A Government owned museum is proposing to display replicas of ancient Indian coins of Mughal era as it is too expensive to purchase and exhibit the actual coinage of that era. Is it legally permissible?
I can't verify if this is an actual news source, but it would seem to me to be pretty pathetic if a government owned museum couldn't afford to purchase actual historical items, especially relatively low cost ones like coins.
But I don't think it's illegal if a gov. owned museum is doing it, despite my paltry understanding of Indian law.
Thanks. Would it make a difference if the authorities were to so declare that these are replicas and being displayed only because the real original coins are too expensive to display from security reasons?
Quote: "Info seeker"Thanks. Would it make a difference if the authorities were to so declare that these are replicas and being displayed only because the real original coins are too expensive to display from security reasons?
Again, probably no legal difference since it's not like they're being passed off as genuine, but I still think it's pretty sad that a museum can't afford to buy and/or display Mughal-era coins... I can understand displaying a replica of the Mona Lisa (something they actually do quite often) but of a few coins?
Just for reference, we're talking about coins that more than a few Numista members have in their personal collections, and depending on type, some of which are ones that a broke 18 year old student on her gap year could well afford to buy. So I think this penny-pinching is shameful, especially coming from a government owned museum.
Given India's record on Numismatic and other antique thievery in its museums, I prefer fakes as opposed to the real McCoy, even in its government museums....
Most items on display in a museum will be replicas. A good example is Egyptian artifacts. These are far too fragile to travel and the Egyptian Government would probably not really allow it anyhow. These items are irreplaceable and therefore priceless, so what you see in the museum in Australia (for example) are very well made replicas. As for coins, I guess it would depend upon the value and rarity of the coins being placed on display. Museums must take into account that these items are very collectable and relatively easy to transport, so potential theft becomes an issue. There are many collectors out there who don't care where they get certain items from. eBay is a great place to see some rather fine examples of replicas being passed off to the unwary as real. Just look up a 1930 Australian KGV Penny and see what you get. I even have one in my own collection though it is clearly labeled as being a "Replica". So with India being as it is today, I would find it very prudent for the government to use replicas rather than the real things. The public still get to see something amazing and of interest, yet the actual "assets" are kept safe.
Collector of Third Reich coins (1933 - 1946), and Australian coins.
Not swapping at this time.
A lot of coins that Museums display are replicas, basically they need to keep the coins in good condition so they will have replicas made for display and then keep the original coin in climate controlled conditions. It also helps with security if the more expensive stuff is kept locked up. It's not just coins either.
I can't say for museums with guest exhibits or ones in North America and Australia, or specifically for coin exhibits, but when it comes to visual art, reputable museums who care about their integrity, such as (for example) the British Museum and the Louvre, will overwhelmingly display originals most of the time (unless there is a valid reason; e.g. taken for restoration/curating, etc.). Certainly if I wanted to pay to view replicas, I would have stayed home and gone on to the internet.
There is nothing interesting and amazing in viewing a replica if you ask me, and displaying them in lieu of the real thing is an insult to a museum's guests, and to historians and connoisseurs alike.
