read this on another forum, thought I would pass it along:








"I was browsing through an old French dental journal today when I came across an article which was illustrated with Roman and Byzantine coins. My attention was of course caught, and I read the article with growing horror as I realised its import.

Apparently some time in 1906 a rich American tourist, one Henry Rikelseenk, was in Naples and had broken his upper dentures. Presumably wanting to have something a bit different and distinctive to replace them he decided to have the replacement made entirely from gold, specifically from the gold of antique coins. Rather than simply melting them down to supply the metal (which would have been bad enough) he asked the dental technician to cut the portraits out of nine aurei, solidi, and an Augustale of Frederick II from Sicily: apparently several American technicians had refused to do this, but eventually the one in Naples agreed to perform the act of vandalism. The portraits were curved slightly to make them the proper shape, and soldered into a curved bridge, all the while being careful not to damage them.

Luckily (?) he was sufficiently impressed by the magnitude of the task (he was destroying coins which at the time were valued at 30,000 francs equivalent to about £1,000/ $5,000 even then) to photograph the coins prior to the vandalism, so we do have a record of the coins, and also the resultant bridgework."

Obviously this started the whole rap/black-culture "grill" fad... lol

I bet that he was incinerated after his death - only to make the destruction of coins complete...

That's ridiculous and demonstrates complete arrogance and disregard for the history and cultures that these coins represent, that's very sad.

Why would anyone agree to do such an act of vandalism :s

money goes a long way as incentive. Seems several people refused until he found one who was willing.

Note that the Romans had no qualms about using money for art.

Below is a ring, sold by FORVM, that has a portrait of Augustus cut from a denarius.

IMO, what the romans might have done with a denarius has no bearing on what was done to these coins more than a thousand years later or makes it any less a shame.

I am playing devil's advocate.

The Romans had no qualms about destroying their coins. Romans melted coins down to make jewelry, also.

So why is it a "shame", or an "act of vandalism", or a "disregard for history and cultures"?

I do not approve of this myself, but to everyone his own. I am curious about the responses. When does something become sacred? How old does it have to be before it is inviolate?

1500 years in the future, will people get upset if someone cuts up some U.S. state quarters...and/or should they?

I can understand where you are going with this. If I would do something to let's say a coin from 2008, millions of it were minted. Who would care?

To ask this question is the same as asking why it's important to protect endangered animals, I'll further elaborate. I wouldn't use the word sacred, but it's all based on scarcity(and historical value), the same reason why if I throw a piece of pizza in the garbage most people won't care, but if I throw the hope diamond away people would 1.) jump into the garbage to get it. and 2.) think I'm a complete nut. I don't think age matters so much, it's really scarcity, it just happens to be that with time comes scarcity. That's why, as in a post I read earlier, there are ionian coins that can still be gotten on e--y for as little as $20.00. People most likely wouldn't be so upset if one of these coins were destroyed as apposed to the Hope Diamond. 1.) There's only one Hope Diamond 2.) there are large amounts of the coin available. This is neglecting their differing perceived dollar values (which are also based on scarcity might I add). Each time something is destroyed, it gets us one step closer to losing that piece of history forever. and eventually it will be forgotten. To answer your quarters question, I believe people would if our country had fallen and few were in existence.

Its just a matter of common sense...these are historical artifacts someone destroyed to make false teeth, every archeologists worst nightmare come true and enough to confirm their opinions that the public cannot be trusted with historical artifacts. I agree that 'to each his own'...he bought them, they are his to destroy...nothing he did was against the law I assume...its just a shame he did it...and no...mutilating a quarter isnt the same for very obvious reasons...even the fact that dentists would turn down good money to do this for him shows how such a thing went against their sensibilities.

One can look at a mutilated piece of history and art and say 'its a shame' or 'how awful' and the reasons they feel this way are so apparent they need not explanation. Thats just a common response to stupidity. I understand what you were doing but it just doesnt have any bearing on the situation. What a Roman did with money has no bearing as to how much of a shame it is that this man destroyed historical artifacts....there is no need to try and set some objective benchmark as to what, why, or when something becomes 'a shame' when it is destroyed...it is subjective of course...but there is no need to debate why people would find it objectionable...or try to pin point the time and place where it becomes okay...the more you care about preserving such things, the more of a shame it is...

To me it is like chopping up old important works of art to sew together to make a dress made of bits of paintings from the great masters......its just sad and a shame.

So at what level of age and rarity is it OK to destroy a piece of art? A quarter that is one in a billion can be mutilated? A unique statue in Afghanistan should not be shelled. The extremes are easy, but where do you draw the line? What is lost when an old coin like this is destroyed? How many would have actually seen it and created a positive experience due to the interaction that is now lost?

I understand the philosophical point that is trying to be made, but when it's extreme like this it's easy to decide that it would've been better served in the public domain where people could appreciate it. Such as myself, I would've gotten great joy from seeing those in person because you can be awestruck at the fact that even 1500 years ago they were able to create coins with great artistry. At the very least they are survived hopefully by others, and these pictures. But like all things in life, rarely can a "line" be drawn for anything. It's just best left up to judgment, and due to the fact that most reactions were "That's not good" one can assume, because "the greatest good for the greatest number" being the primary (with politics aside) system, that this act was not good.

I'll further elaborate. So, the only way to kind of "know" is by what the majority decides. The sample, however, in order to truly determine an items importance must be decided by the sect of people who would truly care, and understand its importance (in our case numismatists). So we're now left with a question. Is such and such coin important? Ask a group of numismatists, would you be truly upset if such and such coin were destroyed to make false teeth? If the concensus is "Yes, this would be awful." then there is your line.

I know that philosophy dictates that this method could be considered severely incorrect because "what if the guy needed the teeth so badly and that's all he had?" Which I would doubt, but what if? Since the beginning of philosophy, philosophers have been running in circles arguing whether or not the greatest good for the greatest number is in fact good, no one will ever know. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

again, its not a discussion that I feel needs to be had, I dont think that a line needs to be drawn for those who look to destroy such things...IMO of course. I would think the destruction of money...ESPECIALLY more rare historical artifacts from a long gone civilization, should not be helped along by drawing a line and saying THESE coins you can mindlessly destroy...these try not to destroy...howz about dont destroy any coins if it can be helped. No work of art should be destroyed, no historical artifacts should be destroyed, thus why even discuss where the cut off date is for the destruction of it. Now coins arent quite the same as some one of a kind work of art from a master, but all the same...as a person who see's these things as important historical documents of the time period...and to make dental work out of ancient artifacts is simply a terrible thing...the fact that this man was turned down multiple times shows that even then the sensibilities of the dentists told them it was simply wrong to do, they refused perfectly good money and passed on the job. These are ancient gold coins...

It doesnt matter how many people would have seen the coins or how many would have had a positive experience from it...for one...I, and many many others, would have been happy to give those coins a home and a place to be viewed by those who would find them interesting. I would have given them an honored place in my collection and a historical background for those to use them as a tool for learning. Even if they were shuffled away into the bowels of a museum, that is a much better fate for them than being mutilated.

I would have thought anyone who collects and admires the value of historical artifacts would cringe when reading this, and yes...maybe it takes time....maybe in a thousand years people will cringe just as much as I do when I read this when such a thing is done to a quarter which we consider to be rather common today. I also dont destroy quarters.

Its not just that they are works of ancient art but they are also historical artifacts...this man might as well have taken a hammer to Trajans amphitheater, broken off a chunk of it and hammered it into bits...enough people who do this and there is no more coliseum...each bit is gone forever.

I would think any collector of antiquities and old coins can simply think of what they consider valuable art, coins, or medals...whatever... Artifacts you consider as rare and important works. and think of someone just destroying them on a whim....As a collector, arent there coins that you can think of that you would consider to be a real shame or would be a real loss if they were destroyed in such a way?

To appreciate how bad this is, one must appreciate history and what the coins represented and why they are so valuable....and many may not.

And again...for those who DO see this as a destruction of important historical artifacts....it re-enforces to them WHY the common man shouldn't be trusted to own these artifacts, it justifies the elitist attitude that most people are just apes, no better than children who cant be trusted with nice things....its paramount to going to a archeological site and deliberately destroying artifacts there. Only because historians and archeologists have NOT completely gotten their way (and they do try)...some artifacts are still open to be bought and sold and this story would be the sum of all fears for them...

I don't know anything about the coins mentioned above and so, sorry to say, am not too worried. If it was anything seriously important then there would be an uproar on this forum.
But I agree with Drusus, coins like that should be in the hands of a collector!

An example is a coin I have, it is a unique English hammered coin and it was found in a rubbish dump outside of London. My first thought was, what was a guy doing in a rubbish pile anyway? But I wasn't fussed, so most likely this coin had been excavated on a building site and put in a skip and dumped outside of London. So this unique coin that's over 1000 years old was found somewhere in London and just dumped until some person found it and now I have it.

So just goes to show that someone else's rubbish is someone else's treasure!

Clive.

The idea of throwing away such a unique coin is about paramount to this case, worse because at least there are other surviving examples of the coins he destroyed. This person destroyed what is considered some of the more fine and valuable examples of ancient gold coinage from Trajan, Tiberius, Justinian and others...at the time they were worth 30,000...today they would be worth much more....to someone like me they would be priceless.

It IS his right to do what he did...life goes on...just cant help but feel it was a damn shame.

You should not lump all historians and archaeologists together in such a broad statement, because most do not care whether people collect coins or not. It is only a very vocal minority that is opposed to private collections. I can't think of even one instance when this was an issue for the American Historical Association. I for one did my master's work in history and one of my undergrad minors was archaeology, and I sure do not have a problem with people collecting coins. In fact, out of the many dozens of historians and archaeologists I have met and worked with, none seemed to care if people collected coins. One of my state archaeologists even attended the same coin meetings as me, and he also collected ancients!




My original question was actually rhetorical, but the responses have been great, of course what other type of responses could one expect from a coin forum!

Yeah, you were bound to receive a skewed sample It's like asking kids if they like candy.

interesting how experiences can differ so much. I also have had ample interaction with historians and have had my share of debates regarding this subject. More often than not I have found that the private collecting of antiquities to be frowned upon in general. Its not so much that they frown upon the practice of collecting as much as the common way these coins are found, taken, and sold. They seem most disturbed about the huge amount of coins taken from sites where they are found without any chance to study them as they were found. As a person in the know, you know how important coins can be to a site dig. As a collector you may also know how human nature works and how a site can be stripped of all its antiquities to be sold abroad with no concern for keeping the integrity of the site for study.

In fact I would say the overwhelming majority of those I have interacted with have much more of an elitist exclusionary attitude towards the subject and seem to think that such things should be left entirely to academia and those best suited to the task...in other words...themselves.

As a collector I also know how many coins I own that were probably taken from sites without anyone having a chance to study them. I certainly cannot place most of my ancient coins to a legal source. I know for sure that many of my coins were probably taken with no care for study and shipped from a nation who has laws against such things. In essence, I am positive that many if not all of my coins are probably the product of the pillage of an historical site and smuggling. I tend to think this is the case with all ancient coin collections.

I tend to agree with them that this is in fact most likely the way the majority of ancient coins come to market...I have made peace with that as a collector

You know?!?


Can you place them to an illegal source?


I'm sure this happens a lot now in the Balkans and Turkey in particular. Since those countries forbid export at present there must be a good bit of smuggling. I'm less confident about historical sites being raided, coins are often found alone as well. Though certainly the find spot is lost when the coins are not cataloged. I also don't have good feel on how many coins came to market before 1970 versus after, since the process of exporting coins was not deemed "wrong" by academia until that cut-off date.

Once upon a time a collector got sick and tired of spending money on pathetic 'premium uncleaned' With 9 slugs out of 10 being average, sure premium is 5 coins heavilyy scarred and barely identifiable, and some slugs . He sought REAL premium uncleaned. That collector found REAL premium uncleaned in the Balkans. But alas, to export large hordes like these to other nations is illegal. Others buy hordes in this same way...they end up selling them to others coin by coin or in smaller lots and these coins end up in our collections...IF a coin comes from certain areas of the world where these coins are prone to be found. They are illegal.

The laws are there more because at one point the free for all looting, export, and sale of these things got bad enough for them to feel the need to try and stop it. What else was found with these hordes of coins, where did they go, the same path no doubt. Now certainly most of the coins I come across wont be on display in a museum...they would simply be tagged and put away by a museum as many are just your common constantine and family. valentinian, valens, etc...and like you say, who knows now WHERE they came from or when they got here.

I heard an Italian man lamenting once that all the Homer Simpsons are buying up their history because they dont have one...this was the only explanation this guy could come up with as to why Americans would want ancient coins...

Well without laws like these...all the Homer Simpsons would be buying up all your history

All kidding aside. I cannot attribute most of my coins to a spot in the world where they were found (one can speculate), I have no idea who brought them to market, how they were found, etc...I dont think a lot of people could answer these questions about a lot of the coins they own unless they were the ones who brought them to market.

I have huge respect for Italy; it's a cultural epicenter. I understand how the man could feel as he did, but ultimately you can only look at the people surrounding you. If there were a demand in his country for his countries history, then the coins wouldn't be getting exported at such a high volume. I would call the people in Italy the Homer Simpsons before I called the people who were purchasing the coins that. Not to say there aren't people who buy because they want to say, look look I got it! But for people like me, I love the history of Rome and wouldn't mind having some coins so that I can see what was used for commerce so long ago. It's so hard to imagine that something I can be holding in my hand had lived through countless generations.

I believe it is the responsibility of the local people to maintain the demand for their history. If they don't want it, then someone else will provide another home. God willing that it be a good home.

I completely agree with the gentleman however on one point. America doesn't have a history. We are too young and our culture is just a hodge podge of everyone else's. What else can you expect from a country that is 232 years old? Our sole existence the first hundred was to get people to immigrate here. So yes, we don't really have a culture. And unfortunately, as we rot away in front of televisions and computer screens, we aren't developing one, or at least a good one.

I can attribute most of my coins to a town or county and some to an exact road and grid reference but the average age of my coins is about 1250 so not as old, all coins pre-1200 or very rare ones I try my best to get find-spots and have been known to track people down in the phonebook and ring them! But provenance like this reassures me as to its origin and intent for being put on the market in the first place.

But being in America and the coins coming from the Balkans must make it much harder to get exact find-spots whereas most of my purchased coins were found within a 150 mile radius which makes it easier.

Clive.

This one crux of the whole hullaballo out there now about ancient coins and artifacts. Whose history is it? An Italian descended from Frankish invaders claims a right above an American descended from old Roman stock. It gets silly quick. We are all humans, the past doesn't really exist except through our connection with it now.

The looting and smuggling can be dealt with fairly easily and reasonably. But only when collectors, dealers, museums, and archeologists work together. As long as the groups fight and try to prove that each is right and the other wrong the damage, such as it is, will continue.

I tend to agree completely...as for that Italian man, I just think he was mad because an American outbid him or something, pompous, who knows...he was just being a jerk. insulting. With me its just a love of history in general regardless of where it is...I dont read about Idi Amin because I wish I could live under a brutal regime in Africa. Nor do I read Roman History because I am lamenting that I have no culture. I will just as quickly read American history as any other...people glom on to history that is interesting to them regarless of where they live...Roman history is interesting. I met a brit who LOVED asian culture...one cannot say this brit did not have a long storied history in his own country...he just loved asian history, customs, and culture. Go figure.

Also...to the comment that America has no culture...this is wrong in my opinion...we are all from somewhere...we not only have our own short (but in my opinion fascinating) history but we also share in the culture of where we come from be it Britain, Europe, Africa, Asia. European history is just as much mine as a person living there today...For a myriad of reasons, my ancestors left Europe a few generations ago...

A small historical point about Americans and culture-- many Americans (North and South) have rich cultures that stretch back thousands of years. I, like many others, have a mixed ancestry which is part Native American-- Cherokee in my case.

I actually wasn't referencing Native Americans because I'm most certain the italian gentleman wouldn't have been calling them homer simpsons. There is not doubt that Native Americans have a lush social, and spiritual culture that far exceeds current American culture. My point was, our culture as whole, is mainly everyone else's cultures mixed. This is a biproduct of the way our country became as heavily inhabited as it is. So I will agree, Native Americans have a great culture, just as any European, Asian, or Middle Easterner has. But America, the country, as a whole doesn't have its own culture, but a bunch of cultures put together. Some might argue this to be a culture, some might not. I just wanted to clarify on my meaning.

So, is it okay to carve buffalo nickels up?


http://www.cachecoins.org/hobo02.htm

well my point of view is that anything near scarce and above a certain amount of years (such as 2000 years for example..not 200 or whatever) with great historic and cultural value should not be sold to random people. everyone should be allowed the amusement of viewing them ...thats why we have museums.

to be honest one of the main goals i have in coin collecting is not just to have fun viewing the coins but also to store them because of their historic value...if it wasnt for collectors like us many valuable things we now have in museums wont be there. example art collectors, instrument collectors, ranging to wierd stuff like glass/bottle collectors, etc.
a coin only 50 years old today will be 100 years old after another 50 years...doesnt matter as long as it represents a part of the history of the country that used it.

anyway im just rambling on and on dont mind me

I have been reading these posts over and over again, about the guy with the expensive dental work and realized that no one has yet pointed out the obvious.

Apparently he did not care what anyone would think about what he did.
He was wealthy enough to own the coins. That was probably all the coins were to him, something he could do anything with he wanted to.

Check out the wealthy these days... don't they just do some of the craziest things? They spend millions of dollars on artwork that in my mind seems
ridiculous. They spend the equivalent of a full years wages of most working class citizens on a night or two at a resort.

Looking back and seeing what the guy did with the ancient coins is rather like closing the barn door after the stock has disappeared into the night.
All we can do is discuss what he should have done.

Believe it or not, about the same time period, mummies from Egypt and other eastern nations were being sold on the open market, and I understand, in some cases used as firewood.

Yes, if I had been alive then I would not have known about what he did in time enough to have stopped him. The communications were so slow that we would have not known for days or weeks after the event. The only way to change history is to be there while it is being made, and hope you are wise and brave enough to at least try to do something to change a course of events that we now know will be so totally disastrous.

Thank you for all the wonderful people now that collect and preserve our history. Thank you to all those so well educated persons who delve into the past and preserve whatever they can so that we might know what the world was like even a couple generations ago.

In my humble opinions...

corkykile

I am going to assume from the posts I have read from you that you are bright enough to see the difference between the mindless destruction of ancient gold coins to make dentures and the rare practice of carving a unique work of art on a common worn 5 cent piece and the American history this practice represents. But no, I have never destroyed a coin be it an American 5 cent piece or Roman gold coin...I do have enough common sense to see the not so subtle difference between the two. I assume you understand the differences as well. If not, I could explain, but if you truly dont see the difference, or understand why it is such a terrible thing to destroy ancient roman coins to cap some idiot teeth who has more money than sense...then I doubt anything I say would make a difference. In the end, the destruction of ancient gold coins to make dentures is a crying shame while a wonderfully carved Hobo Nickel is a delightful work of art...it would be a crying shame to destroy that hobo nickel to make dentures.

Sure, explain to everyone the rules, since it does not seem clear, or seems somewhat arbitrary...or do you make them up as you go, to suit yourself? For example, you mentioned that carving a common, worn nickel is okay, so is it okay to carve common, worn ancient coins? Or maybe I am not as bright as you would like to assume. Or maybe you do not understand the concept of theoretical questions that might not have easy answers, or any answer at all! If you do not understand the concept of theoretical questions that are meant to work the brain more than elicit knee-jerk responses, then this is indeed pointless...which seems to be, since you keep answering authoritatively like you have the facts, when you are actually talking about opinions. And I said "I do not approve of this myself" (concerning mutilation of coins) but that sure doesn't mean I would try to shut down conversation about it!

You have called yourself a historian before, even though you carry on like an antiquarian, as you seem to lack a concept of multiple perspectives...there is no big Truth with a capital T, only little truths, and "What might be right for you, may not be right for some." -- words of wisdom from the sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes"



If you must continue, please try to avoid the ad hominen attacks. These are personal attacks and the phrase translates as "against the man." An ad hominen argument is a logical fallacy that people employ to distract from the issue, or avoid a real answer. An example of an ad hominen attack is "I am going to assume from the posts I have read from you that you are bright enough to see the difference," or “if you truly dont see the difference, or understand.” You have tried to cast doubt on my reasoning by insinuating that I might not be intelligent enough to understand what you are talking about. In response, I did it to a lesser degree when I questioned whether you understood certain concepts. This is shabby and somewhat sophomoric, But if it is all one has…


To try to get back on point, I originally asked "When does something become sacred? How old does it have to be before it is inviolate?" This does not have a real answer, but is meant to make one think about issues, it is however, a question of real historical import.

I did not mean to attack you, bright was not the best wording. I merely assumed you DID know why someone would think it is wrong to destroy historical artifacts. I thought you were just making an argument for arguments sake, willfully ignorant to spark debate. I did not start the thread to debate whether it was wrong or right to destroy ancient artifacts as it is clear that I believe it is wrong. There are obviously no hard and fast rules. There is no line one can conclusively draw that will universally be accepted as 'truth'. Nor was I saying that I was the arbiter of where this line must be drawn as I am clearly just one person with an opinion.

Do I make it up as I go along? Sure... it is not an exact science by any means and if you are looking for me to point to a line that is the objective cutoff point where it becomes okay to destroy something, I cant. As I have said, it is something similar to common sense. One simply should not destroy ancient artifacts, in this case ancient gold coins. I imagine the reasons would be the same one would give for not spray painting the walls of the lascaux caves with graffiti or for not taking a sledgehammer to the Temple of Dendera.

This admittedly is not a science and there are no absolutes as there will always be people who do not see the need to preserve what others see as important historical artifacts. What one (or many) finds precious, another will have no problems destroying. Where does one draw the line? I don't honestly know and believe it is a case by case basis that becomes more inherently obvious to most the farther back you go. the more rare it is, or the more interesting or beautiful it is. My art history professor cried when she read about bombs destroying an ancient ziggurat in Iraq. My mother is involved in restoring and preserving old historical buildings. In England there are archeologist studying the trash of Roman Imperial soldiers which includes letters from home and paper work. If you were to destroy this trash they are studying, many people would be outraged. If you destroy a common modern penny that is still being produced in the millions, most people won't get upset. If you destroy an Edward the confessor penny, people would care. In time, many common things become treasure because of the historical value.

Also, since I am setting the rules I would say even an ancient late Roman copper has historical value and should not be destroyed. There will come a day when even a poor example we now consider common will be a rare glimpse into ancient life...as it is they have great value as affordable antiquities for the masses. In a few thousand years a Lincoln penny minted in the last few years will have historic value I am sure a Hobo nickel will be a rare example of an ancient art form.

again, my apologies if I came off as insulting. It was not my intention to debate the issue or to defend why I feel the act of making dentures from ancient coins is wrong. I honestly believed the reasons to be apparent to anyone.

Uh oh, no more coin batteries made out of junk 4th century Romans