Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 8215690, member: 110350"]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 <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/donnas-first-aureus-with-published-provenance-to-1938-and-also-to-1910.391624/#post-8153812" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/donnas-first-aureus-with-published-provenance-to-1938-and-also-to-1910.391624/#post-8153812">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/donnas-first-aureus-with-published-provenance-to-1938-and-also-to-1910.391624/#post-8153812</a>), 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 src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/biographical-entry-for-louis-de-sartiges-in-rambach-glossary-jpg.1422516/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> 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.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches