Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kaleun96, post: 24486283, member: 92635&quot;]We went over this with you on NumisForums but based solely on information in the affidavit available, you&#039;re taking a *very* favourable view towards Roma by framing it this way.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let me quote the affidavit directly:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>So in summary this is what has happened:</p><ol> <li>Beale and Vecchi listed the coin with the supposedly false provenance</li> <li>Informant #2 contacted Beale and Vecchi to inform them this provenance was false</li> <li>Beale and Vecchi <b>then offered 100,000 Swiss francs</b> for Informant #2 to sign documents attesting to the provenance.</li> </ol><p>So my question for you, which I and others have also asked from you on NumisForums, is <b>why would Beale and Vecchi try to pay someone 100,000 for a provenance that this very person that they are paying is telling them is false?&nbsp; </b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p>I believe you&#039;ve earlier said that maybe Beale and Vecchi was paying Informant #2 for &quot;provenance research&quot; but I&#039;ll offer the same reply as I did then. Why would they pay 100,000 Swiss francs to their &quot;provenance researcher&quot; when that researcher is telling them the provenance is fake and not to use it? Additionally, the very same &quot;provenance researcher&quot; (in this hypothetical) is refusing to sign documents attesting to this &quot;research&quot; they have provided to Beale and Vecchi and which they are actively telling them is fake and not a genuine provenance.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in