Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. STORE WIDE SALE!!! 10% OFF EVERYTHING!!! WE ARE OPEN AND SHIPPING!!! We Are Working From Home, Social Distancing, Wearing Masks, And Sanitizing To Pack Orders!!! Please Call Us If You Have Questions 252-646-1958 Welcome Guest. Please login or register. STORE WIDE SALE!!! 10% OFF EVERYTHING!!! WE ARE OPEN AND SHIPPING!!! We Are Working From Home, Social Distancing, Wearing Masks, And Sanitizing To Pack Orders!!! Please Call Us If You Have Questions 252-646-1958


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Ancient Coin Webmasters (Moderator: Sorin Teodor)  |  Topic: acsearch - introduction of comments re. fakes 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: acsearch - introduction of comments re. fakes  (Read 2377 times)
Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4744



WWW
« on: April 27, 2016, 10:24:27 pm »

I've noticed that acsearch has introduced on its home page a comments thread that includes comments on coins that are supposedly fake. I find this very disturbing in the way that it's been introduced. There are several aspects that wouldn't be at all acceptable on Forum

- the sellers / auctions of the supposed fake coins are plainly identified, which is not done on Forum except in the case of Notorious Fake Sellers
- comments are anonymous (userid), without the level social control exercised here on Forum that ensures less experienced commentators are called out ( IF YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO GIVE ADVICE - DON'T )
- reference is made to highly unreliable sources such as forgerynetwork - which is essentially unmoderated and allows coins to be condemned
- in some cases, no justification at all is given. Some examples
   = "Moderne Fälschung" (no other comment)
   = "not so obviously when was offered at auction. authenticity is a matter of opinion only, and in my opinion Americans are not the most indicated to determine authenticity of classic European coins (for evident motives) ."
   = "Known Fake" (no other comment)
   = links to forgerynetwork (without further evidence)
etc. etc. etc.

I can understand the value of plainly saying when a coin has been "Withdrawn" - as that's a fact the seller supports.

I could also understand if some "super-moderators" on acsearch were able to mark fakes that a seller had agreed as such, or where there were links to for example IAPN IBSCC documents.

But I do not think anonymous users should be able to condemn a coin without proper process or the ability of a seller to identify who is making the condemnation. Such condemnations can affect the value of genuine coins.

I recently had the misfortune to find that one of my own coins had at some time in the past been copied; my own coin was/is unquestionably genuine with everything that indicates it was die-struck in ancient times whereas the copy I saw for sale had evidently been cast. I can well imagine that someone picks up on a sale listing of my genuine coin at some time and writes "cast copy - see identical offered for sale here...". And what defense would I have - I can't even contact the originator of the comment.

In my view, if this process is allowed to continue in its current format, we may see better auction houses withdraw from acsearch. So it affects us all. Is this something we really want to see - anonymous comments accusing dealers of selling fakes on a platform such as acsearch? Not me.
Logged

areich
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8764



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2016, 02:24:00 am »

I see no problem with it. You realize the limitations and so do others reading these comments. That it's clearly tied to the auction house is inevitable, given that it's an archive of auction results, not a database of fake coins. I see no problem with that either.
Logged

Andreas Reich
Molinari
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4235


My defeat, if understood, should be my glory


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2016, 07:34:27 am »

I think it is mostly fine too. The user comment that the coin is fake is not an acknowledgement on the part of acsearch or any other authority.  I'm sure that if a user started to abuse the comments function he'd be removed.  However, the idea to have "super-moderators" to police such things is a good one.
Logged

Akropolis
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2588



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2016, 07:49:50 am »

I tend to agree with Andrew. However, as a minimum, acsearch should assert in a prominent location and in bold capital letters that claims of falsity are solely the OPINION of the poster and may, in fact, be erroneous.
PeteB
Logged

Carausius
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1329



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2016, 08:12:26 am »

I don't like it. Acsearch should stick to its core competency - a database of auction sale results - and leave discussions of fakes to forums where people can vet and argue the conclusions. The limitations of the 'comments' section are obvious (undisclosed identities, unknown experience/motivations of the posters), so why have it at all? A malicious lie or a beginner's guess posted in these comments can cast a cloud on a genuine coin, because not everyone will consider the inherent limits of the comment  system when opting not to bid on a condemned coin. I might support the publishers of acsearch themselves, as an editorial function, adding comments to coins that have been proven and recognized as fakes by acknowledged experts. I'm not trying to suppress online free-speech, but IMHO such information is more responsibly handled outside of a database comments section.
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4744



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2016, 04:18:51 pm »

There's a range of comments above, but any comparison with how we would wish our own coins to be treated reinforces my view that this is a very bad thing. On my coin galleries on Flickr, if an unknown anonymous userid posts a comment below one of my good coins that says "Obvious fake" or such-like, not only will I delete the comment, I'll permanently block the user. These types of comments wouldn't be permitted on a Forum gallery. It's just voyeurism and a delight in seeing dealers discomforted that makes this sort of process attractive. The first time a $100k+ genuine coin is condemned as fake by an unknown userid in an unmoderated and information-free comment, I wouldn't be surprised to see that auctioneer withdraw from acsearch, and probably taking action against the site (acsearch) too.

I agree that there needs to be a formal process that identifies withdrawn items. The cleanest way to do so would be for acsearch to mirror the auction houses and delete the listing, in much the same way that auction houses' own sites usually delete the photo of withdrawn pieces. But if that's not to happen, a plain statement that an item has been withdrawn is as much as should be allowed - unless and until the auctioneer chooses to add a comment as to why they withdrew an item.

The current commentary free for all will lead to genuine coins being maligned, trouble makers making attacks on non-preferred sellers, acceptance of a situation where it's ok to shout "fake", and inevitably after some aggravation, withdrawal of the better auction houses from acsearch. The worse ones, who actually do knowingly sell fakes, won't care so much. It'll be a race to the bottom of the sewer.
Logged

orfew
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 993


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2016, 10:11:25 pm »

I do not like it either. I think it has the potential to do much more harm than good.
Andrew S.
Logged

xanthos
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2016, 04:41:55 am »

Andrew, I understand your concerns, but:

1. The comments feature isn't new, it has been there for years. Only the box "Newest comments" on the front page and the comments list are new.
2. The comments feature hasn't been introduced for forgery discussions, but, above all, to correct wrong descriptions without having to touch the original description.
3. Lately it has mostly been used to leave comments about fake coins, which wasn't our intention but isn't necessarily bad either.
4. We are closely monitoring new comments and prevent any offensive, silly, spam and obviously misleading comment from being published. Comments only appear on the front page after being unlocked to prevent misuse.

This said, I agree with you that some comments are too brief (even if they may be true) and that a better explanation would be preferable. We will pay more attention to this in the future and will also inform commenters.

I recently had the misfortune to find that one of my own coins had at some time in the past been copied; my own coin was/is unquestionably genuine with everything that indicates it was die-struck in ancient times whereas the copy I saw for sale had evidently been cast.

If your coin is genuine, I can't see any misfortune resulting from marking copies of your coin as forgeries.

Also, please note that there is a contact link on the website. If you have any concerns about or suggestions to acsearch, we would appreciate if you would send them to us, too, rather than just posting them in discussion groups.
Logged
Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4744



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2016, 06:38:48 am »

Andrew, I understand your concerns, but:

1. The comments feature isn't new, it has been there for years. Only the box "Newest comments" on the front page and the comments list are new.
2. The comments feature hasn't been introduced for forgery discussions, but, above all, to correct wrong descriptions without having to touch the original description.
3. Lately it has mostly been used to leave comments about fake coins, which wasn't our intention but isn't necessarily bad either.
4. We are closely monitoring new comments and prevent any offensive, silly, spam and obviously misleading comment from being published. Comments only appear on the front page after being unlocked to prevent misuse.

This said, I agree with you that some comments are too brief (even if they may be true) and that a better explanation would be preferable. We will pay more attention to this in the future and will also inform commenters.

I recently had the misfortune to find that one of my own coins had at some time in the past been copied; my own coin was/is unquestionably genuine with everything that indicates it was die-struck in ancient times whereas the copy I saw for sale had evidently been cast.

If your coin is genuine, I can't see any misfortune resulting from marking copies of your coin as forgeries.

Also, please note that there is a contact link on the website. If you have any concerns about or suggestions to acsearch, we would appreciate if you would send them to us, too, rather than just posting them in discussion groups.

This is a matter that's likely to be of widespread public concern and I think it needs discussion in a public forum. Many collectors - and dealers - might feel inhibited about raising this issue publicly but as a fairly well known collector I felt a need to speak out.

Yes, it's the home page treatment that's the tipping point. I've been aware acsearch allowed comments,for a long time. This presentation turns it into "this reputable dealer sells fakes". I discussed this with a smaller dealer this morning, whom I was visiting - he thought this will end up as a disaster for acsearch.

I paid 2 years subscription for the extended acsearch website just a few weeks ago. I did so as a gesture of loyalty to the free site that replaced Coinarchives for me. If the site continues to display apparently unmoderated and unevidenced accusations of fakery on its home page, I really doubt it'll still be in business in two years time.

Andrew
Logged

Molinari
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4235


My defeat, if understood, should be my glory


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2016, 09:40:47 am »

It seems to me like we should give our friends at acsearch the benefit of the doubt that if it becomes a problem, they will address it.  Flipping through the comments right now it doesn't seem like anyone is actively abusing the system.
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4744



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2016, 10:43:40 am »

It seems to me like we should give our friends at acsearch the benefit of the doubt that if it becomes a problem, they will address it.  Flipping through the comments right now it doesn't seem like anyone is actively abusing the system.

That seems to be the case (few active abusers). But I've no reason to have confidence in those who are posting comments such as "obvious fake" or similar. The non-abusers you cite may just be wrong. This will quickly kill acsearch if it continues. I'm pretty sure that dealers are unhappy with it - several have mentioned it to me.

We can of course just let market forces work. Don't be surprised though if there's no option after a couple of years than a paid for CoinArchives contract. I'll learn to live without acsearch, which I'm probably going to have to do if they continue to allow authenticity comments.

A very simple solution would be to ban authenticity comments, except on Withdrawn Lots.
Logged

Arados
Comitia Curiata
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Online Online

Posts: 1505



« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2016, 12:39:47 pm »

Although i agree with the views shared here that comments regarding authenticity should be discussed openly and on a platform such has FORVM, inevitably acsearch must be allowed to decide their own fate.

In respect to the short comments regarding authenticity, the following remarks do no justify in any way the necessary process required when determining whether or not a coin is genuine.

Withdrawn, obviously a fake coin.

Moderne Fälschung.

A modern forgery.

None of the above have generated any reaction at all, this lack of interest only confirms that acsearch is the wrong media for this kind of discussion.

My apologies to acsearch for my lack of support regarding your comment section but please keep up your fantastic work and continue to expand your extensive coin library, which is top class.

 
Logged

dougsmit
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2149


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2016, 05:00:10 pm »

As acsearch expands its coverage into the last century, such comments will become more important.  We can not get opinion or agreement from firms no longer in business (e.g. NFA) but listing all of their lots without noting the ones later found to be fake would be harmful to the general good.  Unfortunately most of us would consider it a sign of validation of a coin if we saw it had been sold in 1986 by a major house but we would not necessarily know that it had been condemned in 1987.  The obvious answer seems to be the moderators but there will always be coins that are not now or were not at some point certain as to their status. The need to be noted with due noting of the opinions. 

I might add that I know more practical interest will be found in the $100k coins but incorrect statements in either direction are a problem even for $1 coins.  I suspect that the end of this will be that only paying supporters will be able to comment or see comments which will make this resource of reduced value to the next generation of coin students and only maintained for the use by dealers and investors who can justify the price (or, for that matter, who even care about the prices realized that are now a paid option).   I loved acsearch in its original form but realized that some of the content was as erroneous as the data provided by erroneous listings by some sellers. I do not see the comments as any more obviously valid than the other parts of the data.  I'm not sure it is necessary to expect the owners to spend time and money settling disputes.  This is like Wikipedia.  When someone incorrectly comments that a coin is bad, I would expect other comments to follow from those who know better. 
Logged

Andrew McCabe
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4744



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2016, 02:26:25 am »

There's been a balance of views expresses on this issue. My lines in the sand are as follows

- Withdrawn lots should be clearly marked as such, and against Withdrawn lots I'd be ok with anything reasonable being said.

- Lots which have not been Withdrawn should have any comments re authenticity moderated - i.e. explicitly supported (noted as such) by an acsearch moderator, and the seller, if extant, should be informed (and be able to comment in return).

This would seem a fair balance between protecting future collectors and protecting reputable sellers and the coins they sell. I would hope it could be achieved in practice, but if it proves practically impossible then I still think acsearch should defer to not allowing authenticity comments. Otherwise it's anarchy, which is what the current setup seems to be.

Hopefully acsearch is reading this thread and will look to modify what currently seems to be a completely unacceptable comments free for all environment. There are reasonable solutions available.
Logged

Ted
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2016, 09:51:58 am »

Requiring official approval of condemnation from acsearch (and removing condemnations that do not meet with official approval amounts to the same thing) seems untenable as it would potentially put acsearch in the position of potentially condemning coins from auction houses that it has to maintain agreements with in order to keep its service going, which I suspect functionally would keep acsearch from allowing almost any notes (other than officially withdrawn lots and a few coins where everyone eventually agreed there was an issue). So while there is a danger that, unmoderated, condemnations may be overbroad, the danger is that when moderated condemnations will be vastly under represented, and people will not be put on guard to make their own determinations (and will have a tendency to assume that presence in a pre-existing auction validates the authenticity of a coin). Joe is more insulated from that in that while he may do business with his peer sellers, the entire basis of Forum's business is not premised on their good will

A moderated context would even tend to lead to underrepresentation of reports of a coin being withdrawn, as well. So, in a moderated context, I might share information that the EID MAR lot 2933 in Dorotheum Kunstabteilung 08 Jun 1956 (Spring 128 ) is listed in my copy of that catalog as [FAELSCHUNG/Entfaell] (stamped into the text of my copy of the catalog, backed up by the fact that the coin does not appear in the PRL). But if the stamp is not in every copy of the catalog (which seems feasible), then even this objective observation is not necessarily readily separately verifiable (if for example the stamp was only in day of auction copies if it was withdrawn at the last minute and if most copies out there pre-date that). So if this coin shows up on acsearch, and if that information was not in the listing on acsearch due to a source copy being used that doesn't have the stamp, someone might look at the age of the auction, that it's part of a very old collection, that Andrew's page on auction catalogs lists the auction as containing an EID MAR, and never consider that the coin might be questionable (realistically in this example, of course, an EID MAR buyer is likely to spend the cash after purchase to double check the coin with an expert after acquiring, so this may apply more realistically to other coins, although being put on guard in the first place might keep the coin from having further results that make it seem legitimate if it is not).

A flood of bad information would be bad, but a drought of information is also bad; on the whole, I would prefer that more questioning is included rather than less.
Logged
okidoki
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Online Online

Posts: 3908



WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2020, 02:37:26 pm »

as an auction house you can prevent comments


Comments
 Comments disabled by auction company.
Logged

All the Best,
Eric
There are no strangers, only friends you do not know yet.
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=37270
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Ancient Coin Webmasters (Moderator: Sorin Teodor)  |  Topic: acsearch - introduction of comments re. fakes « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 2.144 seconds with 53 queries.
All coins are guaranteed for eternity
zoom.asp