I could send you a photocopy by post, should I be able to track down my copy here. Just send your preferred mailing address privately.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad we can agree that due diligence processes could be intensified and that some documentation may be more reliable than just 'the word' of a supplier. The question is then, how one would go about implementing such a plan and convincing dealers and collectors to go this route. Thank you again for the comments.<BR/><BR/>All best,<BR/>NathanNathan Elkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13060145336179440359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4914712220641136227.post-8408634470199289302008-07-01T12:15:00.000-07:002008-07-01T12:15:00.000-07:00Nathan-A couple of comments to your post.1. I agre...Nathan-<BR/><BR/>A couple of comments to your post.<BR/><BR/>1. I agree with the proposition that dealers should act in good faith. I think a lot probably depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual transaction and the nature of what is being purchased. <BR/><BR/>2. Legally, I could support some documentation requirements for coins. In her comments to CPAC on the Cypriot renewal, Dr. Wartenberg suggested that Customs require dealers to produce an invoice to customs inspectors detailing from whom they bought the material in question. As Ute also observed, that would probably cull out a large portion of the dodgy material you are concerned about. (At a minimum, it would supply Customs with names of consigers that can be shared with foreign authorities if warranted.) My main concern with import restrictions as they stand today are the onerous documentation requirements. I simply don't think the required importer and exporter certifications on a coin's whereabouts is "doable" for most coins (particularly given the number that are imported).<BR/><BR/>3. I think we have already corresponded a bit on the issue of legal theory versus the reality on the ground. In Bulgaria, for example, there are laws requireing export permits (which may or may not be easily obtainable), but at the same time ancient coins are quite available for sale. The truth is a lot of laws in other countries do not seem to be enforced very stringently. Under the circumstances, I find it hard to fault people who buy artifacts in foreign countries when such artifacts are sold quite openly.<BR/><BR/>4. I must confess I am not really familiar with the first example you give about someone illegally exporting coins from Bulgaria. With respect to the CNG story, you might not be aware of this, but the UK police returned the purchase price to CNG, presumably because they had no legal basis to doubt CNG's good faith.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/><BR/>Peter TompaCultural Property Observerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05924359202414555962noreply@blogger.com