The Armour Archive

Wow, that is quite the price tag.

Ancient Roman helmet sells for $3.7m
From correspondents in London From: AFP October 08, 2010 1:52PM Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size Print Email Share Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Kwoff Add to Myspace Add to Newsvine What are these? AN ancient Roman helmet found in a British field by a treasure hunter with a metal detector has sold for 2.3 million pounds ($3.7 million), auctioneers Christie's say.

The "exceptional" bronze cavalry parade helmet dates from the late first century or early second century, and features a well-preserved face mask, locks of curly hair and a griffin atop the cap.

It sold to an anonymous telephone buyer for more than eight times the estimated price after a bidding war between six prospective owners overnight.

"When the helmet was first brought to Christie's and I saw it first hand, I could scarcely believe my eyes," the head of antiquities at Christie's in London, Georgiana Aitken, said.

"This is an exceptional object - an extraordinary and haunting face from the past - and it has captured the imagination and the enthusiasm of everyone who has come to Christie's to admire it over the past few weeks."

"In all, six bidders fought for the helmet - three by telephone, two in the room and one via the internet from California," Ms Aitken said.

The artefact is known as the Crosby Garrett Helmet, after the village in northwestern England where it was found in May by a man combing a field using a metal detector whose identity was not released.

It was found in 67 fragments but cleaned and restored by Christie's.

The Tullie House Museum in nearby Carlisle had launched a fundraising campaign to buy the helmet and stop it going abroad but it was not clear whether it was behind the winning bid.

The helmet is one of only three found in Britain in a similar condition. One discovered in 1796 is in the British Museum in London and the other, found around 1905, is in the Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh.

Christie's said the Crosby Garrett mask "sets itself apart by virtue of its beauty, workmanship and completeness, particularly the face-mask, which was found virtually intact".

It would not have been used for combat but for cavalry sport events involving soldiers from the Roman empire, which invaded Britain in 55 BC under Julius Caesar and left in 410 AD, Christie's said.

In its original state, the mask would have been polished white metal and the hair a golden-bronze colour, while colourful streamers would have been attached to the back, the auctioneers said.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/an ... z11yBzr6tX

Worth every penny....

Sextus Maximus wrote:Worth every penny....

That's actually nearly 10 times the amount that Christie's had as the expected realization... And over three times the amount that the Tullie House museum had to offer. I do not think it was worth every penny, considering the fact that the professionals did not. The bid war wound up going on between rich private bidders who have nothing better to do with their money; their sense of value is rather distorted, and this price tag is merely testament to their self-indulgence.

-Gerhard

Yeah... they knocked me out of the bidding pretty quick.

Halberds wrote:Yeah... they knocked me out of the bidding pretty quick.

then next time you should sell one of yours there Hal

Think Hal, in a thousand years, someone will be making millions after they find your creek!

Amazing price tag, too bad it has gone to a private owner.

Cheers!

Gerhard von Liebau wrote:

Sextus Maximus wrote:Worth every penny....

That's actually nearly 10 times the amount that Christie's had as the expected realization... And over three times the amount that the Tullie House museum had to offer. I do not think it was worth every penny, considering the fact that the professionals did not. The bid war wound up going on between rich private bidders who have nothing better to do with their money; their sense of value is rather distorted, and this price tag is merely testament to their self-indulgence.

-Gerhard

In my opinion, you show some flawed logic.

Things are worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If nobody was willing to spend $50 on a steak, Mortons would not be in business. If nobody was willing to spend $500 on a helm, Windrose would not be selling armour. If nobody was willing to spend 3.7 million on an ancient helm, then it would have sold for less.

Your assessment that, "the price tag is merely testament to their self-indulgence" is a bit silly. As if spending 'only' $500,000 for an ancient helm that will never be worn (and will instead be displayed) is any different. Most people buying such artifacts are not doing so as an investment, but rather because they *like* it.

Further, I would encourage you to reevaluate your concept of indulgence, as I think it is a bit insulting. Everyone has different values of money, and different bank accounts. What anyone else chooses to spend their money on is their business. Some might say spending $1,000 on a Prada purse is self indulgent, while others say spending $900 on a Master Knuut stainless hauberk is. Just ask anyone who does not share this hobby whether Chris Gilman's time and financial expenditure on a portable house he will use 2 weeks a year was worth it.

Jestyr wrote:Further, I would encourage you to reevaluate your concept of indulgence, as I think it is a bit insulting.

Oxford English Dictionary -

indulge... 1 allow oneself to enjoy the pleasure of. 2 satisfy or yield freely to (a desire or interest).

I think I know what the word means, and my use of it is acceptable by definition and free of presumption. These bidders were indulging themselves in taking the bid so far, and after the officials from the museums and such had dropped out of their bidding, any of them would have been happy to have owned it for much less. Their access to extravagant funds made it possible for them to continue playing the bid-war.

Officials from a nationally represented museum were bidding on this piece to obtain it for the satisfaction of maintaining, researching and sharing its cultural significance with the world in a public museum. There is little I would consider indulgent about their attempt to secure the helmet for their organization, beyond perhaps the pride they would gain from being able to maintain such a piece of history... On the other hand, when private bidders are not only aware of such a noble public cause (one group donated nearly a million pounds to the operation, and many private donors stepped up to the plate with proud financial gestures on behalf of the museum) but also out-strip their possible bid and continue to haggle between each other at great financial loss to obtain the helmet for a private venue, I think it's not only indulgent, but disrespectful to the community.

This is not a Ferrari, or a Master Knuut hauberk, or any other sort of produced toy that one can place value on based on its apparent worth to the individual. Alas, it is a piece of British national treasure that has been lost to a private collector's pocketbook. It is essentially invaluable, and for that reason private collectors making a bid on it in the face of a national effort to safeguard it is indulgent in my eyes... No matter what the amount of money is. If the treasure laws in England were set straight, it should have sold to Tullie House for whatever their offer was, and it would have been far less than $3.7 million. If that had transaction taken place, everyone involved probably would have been satisfied with its realization, and deemed it a respectable and worthy price as well.

The bottom line is that rich private bidders do not have the same concept of value as the professionals in the field, and just because they have access to funds to purchase historic artifacts for sums of money that are out-of-the-question for museums to compete with, does not mean that such sums are a reasonable monetary price for said items. I'm sure that if Tullie House had $3.7 million dollars at its disposal, it would have loved to have purchased the helmet... But I'm also sure that a number of people there probably would have shook their heads realizing that kind of money could be used elsewhere in their departments, etc, etc. The conception of value lies with the individual only insofar as it is deemed a respectable quantity by the public, in my opinion. Can this private phone bidder justify spending nearly four million US dollars on a historic helmet that he/she is most likely going to hide from the world in the face of a public enterprise's attempt to procure it for much less? I doubt it.

-Gerhard

My God you can be a pissant. The raw, arrogant PRESUMPTION of that post is revolting. Who the hell died and made you the arbitor of anything? Have you been taking lessons from Piers?


You were a good kid, once. Now, I'm thrilled to death that I don't know you.


It's too bad the local museum didn't get it, but no one was surprised at that. Realistically, the Met and the Smithsonian were almost definitely two of the private bidders. The ancient armorer would be proud, I think, to know his work was valued so well.

I'm sorry my posting style has offended you, Destichado. I must admit that I find nothing arrogant about trying to maintain a piece of national heritage within the public sphere. That this helmet was allowed to go to a private party shows a major flaw in Britain's treasure laws, and it is likely that this very auction will spur legislation to change the specifics of said laws. It's causing quite a controversy, and for good reason.

If this helmet turns up in another museum to be displayed to the public, I'll happily change my tune. I'd be very grateful if a museum purchased it, although I'd find it odd that they would bid as an unnamed private party... As far as the official statements have claimed - the winner of the auction was a private phone bidder. No word has been given that museums besides Tullie House were bidding on the artifact, nor that the winner was a previously unnamed museum that's going to end up displaying it.

Let me quote the original article to indulge myself...

"In all, six bidders fought for the helmet - three by telephone, two in the room and one via the internet from California," Ms Aitken said.

And let me quote you...

"Realistically, the Met and the Smithsonian were almost definitely two of the private bidders."

That is just as presumptuous, if not more so, than my statement. At least there are dozens, if not hundreds of eligible private parties that have such expendable funds to direct towards such an item. You list two specific museums that, as far as I am aware, have not issued any statement of intent to bid and if so, would not likely do so privately. According to the article, two bidders were identified in the room (one being Tullie House), and another was on the internet in California. Probably not a museum-orchestration, particularly for the East Coast museums you mentioned. That leaves three phone bidders to be either two major museums that escaped mention or remained in the shadows for various unknown reasons, or any number of private bidders... Hmmmm...

-Gerhard

Gerhard:

I wish that one day you might gain maturity and wisdom, to join your obvious intelligence, and become someone that I can respect and enjoy.

Until that happens, I will simply agree to disagree and not engage you in future discussions.

Edited the word "people" to "I" (and italicized it), as I will not assume other's opinions regarding someone's behavior.

Ah, the fine products of capitalism. Thank you for your kind words. Thankfully, I have a number of people who enjoy my company without insulting me, and who tend to be like-minded. It's a pity the world is diverse, isn't it?

I will never change my opinion that historic artifacts of such educational and cultural value as this helmet should not find their way into private hands. Just because some multi-millionaire can afford to purchase something, does not give him the right to obtain it. There is a clause in the British National Treasures laws that defines what is considered treasure. Individual bronze items (unlike bronze hoards, or silver or gold items) fall outside of these parameters. If this helmet had even a smidgen of silver on it, it would not have been able to go up for auction to private bidders. If that were the case, would you be out championing their right to bid on the item?

I am aware that it was perfectly legal for a private bidder to purchase this helmet. I am aware that Tullie House made a plea to force Christie's not to allow the helmet to leave the country. I do not agree with their plea, because it falls outside of legal jurisdiction. However, I hope that this incident has aroused enough suspicion that "individual bronze items" are not worthy of being considered treasure, and that amends shall be made to the laws. I say so with the belief that such treasure, as this is in every sense of the term, should be handled and maintained by officials in order to best preserve its physical integrity and availability to the public.

-Gerhard

A very distinctive Roman helmet is found

We all exclaim over it
and look forward to when it is studied
and published
and displayed
and ...
and ...

and then as quickly as it apeared on the stage of historical research

it disapeared into the study of some mansion

This makes me sad

How is Gerhard wrong?

Norman wrote:How is Gerhard wrong?

Indeed, I see no right and no wrong in this issue. I have my opinion about how such treasures should be handled by authorities and about the rights that private citizens have in obtaining them, and that is merely my opinion. Sadly, I think Jestyr and Destichado went quite far in assuming my perspective on this issue based on my previous posts - which were merely stated as direct support for my own opinion of the matter. I respect what they are saying (or rather, may have said) but I do not agree.

It bothers me that such personal attacks were made against me, rather than any attempt at academic discourse regarding the matter. These laws truly are controversial, and I would enjoy discussing their merits at length with anyone who sees differently than me their worth, as I have attempted to do here... In a rather sadistic opposition of their proponents, perhaps, which I regret, due not only to a possible lack of clarity but also because of the frightful responses I've encountered from members of this community whom I respect and have learned from in the past.

You have summed up my true regrets of this auction's resolution well, Norman. I thank you for your words, which help to offset this morning's rather intimidating replies to my posts...

-Gerhard

Wealth envy here for sure. If someone or an institution cannot afford property or something on the free market people want to sick the government on the owner of said property to seize it from them to make it theirs to display with the justification of the better good for all, The public interest.
Yadda yadda yadda.

I know quite a few private collectors who loan their property of ancient relics and historical documents out to Universities. They also are a large part of why the educational institutions even have historical departments. I have worked very closely with an Archeologist cataloging site digs etc. If it were not for his wealth, the items he found would still be buried in time. They belong to him because he put forth the effort and resources to discover them. He loans those items to institutions for educational purposes. Any other way is downright theft and and abuse of power, far worse than a private owner investing their money for such a piece of history.

Anyway I don't believe this relic will disappear.

Spence wrote:Wealth envy here for sure. If someone or an institution cannot afford property or something on the free market people want to sick the government on the owner of said property to seize it from them to make it theirs to display with the justification of the better good for all, The public interest.

Because everyone seems to be enjoying bashing my perspective in this debate based on what they assume are my personal priorities, I'll set the record straight on my outlook here... Before I begin, I would like to note that I have tried to take the time out of my day to respond respectfully (within the limits of my patience) to all that has been directed towards me, which has by and large been entirely disrespectful. I apologize for any unkind words that may have been elicited from my posts above. I particularly want to note my regret at my matter-of-fact prose, which I do realize come off as very sharp and arrogant... I'm just typing between research and class today, and haven't taken the time to check my tone, which tends to read rather abrasively.

I am not a socialist, nor do I respect socialist ideology such as Spence has kindly fed into my character above. I am a capitalist. I believe that people should be able to spend their money on whatever they wish to obtain within the legal jurisdiction of the law. Growing up, I learned to work hard for what I expect to receive, and not have things given to me except in the form of loans, such as what I'm using to assist me in my education as we speak.

But, as with many things in this world, there are things that are deemed inappropriate for personal purchase. One can't purchase a multiplicity of drugs legally... One can't purchase particular types of pornography legally, nor can't purchase ivory or other types of product taken directly from endangered animals legally. It's even illegal to purchase particular types of flax to make clothing, along with a multiplicity of other odd regulations applied to numerous products! In addition to these things, I also happen to believe that private citizens shouldn't be able to buy historic artifacts that are deemed by professionals to be of historical significance and worthy of public display and research. For the most part, British law agrees with me, and this particular item fell through a loophole in their legislation on treasures.

That is my perspective in this argument. I would thank you for ceasing your assumptions about my philosophy on wealth. The only argument I made about value in this thread was directly related to the value of this helmet, and how it was distorted by private bidders who had access to more funds than the organized public operation that was attempting to bid on the item. Period.

-Gerhard

Spence wrote:Wealth envy here for sure. If someone or an institution cannot afford property or something on the free market people want to sick the government on the owner of said property to seize it from them to make it theirs to display with the justification of the better good for all, The public interest.

Straw man
There was no suggestion that privately owned items or items dug up by a private dig be taken away from their owners.

But perhaps a regulation that disallows anonimity and possibly requires having the item reasonably available for research is not unreasonable.

Anyway I don't believe this relic will disappear.

It was bought by an anonymous bidder. Why be anonymous if you're going to put this into the stream of research.

The problem is that historical treasures -- items which may change understandings on various issues of historical technology -- quite comonly either disapear or simply do not come to life because of "private archeologists" who do not apply accepted principles, sell the items away as trinkets ... (in Russia this is called Black Archeology and is decimating the source)

On the other side , you have the fact that public institutions (universities, etc.) tend to just not have money
and there can often be a race between them and "standard capital interests" -- like putting up a mall or a factory.

I haven't looked into the issue in England -- I have read about the problems with respect to Russia.

But I suspect to one degree or another the various issues are there.

Anyhow -- There is a substantial problem that exists
The "pure" free market can not and will not handle it because the set of normal rewards for the most apart weigh against proper, controlled, archeological research.
To call someone who points out the issue a socialist is ... counterproductive.
I don't see how the situation can be deal with without regulation.

JEEZE! Everybody took their cranky pills today.

I would want to remain anonymous with such an item. Think about it real hard there.

Well said!

I think if someone finds a piece of treasure they should be able to sell it to whomever they choose.

Items of significant cultural value should be sent to authorities in the field for study for some period of time, say 12 months, to allow the object to be studied and thoroughly documented, and then it may be sold to whomever.

Steve

I will never change my opinion that historic artifacts of such educational and cultural value as this helmet should not find their way into private hands.

No thanks. I already have the Government telling me if I (or they) ever find coal, or oil, or minerals, on my property, I have no claim to them. The only solution to what you decry is to have "government" automatically own anything you find that falls under the category of "treasure" from old coins, to arrowheads, to armor. No Sir, I don't like that, to quote Mister Horse.

_IF_ the antiquities museums want to aquire stuff, they have to manage to beat out the private market. It's that simple. It's bad enough my tax dollars go to fund a museum I also have to pay to enter. To say that anything "old" that one finds should not be their property is, well, silly.

Why anonymous? That's easy to keep the phone from ringing and my mailbox filling up with requests to donate it to this that or the other institution.
I have an old Winchester model 94. It was a limited production run back in the early 20th century for use by the New York Penal System. I know this because I requested info from the William Cody Museum (Which has a database devoted to 94 winchesters ) For years I got letters asking me to put it on display at their museum..