Questions on Coins with "Historical Pedigrees"

… in addition to my post just now:

Like many others I have coins that dealers attribute to old collections, a couple of which may go back a century. Each was advertised with that provenance.

When I ask for proof, invariably the dealer cannot provide it. I would be content with a photostat of a ledger or ideally something visual like maybe a rubbing or a collector’s catalogue of his holdings.

Instead the dealer may say – at best – that it came from a family member disposing of an estate. Usually the dealer cites client confidentiality and does not provide any information beyond a ticket.

All of which I understand.

But if provenance is to be worth anything as proof against seizure, surely there must be something more substantial to the claim?.

Please help me understand.

Thanks for listening …

D

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For a provenance to be worth anything to me, I prefer a visual record in a sale catalogue, or, if I trust the source, notations in a ledger. Personally, I would be very wary of a provenance to “an old collection” with no supporting information.

As for your previous post, I don’t think many collectors buy solely for “nostalgia’s” sake, at least none that I know. Yes, I love knowing about the ownership history of my coins, but who owned the piece is hardly a deciding, or indeed significant, factor in my purchases. I am just as happy to have a coin from a minor, unnamed sale as I am to have one from Biaggi or Morgan.

I have mentioned in other threads that I believe pedigrees serve two primary purposes (I) they lend an air of legitimacy to a piece as it has passed through knowledgeable hands for an extended period, and came from a time when technology for producing fakes isn’t close to where it is now and (II) the coin was not recently found and traded in violation of law.

I would also note, using the analogy to art, provenance is quite important there as well. A painting by Rembrandt someone found in their attic, with no clue as to how it came to be there, will (rightly) lead to lively debate about the authenticity of the piece. A recent “Da Vinci” comes to mind.

Some will be content to buy such a work on the advice of experts, some will want the pedigree to feel secure. There is no right or wrong answer.

 

Hi Cicero.
I believe most of your post was an answer to mine.
(it's all about attribution... )

I can see your point.
I trust that all coins I buy ( and I am careful where I buy them) have passed through knowledgeable hands, and have been vetted as authentic. But, judging from the price difference between the coins you and I buy, (-I've seen your site, lovely coins!-), I can see how the added layer of security of a long provenance would be an important factor for you. As for the second: I assume you live in the US. I happen to be fortunate enough to live in Europe. Regulations and law are different here, which make a provenance less of a must-have (again, price bracket may play its role here as well).

As for Rembrandt: there are modern ways of ascertaining authenticity which make a provenance going back to the 17th century largely obsolete ( I wish I'd find one in the attic, provenanced or not.)

The point I was trying to make was that to me, any modern provenance pales in comparison with the history of a coin in antiquity. Also, I reacted to some previous posts in this thread, which, to me, came across as exceedingly snobbish. I may have let my feelings of the one bleed into the other.
Thanks for your explanation

 

People are usually more friendly here, this is not typical if you are new to the forum.

I think the language of the mous says something about dealers attesting in writing that the coin is pre 2011 or whatever the relevant date for the country in question is enough. I quit studying the wording in detail years ago so it could be different now or I may be misremembering it.

 

I understand and I agree! The most interesting aspects of a coin are of course intrinsic to themselves and their place in antiquity. The only pedigrees I find to be as interesting as the historical significance themselves are the hoard pedigrees, particularly those where we know something about the individuals who owned them in antiquity (such as Boscoreale).

 

[QUOTE="scarborough, post: 6563964, member: 93146"

Firstly, if our coin is not photographed in an auction catalogue featuring a named collection how can we ourselves prove provenance?

(I think the answer is that we cannot.)

And secondly if we cannot prove provenance, how valuable is that claim if challenged?

D[/QUOTE]
I think you have a valid point. Photos are the key to proving provenance. (I’ve had a few issues due to subsequent cleaning or early catalogs that had photos of casts of the coins). So, more valuable coins are more likely to have provenances because lower value coins may not have had photos, been in group lots or not even included in sales. Having an original tag or some other information might be helpful but not specific.

You can do your own research. There are several sites, like HEIDI (Heidelberg University), that have digitized old auction catalogs. With a little effort, you may be able to find an image of your coin to verify its provenance.

I have some coins I really think are from certain hoards but not all coins in a published study may have photos included or not all specimens of a hoard were included in a study. Here’s an specific example of the importance of photos. A friend asked me if I thought some Kyrene AR tetradrachms were from the famous Asyut hoard. I thought they might be some of the specimens listed without photos because of the types, weights and the typical whitish surfaces. However, I could not be certain. The coins were then sold to a dealer whose cataloger had access to the unpublished photos of the hoard which increased the value significantly. Ouch!