What makes a noteworthy provenance?

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Limes, Feb 15, 2022.

  1. Limes

    Limes Well-Known Member

    Hello everyone, this question came about when browsing the latest auction of Leu numismatik. One of the lots offered is an old coin of mine, that I sold last year via our most appreciated auction house, AMCC, of our dear member @Severus Alexander. (Note: this post is not to promote this coin, or the auction of Leu!)
    The description of the lot offered by Leu mentions AMCC, and rightfully so, but lacks the mentioning of the 'Limes collection', which is a huge misstep and makes the coin less attractive, let alone decreases its value exponentially! Just kidding of course ;)

    But it does raise the above mentioned question. And to make it a bit more philosophical, if we are to leave this earth, and our coins are transferred to their new temporary owners, what will the description of our coins mention? And what would you like them to mention?

    I would enjoy it, if it were to be known that the coins were part of my collection. And that the collection would have a name, something in the lines of the 'Limes collection'. I find the idea charming, that a provenance makes the person behind it, well, sort of immortal :D Forever mentioned in the collections of the new owners of the coins (and online too! :D)

    So, how can one create a provenance? Looking at posts on this board about provenances and information elsewhere online, I've identified at least 6 ways:
    1 become famous (e.g. a movie star, or because you once tried to buy all the silver on this planet)
    2 gather a huge collection, consisting of thousands and thousands of coins
    3 gather a high quality collection of coins with exceptional and rare pieces
    4 be a well known and signficant contributor to the academic study of coins
    5 consign your coins to an auction house that will do anything to increase the value of the coins offered; this includes adding collections to the descriptions such as 'part of an old English collection', or 'part of a collection formed in the 90's'. With the addition that my provenance would be less anonymous of course, otherwise this option is pointless.
    6 at the outbreak of war, bury the coins with descriptions on tickets that can stand the test of time, so that after a few centruries from now and after the radiation is gone, when someone like our own @galba68 finds the coins with their metal detector, they will see the tickets and the collection will be know.

    Looking at my life, I have the highest chance of an everlasting povenance with option 5. Option 6 is not out of the picture, and although Europe is quite safe, it's a small effort to go online and look for slow decaying material for the tickets :D

    So, questions to the members of this board: would you like to have your own everlasting provenance? What do you think your chances are, of achieving it? And do you see any other options beside the 6 options mentioned above? Or perhaps someone already has achieved it?

    To conclude, I'll post my latest coin of Brutus, acquired last year. It was a replacement coin of the one I sold via AMCC. It's not the same type though, and I'd like to welcome that type to the coin family somwhere in the future.

    0.16.png
     
    Di Nomos, robinjojo, TIF and 14 others like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. alurid

    alurid Well-Known Member

    You forgot becoming infamous. Like Brutus.
     
    panzerman likes this.
  4. imrich

    imrich Supporter! Supporter

    I've significant other hobbies, "suggested" by my "significant-other/benevolent-leader". The task, time-allotment, etc., to be determined after attempt to complete.

    Discussion is optional, determined by future desires.

    "Silence Is Golden", as I've a WONDERFUL Leader, literally!

    JMHO

    LOL

    P.S.: I believe it's apparent this post was intended/moved by Chrome while being typed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2022
    panzerman likes this.
  5. gsimonel

    gsimonel Well-Known Member

    For some of us bottom-feeders, having a coin described as from our collection might reduce interest in it.
     
    Voldemort, alurid, panzerman and 2 others like this.
  6. JayAg47

    JayAg47 Well-Known Member

    7 Send your coins to Mars,
    marspenny1.jpg
    To me this dusty penny beats anything on Earth on the coolness factor! (until at least more coins are sent in the future)
    But what's more cool would be sending a Roman coin featuring Mars himself to Mars!
     
    Di Nomos, Limes, Broucheion and 3 others like this.
  7. Amit Vyas

    Amit Vyas Well-Known Member

    Simple: embed a nonochip in the coin. A future collector will be able to access the embedded data as an Iron Man style interactive 3D hologram, with virtual avatars of all individuals who had possessed it available to explain the coin’s history, how they happened to acquire it, their collection interests, etc., in their own voice. Standard analysis such as real-time weight, diameter, metallic composition, coin health, and AutoGrade(TM) will, of course be available on the standard interface.
     
    TIF, alurid, panzerman and 3 others like this.
  8. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    As with anything, my opinion is just an opinion but I feel provenance to a collection does not count until that collection is finished and broken up, often but not always on the death of the person who formed it. For example, I have coins that I bought from coin dealer Barry Murphy back when he was working shows selling coins he had purchased for the purpose of reselling. I also have a few coins that were part of his Severan collection as shown on his web page on that subject which was broken up when he exited the 'collector' phase. There is a difference between the 'collection of' and 'from the stock of'. On a lower level, a few people here have shown coins as 'ex Doug Smith'. In most cases what they have is not what I considered part of my collection but from my numerous duplicates or mistakes; not coins 'of' the collection but coins 'kicked out' of the collection. An exception to this might be coins that had been illustrated on one of my web pages even if it was of the class that I bought for the specific purpose of illustrating some point that page was making. A few of you got coins (usually in trades) that were not 'castoffs' but for the most part I would save the use of my name in 'provenance' to the coins my heirs sell when I pass away or lose interest and dump the whole thing.

    This attitude makes it hard to decide whether a coin 'qualifies' or not. Lately we have seen coins sold by Frank Robinson flagged as from his collection rather than coins he bought for flipping. I see this rather as the same distinction I would make if I were listing the provenance of my house. I would include the families that lived here but not the real estate professionals (agents or flippers) that handled the commodity.

    One more thing: It seems fashionable these days to name your collection hiding the name of the collector. That is you business, not mine.
    Just an opinion/fact. If I were a dealer handling coins that belonged to a previous collection, I would not list that name if it might cause potential buyers to down-value the item. 'Limes' has a meaning in the hobby referring to quasi-official coins produced from poor metal under uncertain circumstances. If I were Leu, I would not risk confusing bidders who might not consider 'Limes' something positive. While I remain honored by once being told I was the '2nd biggest cheapskate' this dealer had met, I would prefer my estate go to market without being labeled 'ex. Cheapskate2 collection'.
     
  9. Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

    Ocatarinetabellatchitchix Well-Known Member

    0B6BD8E5-AA65-458B-BB25-0E8EDB1AB055.jpeg


    I pray every day that you will not stop giving your opinion on this forum, since it is very precious and also appreciated !
     
    Voldemort, Di Nomos, TIF and 6 others like this.
  10. Roman Collector

    Roman Collector Well-Known Member

    A very legitimate way of creating provenance for one's collection is to catalog it, photograph it, and publish it, such as Henry Clay Lindgren, Arthur Houghton, or Richard McAlee did.
     
  11. Amit Vyas

    Amit Vyas Well-Known Member

    It would be interesting to do a controlled study on the general “value” of provenance, irrespective of it being a famous one. I have a feeling that having any name (unless it has a negative connotation) attached to the description will cause many people to bid a higher amount than they would have otherwise, even if unconsciously.

    And what if the collection of an otherwise “ordinary” collector had a really imposing sounding name unrelated to a collecting theme? Would some people be psychologically more inclined to pay more for something out of The Whitehouse Collection or The Legionnaire Collection?. (I just made up those names: apologies if anyone has a collection with these names.)
     
    Di Nomos, TIF, Limes and 3 others like this.
  12. Terence Cheesman

    Terence Cheesman Well-Known Member

    I think there are a number of issues being addressed in this thread. The first is ... What constitutes a provenance (pedigree) and 2. What makes it a good one. A pedigree is of course any history associated with the coin. With an ancient coin that would start sometime in the modern era. However what makes a pedigree good? Here we have a rather common not very remarkable coin.
    Bil Aurelianus of Severina Antioch Mint 275 AD. Obv, Bust right diademed and draped on crescent Rv. Concordia standing left Holding a military standard in each hand. RIC 20 3.37 grams 24 mm Photo by W. Hansen severina1.jpg It is now part of my collection. I bought it at the NYINC on Saturday January 16 2022. So far there is nothing special about this coin. It is nicely silvered and in high grade but it really does not have a great style. I was unable to find any recent auction activity featuring this coin. Would my collection ticket plus the 2022 accession date make it a "good" pedigree that might add some "value" to the coin? Most likely not. Most likely if this was all the information that existed on this coin some would be quick to call it a "looted" coin from a recent illegal dig. In fact just my word would be of almost no value About the only thing that might assist is a bill of sale. However as with some many unremarkable things there is more. IMG_20220124_113248 (1).jpg It would appear that this coin was plated in the MIR 47 Die Munzpragung des Kaisers Aurelianus Printed in 1993 I did know of this potential pedigree when I purchased the coin. This probably would help somewhat. It does predate the MOU with Italy by 8 years. However this coin shows up again IMG_5694.JPG Here we see it again Numismatic Chronicle 1984 The Eastern Issues of Probus by Weber and King Plate 35 No 5 (I have placed my coin beside it) I did not know about this pedigree. Now if that was not good enough. Here it is again numi_0484-8942_1965_num_6_7_F_0015_0000_1.png Revue Numismatique Tome 7 1965 Les emissions orientales de la fin du IIIe s. apres J. C. By Bernot and Pflaum Pl VIII 2 B. Again like the pedigree above I did not know of this one either. I guess that makes this coin a keeper. I am still working on a 1964 M &M reference (probably lost) What I am trying to say using this rather involved and convoluted method is that the value of the pedigree is dependent upon the volume and quality of the information provided. This coin despite being otherwise unremarkable had a great pedigree stretching back to 1965
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2022
  13. Silphium Addict

    Silphium Addict Well-Known Member

    Good question. Here’s my view:
    #1 very unlikely
    #2 already done with hundreds for a certain city/topic
    #3 already done for at least some rare/unique types
    #4 this may be most important. I have given images with details like wt, dia, die axis, reference, provenance, etc to an author who will eventually release a reference book on one of my collection topics. I think having coins that are illustrated or at least included in articles and references add to their “fame”
    #5 especially if sold as a group that draws attention to the auction for the completeness and quality of the collection
     
    Limes and panzerman like this.
  14. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    Very impressive findings! Did you by any chance intend to say that you did not know of this potential pedigree at the time of purchase? If you did know, was it because that pedigree was part of the dealer's description? Finally, if you're willing to explain the process, how did you find the earlier pedigrees, other than by going through a thousand old books and auction catalogs manually, looking for other illustrated examples of the type and then checking for matches? In other words, do you have access to some kind of word or photo search allowing you to shortcut that process? Thanks.
     
    Limes likes this.
  15. Severus Alexander

    Severus Alexander find me at NumisForums

    No doubt he sometimes uses electronic assistance, but I know @Terence Cheesman has an incredible library and a lot of patience, not to mention an enormous amount of knowledge. :)
     
  16. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    I find the traditional "from the collection of an English gentleman" provenances to be valueless, and am no more impressed by the fancy made-up names used by auction houses as pseudonyms, like "the Denarius Collection" and so on. Which often sound like they may not even be from the collection of a single individual, but were put together from a variety of sources. I'm not impressed by initials either, like the "ABC Collection." Especially when the initials are meaningless and nobody knows who the collector is or was, or whether their full name would mean anything. A provenance to the "DML Collection" after I'm gone wouldn't increase a coin's value by one penny, whether as initials or if my actual name were disclosed. Because nobody's ever heard of me. I assure you that you would all just say "who?" if you knew my name.

    I don't particularly like the practice of using initials even when every dealer and experienced collector knows exactly what the initials mean (like the BCD Collection), and knows that the provenance gives a good reason to bid more. But if an ordinary collector spends five minutes on Google to learn who that is and publicly mentions the name so everyone has equal access to that information, they're accused of "gossip" because the name is supposedly a big secret. To me, that kind of thing is unseemly and unfair.

    But I completely understand the reasons why a long, documented provenance to particular auctions and/or to the collections of "famous" named persons or to a particular hoard is attractive to buyers, and can greatly increase a coin's value. And not only for legal reasons, because it means one doesn't have to be concerned about the government coming to confiscate the coin someday. It adds interest for me and makes me feel more connected to the coin's history. Plus, the more experienced "expert" eyes have examined a coin, the greater the chance of authenticity in my opinion. Such a provenance certainly makes me want a coin more, even though the concern about possible future confiscation never crosses my mind.

    For example, I like the fact that I have a siliqua from the 1887 East Harptree hoard, something I know is the case not merely from the dealer's undocumented description of the coin, but because I found a photo of the coin in the 2016 Spink auction of the remaining coins from that hoard. And there's no doubt that the provenance for the Vespasian aureus I bought in December, with a reverse showing Victory on a cista mystica (see thread at https://www.cointalk.com/threads/do...to-1938-and-also-to-1910.391624/#post-8153812), increased the coin's value. This is the provenance as I know it currently, as set out at the end of my description of the coin in my personal catalog:

    Purchased from Arete Coins, Seattle, WA, Dec. 2021; ex. Triskeles Auctions Sale 21, Lot 392, 29 Sep. 2017; ex. Ars Classica XVIII (“COLLECTION TRÈS IMPORTANTE MONNAIES ROMAINES FORMÊE PAR UN DIPLOMATE ÉTRANGER DEPUIS LONGTEMPS DÉCÉDÉ” [Collection of Vicomte de Sartiges]), Lot 144 [ill. Pl. 6], 10 Oct. 1938, l'Hôtel Schweizerhof, Lucerne, Switzerland (Experts Dr. Jacob Hirsch & M. Lucien Naville); ex. Collection of Louis, Vicomte de Sartiges (1859-1924), published in Sartiges, Vicomte de, “Collection du vicomte de Sartiges. Séries grecque et romaine, en 1910, ainsi que les acquisitions depuis cette date”
    (Paris, D.A. Longuet; Plates I-XLIII published 1910; undated supplement contains five additional plates), Pl. XXVI, No. 105 [this coin, acquired before 1910].*

    *
    Regarding the Vicomte de Sartiges, see Provenance Glossary, p. 14, Numismatica Ars Classica Auction 91 Catalogue, 23 May 2016, Zurich, Switzerland:

    [​IMG]

    Without mentioning dollar amounts, I can tell you that when this aureus was sold in the Triskeles auction in 2017, the description gave no provenance for it at all. The dealer from whom I made the purchase (Arete Coins) discovered the 1938 provenance, and included it in his description along with a photo of the cover of the 1938 Ars Classica catalog naming Hirsch and Naville -- both prominent dealers back then -- as the "experts," as well as a photo of the portion of the plate illustrating the coin. I was able to find the entire 1938 catalog itself on the Newman Numismatic Portal and confirmed that the dealer's old photo, which was clearly of the same coin, did actually come from one of the plates. That left no doubt that the provenance was legitimate. I don't know what the coin would have sold for at auction, but I paid 70% more than the 2017 auction price, and I don't think the coin was overvalued when compared to prices paid at auction for 1st Century AD Roman aurei in similar condition with similar provenances. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me at all if my subsequent discovery -- with the aid of several of our kind members! -- of a documented provenance back to at least 1910 has increased the value even further.

    Anyway, even though it would be exactly the same coin without the provenance as it is with it -- assuming authenticity, it would be just as ancient without the provenance! -- it "feels" meaningful to me. So I get why people pay more for that kind of documented history attached to a coin. To me, it's a bit analogous to the fact that even though everyone's family is equally "old," it's still nice to be able to document one's family history back a couple of hundred years, rather than having no idea where one's family came from.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2022
  17. Terence Cheesman

    Terence Cheesman Well-Known Member

    In answer to @DonnaML I did know of the MIR pedigree when I purchased the coin. However as with any unverified pedigree I took it with a certain degree of skepticism. As much as possible even at a show I will try to verify the coins that I am interested in by doing a quick on line search on AC Search or on the CNG Website. If I am given the name of a specific auction, I will attempt to locate that auction on line and if successful verify that the coin is in the auction. When I get home I will try to make a more thorough search for the coin.
    In the case of the Severina. I did not have MIR but I knew somebody who did and they graciously sent me an image along with the text associated with that coin IMG_20220124_113248.jpg Here is the picture (again) Note that it is 383a 2 IMG_20220124_113900 (1).jpg This is the text that was provided. You will note that 383a 2 is referenced as being in NC 1984 pl 35/5 I do have a copy of Numismatic Chronicle from 1984 so I was able to look it up and found the coin. The coin was referenced again this time as RN 1965 8 2B. I found the Revue Numismatique on line, looked up the relevant volume and found that my coin was plated again. However here the trail went cold. The vendor mentioned the coin came from the stock of M &M 1964, however I was unable to find that within the text of the article.
    However to further illustrate my point. On Friday I was wandering around and saw this coin.
    Nerva Ar Cistophorus 97 AD Obv head right laureate. Rv. Cult statue of Diana of Perga within distyle temple. RIC 116 RPC 1301 10.76 grms 25 mm Photo by W. Hansen cistopnerva1.jpg I wanted to purchase a cistophorus from this period however I was more interested in one of either Domitian or Trajan. However this coin caught my eye. The dealer tag indicated that it was from CNG MBS 57 lot 1182 March 28 2001. So after examining the coin closely I went upstairs and looked on AC Search to verify if the information that I had just received was correct. It was, so I came down and purchased the coin. When I got home and was finally able to examine the coin more closely I then discovered that it had been in a Stacks Bowers August 2020 Auction Lot 20124 August 5 2020. This was where the dealer most likely bought the coin.
    Over the years I have found and kept the links to older auction catalogues that i have found on line. Every so often I will get on my computer and will manually search these auctions hoping to find a hidden pedigree or two. I find a few every year. Just last month I found 2. :) However it can be :banghead:
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2022
  18. AncientJoe

    AncientJoe Well-Known Member

    I just took a look at the Triskeles auction's price realized: I think it's worth at least 2-3x what you paid now that the pedigree is attached. Sartiges is an excellent pedigree and adds a significant amount of value.

    Regarding pedigrees in general, if a coin doesn't have a published picture and claims to have a pedigree, I adjust price anywhere between $0 and negative 100% of value of the coin. An otherwise nice coin with an obviously fabricated or dubious pedigree is a dealbreaker for me.
     
    Di Nomos, Limes and DonnaML like this.
  19. red_spork

    red_spork Triumvir monetalis

    Personally I don't really pay more for modern named provenances in general, especially those where nothing indicates that this is likely an old collection. I always write all that information down because you never know what you'll learn later, and sometimes those named collections are far more interesting than the generic names let on but overall I don't see them any different than, for instance, a provenance listing a very recent sale which also doesn't really add any value for me.

    In my mind the factors that can add value for a provenance:
    • Pre-1971. Due to the signing of the UNESCO convention, 1970 is the cutoff for most museums and some collectors
    • Pre-MOU(so 2011 for Italy), even if the type is unrestricted
    • Rarity of similarly-provenanced examples of the type. If a particular type has become more common in the last decade but pre-MOU or pre-1971 examples are quite rare, that's a factor to consider.
    • Famous collection - A famous collection that is known for the quality of the coins and the overall collection, like Martini, is in my mind worth a little bit more than a random collection from the same time. In some cases I'm willing to pay a slight premium for coins where I personally know the prior collector(s) as well, as it does add some interest for me. That said, I would not consider any random named collection a famous collection. There are plenty of people who put together a few coins and later sold them with their name attached, especially in recent years, but most of them aren't worth anything extra to me.
    • Hoard provenance if it is unlikely to be problematic. Buying a denarius from the Mesagne hoard likely isn't going to cause any problems and I think a provenance like that is super cool and interesting. A denarius from some more recent hoard that someone might write an article in a journal about next year and say "this hoard was reportedly dug up outside Salerno last year" is playing with fire and I'd pass.
    • Published - If a coin is the coin cited in the standard reference for the type, that's worth something to me. If it's pictured or cited in a die study, maybe. Both can often be a good indication of quality since researchers and authors are generally looking for the best examples to illustrate and I'll concede, it's kinda cool to be able to cite a reference that illustrates my coin.
    These factors are basically multiplicative for me when formulating a bid, for instance last year I bid on one nice example of a type with a fantastic provenance and ended up on a final bid that was about 175% of what I'd have bid on a completely unprovenanced example. It's hard to explain how I arrive at a final number and sometimes it is only after some discussion with other similarly-minded collectors. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around some of the prices we've seen in the past couple years for coins so more often than not the provenance helps me decide whether or not to bid at all as I can't always bring myself to place realistic, competitive bids on some nicer coins with absolutely no provenance.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2022
  20. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    Thanks so much for the detailed explanation!

    I have noticed frequently that if a coin has provenances to auctions in, say, 2005 and 2020, the dealer will usually mention the 2005 provenance but stay silent about the 2020 provenance. Presumably, they don't want you to know what they paid for the coin themselves and the extent of their profit. And are relying on the probability that most collectors won't do the five minutes of additional research necessary to find the more recent sale. Not I've ever brought up the more recent sales price except one time a couple of years ago when a dealer annoyed me by refusing to discuss any discount, no matter how small, even though he was asking more than double what he had paid a few months earlier. The last time I checked, he hadn't sold it yet, or lowered his asking price.
     
  21. DonnaML

    DonnaML Well-Known Member

    Thanks for your opinion. Of course I hope never to be in a position to have to sell it.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page