Significance of "haymarks" on British coins

I had asked this question before, but I was unsatisfied with the answer till I read this description from an upcoming Heritage auction (emphasis mine):''

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=3015&lotNo=24889

This resolved the issue for me.

g.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

They call those strawmarks Doug! Haha!

 

I looked this up and evidently (according to what I've found) is that haymarks is another term for weight adjustment marks, which can be striations in the coin (filing metal scraps off) in order that the coin does not weigh MORE than it should for it's metal content.

 

Cool!

 

That's EXACTLY the first thought that went through my mind. Reverse of an 1652-A Louis D' Or pictured.
The "haymarks" or more accurately streaking is much more evident with coin in hand, but you can still see a significant mark at 7:00 on the reverse about 3mm up from the rim.
Also a scattering of marks at 1:00 in the legend.

Only one thing kind of troubling about the conclusion. Tin has a melting point less than half of either gold or silver. I suppose impurities in the tin amalgam could raise the melting point, but realistically, I can't imagine a scenario where tin would not go into solution at temperatures greater than twice its melting point.

 

Maybe I'm a bit confused, but I thought gold coins were typically struck rather than poured. If the dies had a tin alloy, or if there were flecks of tin on them, wouldn't that cause surface adhesion of tin at high pressures?

 

Such a major auction firm, completely flouting a grading service, makes me just shake my head. Seriously? If the service would have graded this a 66 they would have been screaming about how high grade it was, yet if it is lower they say how its wrong and misgraded. So which is it Heritage? You sell hundreds of millions of graded coins, telling the buyers they can rely on the grade, yet with this coin you say the TPG is completely in error. Does Heritage examine every slab, and note in their auction listings those coins, (of which are many in my eyes), that are vastly overgraded. When was the last time Heritage had a listing:

"MS 64, (PCGS or NCG), though in our eyes is cleaned and AT. TPG really missed the boat on this one, at best should be a details grade or bodybagged, but somehow slipped through the TPG. In our view this coin is VF value at best, and with such deficiencies maybe not worth that much".

 

Actually, that has been tried before. Richard Ponterio used to routinely downgrade slabbed coins in his catalog, "no better than XF, NGC AU58"... Can you imagine how happy his conignors were with his "transparency"? No mystery to me why Ponterio couldn't keep up with Heritage and was forced to merge with Bowers & Marina (now Stacks Bowers). While it sounds great to cater to the buyers (like eBay has presently adopted), in the end it is the sellers that keep any auction venue afloat. Any auction company that ignores this won't be in business for long, and that includes eBay.

 

So who loses in such a scenario? The buyers. They overpay for coins, and when it comes time to sell will realize they have been lied to.

I understand competition for consignments, but I also deal with a good many firms who accurately grade. I am aware of some other ancient firms who overgrade their coins, and overlook some flaws, but I will never buy from them again. It is the firms who accurately grade are the ones that win my return business. Yes, an auction firm needs consignments, but they also need large customer bases to sell to. It is not as one sided as you seem to believe. High realized prices generate strong seller submission more, in my view, than lying about a sellers coin will.

How I bid, is I first take the auction house into consideration. If it is in my eyes a great house, conservative grading, I may bid 20% above what I believe the market is for a coin I want. If its an ok house, I may bid up to market but never above since there is a chance for a negative surprise. If it is a poor house, and routinely overgrade, I will bid at most the market for one full grade lower, and frequently less than that if I even bother. I feel many do the same, since auction strategy is discussed and compared at my ancient coin club frequently.

My original post was simply how its sad even for firms who swear by TPG still contradict it when it suits them, and only when it suits them. I never bought much from Ponterio, but if they did what you described I would be today much more likely to start. As it is, since Ponterio is now part of Bowers, I may look at Bowers auctions myself and see if he brought that quality to their auctions.

Chris

P.S. Btw its dangerous to assume the nature of the merger between Ponterio and Bowers. Do we know economically that came out? How much was Ponterio reimbursed? Maybe he realized a very high price for his respected firm? I am just saying that since someone was purchased they were doing poorly, it may well have been they were purchased because they were doing very well. I simply do not know that answer, and its dangerous to speculate unless you know the details.

 

Richard Ponterio is a very knowledgable numistmatist for whom I have great respect. And many of the coins in my collection came from auctions he conducted as an independent auctioneer. However, I don't think anyone could possibly think that merging with Bower-Merena was some sort of life long aspiration on Ponterio's part. How could it possibly be? All auction houses have some strengths and some weaknesses. The thing to remember is this: A seller can chose who he wants to sell his coins. A buyer, if there is specific coin he really wants, must buy it from the auction house who is selling it, hence he is captive.

In the case of Ponterio & Associates, to be sure, there were other contributing factors that lead the firm to --for practical purposes-- cease to exist. Auction catalogs that fell apart, -and this was something that happened again and again and again, without Ponterio ever changing catalog vendors. Also settlement was WAY longer than it had to be. The firms seller contract stated that the settlement was in 60 days. Any businessman wanting to generate good will with consignors would have sent out payment sooner; instead Ponterio would send a check out so that it was postmarked 60 days to the day after the auction closed.

Still, I won't disagree that he described the coins the way he saw them, and in general he wrote some great lot descriptions. But if NGC or PCGS calls a coin a certain grade, and a consignor asks the coin to be auctioned, the auctioneer has a fiduciary responsibility to the consignor to represent the coin in the best light possible, and that does not include second guessing the grading services, unless the coin is in a PCI or other off-name holder.

 

I would not call an auctioneers description a fiduciary responsibility. The auction firm has responsibilities to both parties, he cannot lie to prospective buyers because that will result in returns or no bids in the future. Why is the auction firm not allowed to second guess NGC or PCGS grades, but allowed to second guess everyone elses? Why are they only allowed to say a coin is UNDER graded? That was my original point, they only ever claim an undergrade, you never hear when they disagree with an overgrade. To me, a good AH would, and it sounds like Ponterio was a guy I would have liked to buy from. I am sure I bought some, as I attended CICF many years, and sometimes the auctions. I do have many sellers like Mr. Ponterio I spend good money with simply because I can trust their grades.

You can say a collector is a captive audience, but I think you are giving too much credit. I pass on probably 100 coins I see before I find one I am interested in. For every one I am interested in, I buy maybe 10%, the others being too pricey, defective, overgraded, etc. I don't have the deepest pocketbook, but spend well into 4 figures each year on coins, and enough buyers like me make for a good business.

Maybe I am overreacting, but the Heritage coin is fugly, and to call that a gem either tells me grade inflation is rampant, or that auctioneer does not care about my concerns as a buyer. Either way it is not encouraging me to buy from that firm. I have many ancient firms I have discovered the same truth, and believe me I tell anyone who wishes to listen about it if they ask me my opinion. In the definition of Gem used to be superior eye appeal. I know it is not that coins FAULT, but it does not exhibit even acceptable eye appeal.

Regarding Mr Ponterio, I do not know the man so I don't know why he sold. Maybe he wanted a steady paycheck and to be part of a larger, more important firm? I hear he is now a senior executive in the combined firm. Those are not silly thoughts. I just don't know.

Chris

P.S. Good discussion, thank you.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but if these streaks were merely hairlines, wouldn't this coin (and the one below) grade lower?



guy

 

Well, I guess that explains the black streaks on this coin:

 

Well to further back up your point Doug, even if the use of tin had caused such marks (which as you so clearly pointed out it wouldn't) it still wouldn't answer the question of this coin.


The auction site claims it was the use of Welsh and Midland silver. Well the only silver coins that used that were coins with 'plumes' or 'roses and plumes' between the four shields. Plain coins were presumably struck from melted down old coinage or silver sourced from where ever the silver usually came from.

These 1703 pieces marked VIGO were actually struck from Spanish silver captured at Vigo Bay (and hence South American in origin) and thus don't contain tin at all!