Barford the Ignoramus Redux
by Paul Barford
"Dealer Dave Welsh insists:
Numismatics is in reality a recognized science dating back to the 14th century, with a long-established formal methodology for classification and analysis cf coin types, and of the dies used to strike coins [...] Mr. Barford would do well to learn more about numismatics [...] before venting disparaging, ill-founded criticism based upon nothing better than his own prejudice against collecting.
Now, I have asked those who attempt to justify the no-questions-asked trade in dugup coins by using this tired old argument time and time again to point the way to the textbooks of this heap of coins on a kitchen table numismatics. A short booklist of the ten most informed and detailed magisterial accounts of the various approaches would be enough I think to allow us to get a grasp of this "formal methodology of its own for classification and analysis of coin types and of the technology of striking". So far, several years asking have resulted in nothing much beyond Welsh's proffered books of 1515 and 1524 ("the first illustrated numismatic book"). I'm not after picture books, I want some detailed presentations of the methodology of heap of assorted coins on a table numismatics."
If Mr. Barford really desires to consult reference works on the subject of numismatics, a science whose published literature easily equals (and in my opinion probably surpasses) everything published on the subject of archaeology, he can find a reasonably comprehensive list of key references here:
Unfortunately for Mr. Barford's rabid anticollecting views, "heap of assorted coins on a table numismatics" is not a subject of interest to anyone other than himself and the few benighted souls who share his anticollecting mania.
It is very important to observe that every one of these cited references, amongst thousands of other important numismatic and historical works, resides in my personal library which has been recognized as a special collection of significant research interest by the University of California. It would be interesting to ascertain how many volumes relating to archaeology and artifact studies can be found in Mr. Barford's personal library, and whether any institution of learning has recognized that library as a scholarly resource.
I have read and comprehensively understood every one of these many thousands of references, and it is upon that extremely solid foundation that I assert that my knowledge of the science of numismatics is very likely far more detailed and complete than Mr. Barford's knowledge of the so-called science of archaeology, i.e. glorified and academically formalized grave-robbing.
The reader who may find that statement somewhat difficult to digest is cautioned that it is actually far more reasonable than what Mr. Barford has recklessly, unjustifiably and repeatedly stated regarding numismatics.
Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra, Paulus Barfordus?