CNG Keystone 3

I don't think one person in this thread has even begun to suggest that theft by an insider isn't a possibility, or that university employees are all necessarily honest. Nobody is that naive. And nobody is claiming that we know the answers. Nonetheless, it's still an interesting topic to discuss, so the number of responses doesn't surprise me in the least. Really, the choices are pretty much down to surreptitious theft by an insider (and/or surreptitious sales of coins by an insider), sales by the university itself that it now wants to disavow or for which it has no records, or theft by an outsider who had repeated access to the collection -- akin to the several notorious cases of rare book, manuscript, and print dealers slicing pages out of rare books in a library and smuggling them out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Somebody needs to get Robert Stack in the bullpen. This unsolved mystery should be on some kinda show:

 

And I have a coin by the book thief of Teos....Apellikon.

Even philosophers are dodgy.

 

I appreciate your input. It is hard for me that however was the director of where the coins were, didn't keep a file on the missing coins. Inventories taken of museums and other university departments, usually don't take an inventory of collectables every year, and I am sure that we don't know the whole story. I have never audited collections like coins or other valuables stored by a university. It would seemed possible that someone where the coins were stored, should know by eyesight in a walk-thru. As mentioned several times, it would seem that whoever gave the coins to the auction house had no clue that the coins could have been stolen, unless that person figured that over 50 years or more, no one would notice.
This has been a great forum. Thanks to all that put their 2 cents in, but you better have a receipt that showed where you got your 2 cents.

 

I don't think that's feasible in a collection with 120,000 coins. I would think that a certain amount of so-called "shrinkage" is expected in university libraries with millions of volumes (I knew several people who "borrowed" books from Yale's Sterling Memorial Library, despite the guard checking bags at the exit), and it doesn't surprise me that something similar might happen in a numismatic collection exceeding 100,000 coins.

 

I'm not familiar with Yale's personnel numbers nor would I know how coins could be audited or counted or whatever, but if the coins are valuable enough or important enough, I sure wouldn't wait, and hope they will turn up in 50-90 years. Did the possessor hide the coins so no one would know they had them? Who was the whistleblower that told the Auction House that the coins belonged to Yale U. If I possessed the coins and Yale U told the Auction House that the coins were theirs, I'ld sue the heck out of the Auction House, because they did not have the right to turn them over to Yale. There was a lack of due process by the Auction House and they are financial responsible for giving the coins the Yale U. Their responsibility tis to turn the coins over to the agent that had given the coins to them. They gave the coins to Yale U. only because they were Yale U and the scared the heck of them to get them to give them the coin. BIG QUESTION: Did the Auction House notify the possessor of the coins and did the possessor (for lack of a better name) know they were turned over to Yale U. There's more to the story than are in these 5 pages.
And, DonnaML, thank you for your input.

 

Many of these questions are answered in this thread. The trays listed "Yale" as the source of some coins. CNG reached out to Yale, I assume as part of their usual research following up on provenances (these coins could easily have their value multiplied by having verifiable pre-1970 provenances, for instance). When Yale viewed the images of the coins with the trays, something about the handwriting and trays themselves made them believe they were theirs(I assume the style matched existing coins at Yale). Importantly, CNG didn't just turn over the coins to Yale - the consignor agreed with this disposition. I don't doubt that, absent an actual court order, CNG would hold onto the coins or send them back to the consignor, they've been in the business long enough to know how to navigate these situations appropriately, and I know from other previous cases that they do work closely with consignors when issues come up(e.g. when an estate was supposed to have donated a coin to an institution but, in the midst of selling several thousand coins, missed the instructions for one).

The consignor, CNG and Yale have more information than we have, though it sounds like they don't have all the answers either.

 

Also, as pointed out earlier in this thread, the consignor is not the original collector, who presumably died some years ago, given that it appears from the prices on the tickets that these coins were (allegedly) purchased many decades ago. In fact, CNG specifically states in a communication quoted earlier that the collection "came from an estate to CNG third hand. We performed extensive research on this collection when it came to us, including communication with Yale. This was April of 2020. Due to Covid the collection sat in the safe for some time. Covid also prevented Yale from accessing their records. Only when the sale "went live" did some questions come up about just how these coins were acquired. The fact is, we at CNG don't know. We don't even know who the collector was that formed the collection. All we know is they lived on the east coast and were active in the mid-20th century."

Clearly, the consignor is not the original collector, and presumably has no personal knowledge as to where the coins came from. So it would have been a bit difficult for them to take an aggressive position that the coins are legitimately theirs. I would guess that enough facts were presented to the consignor that the consignor decided -- presumably on advice of counsel -- that the facts are on Yale's side, that litigation would probably not be worth the attorneys' fees, and that it would ultimately be a losing proposition. I also suspect that the estate has no records, beyond the coin tickets, proving that the coins were legitimately purchased. So it might be difficult to prevail in an argument that the decedent was a good faith purchaser. Even if he were, and was not himself the hypothetical thief -- assuming that the known facts indicate theft -- a thief cannot pass good title.

Finally, to @Jim Dale, there's no indication at all that Yale knew the coins were missing and waited 50-90 years to say anything. They didn't know about it until this sale came up. I think it's rather unrealistic, as I hinted above, to expect an institution with 120,000 coins ever to audit all 120,000 to see if any are missing. Nobody would know in the ordinary course unless and until a scholar wanted to access those coins, and they were discovered to be missing. Pretty much the same as missing library books turning up after 100 years without the library ever having known that they were missing.

 

Thanks for your information. I'm not sure that I understand it all without of flowchart and directions on how all of this came about.
Again, thank you.

 

Oh we all like a mystery......particularly one with a whiff of fraud and possible conspiracy.......and from times past........and a hallowed institution........

 

Obviously, it was Skull and Bones that stole the coins, and smuggled them out through the secret tunnels beneath the steam tunnels, before selling them to the Illuminati. Or perhaps to the Knights Templar, in exchange for an idol of Pazuzu.

 

Better not be the Clarke boxes that triggered the Yale complaint

Clarke boxes were used by multiple private and public collections mid 20th century. I have coins in Clarke boxes. Different handwriting. Nothing to do with Yale

 

I think I've learned a lesson. Don't write/speak unless you really know what you are referring to. I think what got me was 5 pages and after the third page, I must have zoned out. My apologies to all.

 

As a well-reasoned response to the "anti-collectors" position, and the argument that objects (including coins) divorced from their archaeological context are worthless, I recommend this article, published in 2019, entitled "The Current State of the Antiquities Trade: An Art Dealer’s Perspective." The author is Randall Hixenbaugh, an antiquities dealer from whom I've been making purchases for almost 15 years. See https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...hare/1671d443cd7e032a7069a0b06ead1401e093caa5.

Although the article primarily deals with non-numismatic antiquities, there's a passage on ancient coins at p. 231.

 

'...but even museums shouldn't display them anymore'.

Eh, you've lost me there... The first part of that line of reasoning I can understand. I don't agree with it, but it makes sense in a narrow-minded sort of way. But whatever can be the ratio behind not displaying items? Did these archaeologists present any arguments for that viewpoint? Or do they just want to go back to the 19th-century museums where, in principle, nothing was on display? The sort of museum where you had to apply to view items, and, once you were vetted (if you were vetted), could pay a supervised visit to the items you were interested in? Is that it? Or did they present other reasons? I really can't think of any sound arguments If you remember any of them, then I'd really like to hear them.

 

I think the idea is that archaeological objects from other countries shouldn't be displayed, but should all be returned to their countries of origin. Or something like that. Plus, it's unethical to display ancient art even from your own country if its provenance is unknown. Because it has no "value" apart from its context, and artistic value is irrelevant.

 

Thanks. That at least makes some sense.

 

I have very similar stories when I was a Bank Examiner many years ago. Amazing how folks try to get away with things, especially in a high-trust position of responsibility. Presidents and Executive VPS were caught and jailed during some of my examinations. I learned at a young age in my career to “Wear a White Hat”. It is only a matter of time before those that cheat get caught...

 

I hope those who keep asking why provenance is so important are following this thread.

Would anyone be surprised if Syria in turn demanded that Yale repatriate the Dura-Europos coins?

 

The trays were apparently repurposed all the time, with new writing over old. Even now I understand stickers are placed over old trays to add information on a new coin. The handwriting on the boxes seems to match writing from Yale curators from the mid-20th century. So, it was assumed all the coins once resided in the Yale collections. Were they sold from the collection legally? We don't know. This collection came to us third hand after being offered a year ago in a Skinner auction where it was first sold (so far as I know). The irony is, I was fascinated with these little coin trays and we, at CNG, performed extensive research on the collection when we first got it. Had we not done that research, none of this information would have come to light. Our discussions with Yale were completely cordial. We reached out to the consignors once it was determined that Yale would like to have the coins back. The end result was a return of the coins to the home where they once resided. A final comment, I believe the prices on the trays were the prices Yale initially paid for the coins.