Scan A Photo, Know the Provenance

While I was considering trying it, this reply strikes me as not from a business I will support and ask if we have not given enough free advertising here already. If the $5 were only charged on submissions that succeeded, perhaps. On the other hand I can not see the business wanting to run 3000 of my coins for free to find the 30 that might hit. I suspect the long term use of this will be from auction houses which will pay a reduced rate to increase the sale potential of high dollar lots most likely to have been illustrated in the last century. The price is high for collectors with nothing more than curiosity. I have two coins I know back through the 1990's which I wonder if the system would pick up but, since I have no interest in selling them, I see no rush to pay for the Beta just for my curiosity either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

you'd think they have some kind of algorithm like those used for fingerprint or face recognition but no, they do it by hand, and have the audacity to charge people for work that resulted in nothing...
I mean, there are some great business ideas, but some are just dumb....

Not that I really understand the importance of provenance anyway. Some 18th century jerkface handled the coin, so what?

 

That's a pretty strong and abrasive statement. I'm not sure why you think they "do it by hand". From their website:

The strength of Ex-Numis® is based on the unique association of an exceptional numismatic database and new technologies of Digital image recognition.

Thanks to this Digital image recognition system, we can hunt quickly and efficiently for a lost Provenance within almost one million records of Ancient coins (Greek, Roman, Byzantine & Celtics) sold through auctions from the end of the 19th century to the begin of the 2000's (before coinarchives & ACsearch).

Our database (built up over many years) represents a library of thousands of auction catalogues from every parts of the world.

Ars Classica S.A, Adolph Hess Nachf., Dr. Jacob Hirsch, Otto Helbing, Münzen & Medaillen AG, Münzhandlung Basel, Sally Rosenberg, Felix Schlessinger, Adolph Hess AG & Bank Leu AG, Numismatica Ars Classica, Auctiones AG, Frank Sternberg AG, P& P. Santamaria, Schweizerischer Bankverein, Spink Taisei Numismatics Ltd, Glendining & Co. LTD, Rodolfo Ratto, Rolin & Feuardent and many more.

Their introduction allowed for 25 free credits (5 searches; although for some reason I only received 20 credits). So my submissions, while unfruitful, did not cost anything. I might pay for a few more submissions at some point in the future.

I think Doug raised some good points about who will find this service valuable and what they might pay. As many have pointed out, it doesn't make much sense for coins below a certain threshold of value. IdesOfMarch01 offered a more collector-friendly business model. I hope the owners seriously consider his suggestion.

As for not caring about past owners or provenance... to each his own. I like knowing the ownership history of my coins and in some instances might be willing to pay extra for that information. The ever-increasing burden of proof of provenance for sales and exportation also raises the importance of such a service.

Although the mechanism and business model could use improving, I'm happy there is such a service and hope that it improves over time.

 

This is exactly the response that I expected. It will be interesting to see over the next year or so how this business model works. I have serious doubts it will be successful without some changes that address the issue of a high number of submissions that result in no provenances found.

I think Doug is onto something here -- it may be that the ultimate success of this service is based on its usage by high-end auction houses that may find extensive provenances beneficial to their auction prices.

 

That makes perfect sense. End-collectors realize only intangible value from having the additional pedigree. Auction houses stand to make more money due to the known pedigree, therefore the service could pay for itself and then some.

If most auction houses begin using Ex-Numis, assuming a more robust database and software evolves, eventually there won't be much need for end-collectors to submit directly, except for coins purchased prior to the widespread use of Ex-Numis or a similar service.

 

Agree -- very insightful observation about this potential usage by auction houses.

 

This service is like CoinArchives which was developed by and for dealers mostly.

Provenance research databases started in the early 20th century as "Photo Files", then came digital with CoinArchives, ACsearch, etc. I believe that this new service is the latest iteration (which will be copied by others just like many photo files exist) and it absolutely has a potential market and use. I subscribe to CoinArchives as a collector because it has more data than acsearch and I still think it is easier to use, so to me it's worth the premium.

On provenances in general, this is why it is important to me.

1. To prove to burdensome bureaucrats that your coin isn't recently looted and to help ensure the marketability of the coin when you want to sell it.

2. To help ensure that the coin is authentic, especially for very rare pieces. A rare and expensive coin that just emerges from nowhere is nowhere near as safe (and consequently as valuable) as one that has been through many collectors/dealers hands over decades...or centuries.

3. To further the pleasure of collecting if that is what you enjoy. Provenance hunting greatly improves my enjoyment and challenge of this hobby.

4. To identify authentic coins that have been tampered with. Do not underestimate the value of this especially if you collect bronze anything. I have many times found coins that have been repaired, smoothed, tooled or otherwise doctored and securing an old picture of it has saved me from getting screwed. This includes silver coins, but especially bronze and gold. Sometime I'll post the Marc Antony that I once owned and returned after finding an old picture of it before it was tooled with...a laser. Yes. You read that right. A laser.

 

Some good points there...I liked #3 a lot even though it's not something for me.

Laser you say?

 

Although I'm not overly impressed by 'provenance', Carthago makes a compelling case for it's importance....

 

On Carthago point 4: I wonder how the technology could handle coins that have been altered or just cleaned. I bought the coin below in 1991. As was then part of my technique, I went through old catalogs in my collection and found a match to the type in a previous Empire catalog but that coin had fewer marks and pits. Denis Kroh replied that he could not tell me the name but the buyer of the coin was 'famous' for 'improving' his coins with additional cleaning and he thought my coin was the same specimen that appeared in his earlier sale (rather than a fake made from it or a mother to both). Many coins have had 'experiences' we might prefer they had not. A coin like mine may not have qualified for illustration before the 90's so the likelihood of tracing it back beyond the Empire sale would be slim. The question is whether a computer would recognize the old and 'improved' version as the same. I should add I paid less than 1/4 of the Empire realization so 'improvement' was not a good idea in this case.

 

Ex-Nvmis results for the 5 old collection coins posted earlier in this thread came up with nothing.

I still think it is an interesting endeavor and I hope they meet with success on their venture.

 

your only point that makes sense to me, number 2, is not really on provenance, rather photographic record. I pointed out the same thing in your other thread.

 

3 year resurrection. I loaded the first 5 free. I thought they would be best candidates for provenance. Sadly, I struck out.


Has anyone else been using their service, regularly for the last 3 years?

 

I've submitted 8 coins, received two provenances back... all on coins that I was thinking of bidding on (as opposed to already owned). One coin turned out to be ex Pozzi 1921, ex Lockett 1959, so it gave me the confidence to bid aggressively. That one win paid for the service many times over!

 

Since this old thread was revived, I need to point out tha the Domna shown here is a fake. It was a cast made from the Dattari specimen. I have no idea if the Kroh/Empire specimen was this coin or the original.

 

Here is a suggestion... submissions with no positive matches are discounted, maybe $2-$2.50, if it does get a match, then I think someone would be willing to pay the full $5.

There's no point in submitting any coins of mine, they are all sub-$30 coins.

 

I admit curiosity if submitting my fake above would return links to Dattari, Empire or CNG (who recently sold the real one). At the prices, let's just say I'm not that curious. Provenance is interesting but little more than a curiosity if it can not separate a coin and a fake cast from it.