Olynthos - a group of highly suspicious tetradrachms

It's amazing how some of these established FAKES keep popping-up from one auction to another !

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

pprp I understand that. The problem of this coin appearing and reappearing like the proverbial "bad penny" is an important issue. However the issue I was attempting to address in my post was the fake pedigree which you brought up. I suspect that in time this could become another issue that will have to be contended with. I then tried perhaps with limited success to point out that a false pedigree may not be the product of some sinister motives but simple human carelessness. To some degree the hobby appears to transitioning from a position where a pedigree was simply a curiosity to something that is becoming central to the price of the coin. My point is as stated above; if you want to collect coins with pedigrees you had better make certain that the information is accurate.

 

Counterfeits will develop a pedigree UNTIL someone reveals they are counterfeit. Our knowledge is expanding but the techniques used to make fakes are also developing.

Very deceptive fakes are often expensive to purchase for research. For example, contemporary C/F 8 Reales have a strong following and often bring more mony than the genuine coins.

 

This puts the responsibility for checking the provenance on the buyer. I think the responsibility for giving a correct description of the item for sale is on the seller. If I was to sell a coin and called it ex. Triton X, lot 312 (for example), and someone bought it and found the provenance to be incorrect, wouldn’t that alone be reason to get a full refund?
Let’s take your case: You consign a coin with a random auction card attached. Would I (the dealer/auction house) perform at the level expected if I took that provenance for granted without checking it?

 

Triton XVII, lot 120 was an Olynthos tetradrachm.
https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=246353

That tetradrachm is similar in appearance to the bad one. No one would make the mistake side-by-side, but when quickly verifying the provenance I could see the differences being missed.

 

I did look at the Triton XVII lot 120 and yes it does look like a coin with matching obverse and reverse dies. It is possible that this is "mom" and her fraudulent children were distressed so to perhaps escape closer scrutiny. To svessiens point about liability. I have checked the fine print from 4 auction houses. All state a guarantee of authenticity. However and I will quote only CNG as all of them make similar statements Attribution, date, condition and other descriptions are the opinion of the cataloguer and NO warranty is expressed or implied. Article 3 in the Terms of Sale, Triton XXI I am not a lawyer but it does look to me that it is up to the buyer to make certain that what he is purchasing is what he wants.
Further adventures in pedigrees
Aulus Galbinius Ar tetradrachm Antioch 57-55 BC In the name and types of Philip Philadelphos. Obv Head of Philip right diademed. Rv Zeus Nikephoros seated left. RPC 3124 Prieur 1 15.37 grms 28 mm Photo by W. Hansen The auction house stated it was in one of the Berk B or B sales. When I looked it up it was a no show. Oddly some of the other coins consigned by this collector were accurately labeled. Thus I decided to search some of the other Berk lists and I found it. I seem to remember it was in the same year but a different auction. So I bought the coin. I would rather do all the work I can before buying rather than after. After all it does keep me off the streets

 

This #3 coin is currently listed in Gorny & Mosch auction 276, lot 86.

 

I'm not a lawyer either, but provenance is not mentioned in the terms, only (among other things) attribution and the rather broad term 'other descriptions', which are 'the opinion of the cataloguer'. Provenance relates to verifiable facts, not to the opinion of the cataloguer. So, as I read it, a faulty provenance is not covered by this article, and you might (possibly) still have legal recourse on the grounds that the coin you buy is demonstrably and factually not what it purports to be. (and all the more so, if you can demonstrate that provenance affects value/ legality etc.). But, as said, I'm no lawyer...Ask @DonnaML, she's the in-house legal specialist.

I bought this one from Leu. According to them, it was previously sold in the CNG e-auction 399, lot 120. I checked and it wasn't. Didn't really bother me at the time. I just assumed someone somewhere made an innocent mistake which the auction house simply copied. But it does demonstrate the carelessness of the auction house in checking provenances. And often, finding carelessness in one area of a business might suggest an increased likelihood of finding carelessness in other areas as well.

 

I know nothing in particular about the law of auctions and the ability of auctioneers to successfully disclaim all express and implied warranties in connection therewith. But I think it's safe to say that you can't guarantee authenticity with one hand and disclaim that guarantee with the other. (And no, "we only said that it was authentically a piece of round metal" wouldn't cut it!) Furthermore, as @Ignoramus Maximus points out, representations as to provenance (especially previous auctions) are statements of fact, not opinions. However, there would likely be questions as to whether the misrepresentations were material, significant, etc. (for example, did the description merely get the previous date or lot number wrong, or was the supposed provenance entirely fictional), whether the buyer actually relied on the accuracy of those statements in making the purchase, and whether the reliance was justifiable if the buyer had equal access to the sources necessary to verify the stated information. If the misstatement on provenance is a minor, unintentional error and the coin is authentic, I doubt the buyer would have a basis for rescinding the purchase. If the provenance is entirely fictional and the coin is a fake, the buyer could probably get their money back on either or both grounds.

This is all just talking off the top of my head -- not a legal opinion. And keep in mind that I'm hardly the only lawyer here, active or retired.

 

@Ignoramus Maximus
The Leu description for your coin mentions cng 399, lot 25 because it has the same monogram and letters on the throne. The Leu blurb says "ex cng" when it talks about provenance and that is not the case here. One mystery solved, now if we could find out where the coin was minted...
You have a beautiful coin, purchased at an amazing price

 

Thank you on both counts!

 

Well, to be fair, I realized that I sent a bunch of coins to a coin dealer a while ago, where I noted the provenance as good as I could, but didn’t have the paperwork, catalogs or links necessary to enable the dealer to check the provenance on these quite ordinary coins. Several of the old dealers or auction houses had been out of business for a long time, with no electronic archives availible, so it was close to impossible for the dealer to check if the provenance was correct. «Careless» is the last word I would use when describing that particular dealer.
The case of the Olynthus coin #3 is another story, though. That’s an expensive coin, and it takes 2 minutes to check the provenance. In that case I think one could have expected better.

 

Of course auctioneers and bidding or advertising platforms have made up the terms in their favour, conveniently excluding themselves of liability for any possibility one may imagine. Terms that are demonstrably illegal are of course void even if the user has agreed to them by using the service. It very much reminds me the case of websites indexing illegal torrents who claimed they were only the technical means, they did not own the material they could not be liable. Of course after a couple of years they were all shut down and/or got in jail. Let's also not forget the story of Dr. Weiss:

According to the criminal complaint, he was caught on tape telling a police informant that he knew the coins had been recently looted in Sicily: “There’s no paperwork, I know this is a fresh coin, this was dug up a few years ago.” In July, Weiss pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted criminal possession of ancient coins. It turned out the “looted” coins were clever forgeries.

He was then obliged to write an essay published by ANS, which included:

“Dealers and collectors with any reasonable experience can tell that such a simultaneous offering just does not happen naturally, except after a recent hoard of coins has been found and dispersed into the marketplace….The purchase of coins that derive from hoards is likely to be illegal and detrimental to scholarship, and these might be reasons enough for the buyer to be aware.”

 

And it has been withdrawn.

 

Just a year later coin #3 makes its new appearance in a different Spanish sale with the note:
★ Outstanding quality ★