In the February 1947 issue of Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin, H.A. (Bert) Seaby wrote a provocative editorial with the title “The Collector vs the Museum – or – Can Museums be Too Greedy?” The main theme was the accumulation of duplicates by acquisition or bequest and the loss of material from the collector market. At that time the coins in question were the classical Greek, Roman, and typically precious metal pieces.
The subsequent 75 years has seen much change in the coin world, with the interested population increasing at least twenty fold and almost everything small, round and metallic being collected and studied somewhere. Another factor in expanding interest in British numismatics was the invention of the metal detector and its effect on hardening and polarising the positions of members of some groups. On my mind when I first noticed the Seaby editorial were the recent increased scope of the Treasure Act and the trial and conviction of two people for handling and trying to sell Anglo Saxon silver pennies from a known hoard that had not been declared some years ago.
This first Blog reproduces the original note and subsequent correspondence without comment.
BNS Research Blog 
Thanks for reproducing these. It’s nice to see that the debate has remained somewhat similar for the last century.
A couple of thoughts came to mind. The growth of metal detecting has made available many antique items, in particular it has greatly increased the supply of legal to own non-coin artifacts, which in decades past were mostly limited to archaeological site recovery and thus out of the collector’s reach. One of the commenters mentioned Roman fibulae. Many of these have now been recorded on the PAS and most of these are disclaimed, opening an area of collecting not easily accessible 100 years ago.
Seaby mentions the Crondall hoard of thrymsas found in the 19th century and sold as part of Lord Grantley’s estate as an example of museum greed. I think this is a rather poor example of the point Seaby was trying to make. The Crondall hoard is one of the few coin hoards that most people would agree absolutely belongs in a museum. Of course Seaby could not foresee that even today the Crondall hoard remains the only major find of these early gold coins. Very few individual finds of these coins are known, several types remain unknown outside of the hoard, and privately collecting these coins is nearly impossible.
Seaby also mentions CE Blunt as an advocate for museum donation. Blunt stayed true to his word and his collection at the FitzWilliam museum has been well cataloged for posterity, with the SCBI catalog and MEC:8. However these publications took decades to finally give the donation its proper due.
My thoughts on museum donation are similar to some other commenters- if one has an affinity for a museum and believes in its goals and mission, and wish to benefit said museum in estate planning, then leave the museum money. Or give them the collection and allow them to sell any of it not needed, rather than instructing them to keep it together as some posthumous monument. Most museums can accomplish much more with money than with a group of old coins.
Mr Gran makes many good points. In light of recent events at the British Museum, we cannot assume that museums will always offer a safer environment than in a private collection. What I find disappointing is the lack of innovation from museums in displaying their coin collections and publishing these online. The Fitzwilliam is an outlier and the EMC is a welcome innovation.
Great article as usual Gary. I’m certainly looking forward to the subsequent ones. One or two aspects of the pieces touched on the topic I shall be talking about at the BANS event in two weeks time. In future I shall certainly try to avoid displaying “the stupid glance of the careless passer-by”.