Pieter van Damme - Joseph Eckhel - 1791-3-10
Pieter van Damme, Amsterdam
Pieter van Damme - Joseph Eckhel - 1791-3-10
| FINA IDUnique ID of the page ᵖ | 13623 |
| InstitutionName of Institution. | Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum |
| InventoryInventory number. | MK 74 |
| AuthorAuthor of the document. | Pieter van Damme |
| RecipientRecipient of the correspondence. | Joseph Eckhel |
| Correspondence dateDate when the correspondence was written: day - month - year . | March 10, 1791 |
| PlacePlace of publication of the book, composition of the document or institution. | Amsterdam 52° 22' 21.94" N, 4° 53' 36.96" E |
| Associated personsNames of Persons who are mentioned in the annotation. | Siwart Haverkamp |
| LiteratureReference to literature. | Haverkamp 1739Haverkamp 1739, Eckhel 1788Eckhel 1788, Dekesel - Dekesel-De Ruyck 2022, p. 589, note 51Dekesel - Dekesel-De Ruyck 2022 |
| KeywordNumismatic Keywords ᵖ | Plagiarism , Exchange |
| LanguageLanguage of the correspondence | French |
| External LinkLink to external information, e.g. Wikpedia ᵖ |
Map
Grand documentOriginal passage from the "Grand document".
-Letter of 10 March 1791 (from Amsterdam): On 10 March 1791, van Damme revived the correspondence. Evidently feeling guilty, he asked for the price of the Choix that he received in 1789, and wanted to resume exchanges with Eckhel. Eckhel replied on 10 June 1791. Unfortunately, this letter and the following one (dated 13 August 1791) are lost: probably they were destroyed by van Damme because they contained grave accusations against him. From van Damme’s reply – which was penned in Dutch – it is clear that Eckhel found out that the book he had been sold was not an original publication, but a collection of older plates, almost all taken from a large work by Sigebert Havercamp on Hellenistic coins and history, the Algemeene Histori (1736–1739), see the following part of the present article. Eckhel accused van Damme of deliberate fraud (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, MK 74; Dekesel - Dekesel-De Ruyck 2022, p. 589, note 51)