@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
I like provenances of all levels. I even like forum member provenance
A couple years ago I purchased a great selection of Early German States coins from a couple. The man's father brought them back after WW2. His platoon found a coin collection in a bombed out house and they split it up amongst themselves!
@ChopmarkedTrades said:
This is why I always ask sellers if they can tell me any information about a coin's origin or how it came into their possession, story can make a coin much more interesting than it would be otherwise. I recently picked up a sub-100 world crown, which was listed without any description of where it came from; when asked, the seller identified the coin as a souvenir from the Second World War brought back by his father, and provided his name, rank, and Navy vessel. Part of the story that would have been lost otherwise.
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owner(s). The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owners. The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
As the Taking Heads would say “stop making sense, making sense”!
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owners. The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
I didn't say it was because of the wealth, I was just noting the correlation/observation. I still haven't seen a post explaining the factual importance of a previous owner other than what seems to be a psychological pleasure of being next in line after the rich and numismatically famous. But to each his own. If that makes someone happy then enjoy!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owners. The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
I didn't say it was because of the wealth, I was just noting the correlation. I still haven't seen a post explaining the factual importance of a previous owner other than what seems to be a psychological pleasure of being next in line after the rich and numismatically famous. But to each his own. If that makes someone happy then enjoy!
You said “ It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire.“ That’s quite similar to saying it was ”because of the wealth”
It’s sounds as if you’re the one focused on the financial (“rich”) part. I hear numismatists talk about the quality and/or scope of name collections, as well as the dedication and passion of the collectors who formed them. Those considerations are typically (though granted, not always) far more important than the “rich” part.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owners. The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
I didn't say it was because of the wealth, I was just noting the correlation. I still haven't seen a post explaining the factual importance of a previous owner other than what seems to be a psychological pleasure of being next in line after the rich and numismatically famous. But to each his own. If that makes someone happy then enjoy!
You said “ It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire.“ That’s quite similar to saying it was ”because of the wealth”
It’s sounds as if you’re the one focused on the financial (“rich”) part. I hear numismatists talk about the quality and/or scope of name collections, as well as the dedication and passion of the collectors who formed them. Those considerations are typically (though granted, not always) far more important than the “rich” part.
You can play the "but you said" semantics game all you want. Have fun.
BTW, when a coin leaves a collection, it's no longer in that collection. Like it never happened. But again, if someone is happy over that, then they should enjoy it.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owners. The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
I didn't say it was because of the wealth, I was just noting the correlation. I still haven't seen a post explaining the factual importance of a previous owner other than what seems to be a psychological pleasure of being next in line after the rich and numismatically famous. But to each his own. If that makes someone happy then enjoy!
You said “ It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire.“ That’s quite similar to saying it was ”because of the wealth”
It’s sounds as if you’re the one focused on the financial (“rich”) part. I hear numismatists talk about the quality and/or scope of name collections, as well as the dedication and passion of the collectors who formed them. Those considerations are typically (though granted, not always) far more important than the “rich” part.
You can play the "but you said" semantics game all you want. Have fun.
BTW, when a coin leaves a collection, it's no longer in that collection. Like it never happened. But again, if someone is happy over that, then they should enjoy it.
Nice try with the “semantics game”, but I quoted your words and you were very clear in what you said.
When a coin leaves a collection, it might be “like it never happened” as far as you’re concerned. But many collectors feel otherwise. The provenance of other collectibles can be as or more important, as well and not because of how rich the previous owners were.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owners. The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
I didn't say it was because of the wealth, I was just noting the correlation. I still haven't seen a post explaining the factual importance of a previous owner other than what seems to be a psychological pleasure of being next in line after the rich and numismatically famous. But to each his own. If that makes someone happy then enjoy!
You said “ It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire.“ That’s quite similar to saying it was ”because of the wealth”
It’s sounds as if you’re the one focused on the financial (“rich”) part. I hear numismatists talk about the quality and/or scope of name collections, as well as the dedication and passion of the collectors who formed them. Those considerations are typically (though granted, not always) far more important than the “rich” part.
You can play the "but you said" semantics game all you want. Have fun.
BTW, when a coin leaves a collection, it's no longer in that collection. Like it never happened. But again, if someone is happy over that, then they should enjoy it.
Nice try with the “semantics game”, but I quoted your words and you were very clear in what you said.
When a coin leaves a collection, it might be “like it never happened” as far as you’re concerned. But many collectors feel otherwise. The provenance of other collectibles can be as or more important, as well and not because of how rich the previous owners were.
"But many collectors feel otherwise."
Which is what I said. Unless you want to twist it. Thanks for playing.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The beauty of the provenance is the history & chronological order of ownership. It is kind of sad to think great collectors pass on, their collections get dispersed, and new generations of collectors , by and large, miss out on what those "famed", and astute collectors did for us and the hobby.... (not to mention protecting the sanctity of it)
With respect to Byron Reed, Aubrey Beebee (notables in my own town): it was sad and happy seeing their coins, and seeing their coins go to somebody else. But I enjoy the coins, the hobby, and the trade. Plastic and stickers and hyperbole aside..... I hate seeing the provenance go away for a "re-grade", or crack-out, for that matter.
For 18 grand (in this particular case), somebody might be happy. It's a great strike.
@amwldcoin said:
A couple years ago I purchased a great selection of Early German States coins from a couple. The man's father brought them back after WW2. His platoon found a coin collection in a bombed out house and they split it up amongst themselves!
@ChopmarkedTrades said:
This is why I always ask sellers if they can tell me any information about a coin's origin or how it came into their possession, story can make a coin much more interesting than it would be otherwise. I recently picked up a sub-100 world crown, which was listed without any description of where it came from; when asked, the seller identified the coin as a souvenir from the Second World War brought back by his father, and provided his name, rank, and Navy vessel. Part of the story that would have been lost otherwise.
Awesome story. At least they made it out of the war (and the house) without being destroyed!
Part of the joy of this hobby is to appreciate the history behind the coin, both in terms of the times in which it was made and those who have been good stewards of the pieces we can still enjoy today. My little collection does not likely include any prior famous collector owner, but I’d sure be interest to know each coin’s travels along the way to me.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owners. The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
I didn't say it was because of the wealth, I was just noting the correlation. I still haven't seen a post explaining the factual importance of a previous owner other than what seems to be a psychological pleasure of being next in line after the rich and numismatically famous. But to each his own. If that makes someone happy then enjoy!
You said “ It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire.“ That’s quite similar to saying it was ”because of the wealth”
It’s sounds as if you’re the one focused on the financial (“rich”) part. I hear numismatists talk about the quality and/or scope of name collections, as well as the dedication and passion of the collectors who formed them. Those considerations are typically (though granted, not always) far more important than the “rich” part.
You can play the "but you said" semantics game all you want. Have fun.
BTW, when a coin leaves a collection, it's no longer in that collection. Like it never happened. But again, if someone is happy over that, then they should enjoy it.
Nice try with the “semantics game”, but I quoted your words and you were very clear in what you said.
When a coin leaves a collection, it might be “like it never happened” as far as you’re concerned. But many collectors feel otherwise. The provenance of other collectibles can be as or more important, as well and not because of how rich the previous owners were.
"But many collectors feel otherwise."
Which is what I said. Unless you want to twist it. Thanks for playing.
I have no desire to twist your words, though you seem to do that on your own.
I must have missed the part where you said “But many collectors feel otherwise” Please show us. All I could find was your quote below.
“ BTW, when a coin leaves a collection, it's no longer in that collection. Like it never happened. But again, if someone is happy over that, then they should enjoy it.”
Please have the last word and if you do so, it would be nice if you could make yourself clear.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The only way you can keep the certificate numbers was to do a reconsideration, BUT I believe our host has finally changed that. I too like to trace where everyone of my coins have come from and always wanted to send some back in for regrade but hated the idea of losing the certificate numbers.
I sent in 4 slabs 2 weeks ago under the Regrade knowing I would lose those numbers BUT I Did Not. They actually kept all my numbers the same and my guess is since they have decided to get a percentage of regrades they are now leaving those with the same certificate number....I like that...
Bruce, or anyone else - if a submitter re-submits a coin with a provenance already included on the label and asks that it be removed, would you be in favor of the grading company declining to do so?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Regarding provenance, not all of the "great" collectors were wealthy. John Jay Pittman was NOT a wealthy person, yet he amassed a fabulous collection, focusing on the coins that were out of favor during his time. (He was a worker at Eastman Kodak.) Decades later, those coins became all the rage, and sold for astronomical prices. The Pittman provenance is considered a significant provenance.
In more recent times, large quickly assembled collections have not carried any weight to their provenance in my opinion. Richmond, Bentley come to mind. The quality just wasn’t there regardless of grade or rarity. The old multi-generation and multi-collector provenances for me are a fascinating historical tie to the object I temporarily possess.
IMHO Provenance is becoming more important with the better stuff. The time may come with counterfeiters become so good that it may be the only way to determine if the coin is the real McCoy.
I'm firmly in the "provenance is important" camp. But we do need to make sure (best o' luck) that this doesn't become just another marketing angle - there is evidence of such already.
@MFeld said:
Bruce, or anyone else - if a submitter re-submits a coin with a provenance already included on the label and asks that it be removed, would you be in favor of the grading company declining to do so?
Such a policy would prevent me from buying any ex-Hansen coins (for example). I can abide a bit of additional text on my labels, but not a "full page" advertisement with graphics. YMMV.
@MFeld said:
Bruce, or anyone else - if a submitter re-submits a coin with a provenance already included on the label and asks that it be removed, would you be in favor of the grading company declining to do so?
No. The company should abide by the wishes of the submitter. In some cases provenance can actually lower the value of a coin unfairly. For instance, the Wells Fargo Hoard of Saint Gaudens double eagles is often viewed as being liberally graded/over graded. To prevent bias against a solid coin, an owner may wish to have the provenance information removed from the label and certification number online.
@MFeld said:
Bruce, or anyone else - if a submitter re-submits a coin with a provenance already included on the label and asks that it be removed, would you be in favor of the grading company declining to do so?
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
@cardinal said:
Regarding provenance, not all of the "great" collectors were wealthy. John Jay Pittman was NOT a wealthy person, yet he amassed a fabulous collection, focusing on the coins that were out of favor during his time. (He was a worker at Eastman Kodak.) Decades later, those coins became all the rage, and sold for astronomical prices. The Pittman provenance is considered a significant provenance.
Is he considered upper-middle class or lower-upper class? I don’t think he would be a billionaire in today’s dollars but I imagine he would have multiples millions of net worth in today’s dollars.
Pittman was upper middle class, based on his occupation. Remember that he was buying coins (and intimidating others when bidding in person at auctions) during a time before prices really started to explode. There is no way he could have assembled his collection today without access to far more financial resources than his salary and property.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
@ms70 said:
It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire. Sort of like people being star-struck by a Hollywood celebrity.
Which responses gave you that ridiculous idea?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@Batman23 said:
But the big difference with coins is that even though Eliasberg is one of the many temporary guardians in this coins history, I don't think that Eliasberg was the creator of this fine art.
Well, of course. Then again, one could say that a collection is a work of art in itself, that the is collector the artist, and that individual coins are only the material from which the work of art is created.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I remember Andy telling me “this coin doesn’t belong in your collection” when showing him a box of coins in my Latin American set. I appreciated that and this analogy of the artist and material brings that memory back.
@Batman23 said:
But the big difference with coins is that even though Eliasberg is one of the many temporary guardians in this coins history, I don't think that Eliasberg was the creator of this fine art.
Well, of course. Then again, one could say that a collection is a work of art in itself, that the is collector the artist, and that individual coins are only the material from which the work of art is created.
Interesting concept. While building a fine collection is no doubt a creative process that requires several different skill sets, I'm not sure if indulging in a creative process unconditionally makes someone an artist. The collector is assembling objects not of his/her own making. I think of myself more as a curator and aesthete than as an artist. YMMV.
I remember Andy telling me “this coin doesn’t belong in your collection” when showing him a box of coins in my Latin American set. I appreciated that and this analogy of the artist and material brings that memory back.
Was the next line, "this coin belongs in my collection"
@cardinal said:
Regarding provenance, not all of the "great" collectors were wealthy. John Jay Pittman was NOT a wealthy person, yet he amassed a fabulous collection, focusing on the coins that were out of favor during his time. (He was a worker at Eastman Kodak.) Decades later, those coins became all the rage, and sold for astronomical prices. The Pittman provenance is considered a significant provenance.
Pittman is brought up as the less wealthy example all the time, but it seems like he's the only one.
Ok, sure, a high grade coin that sat in coin cabinets its entire existence loses its story when someone gets it upgraded or graded by a different company and it is put into an unmarked slab.
But how much of a story did it have?
The exciting days and night of spending years in coin cabinets owned by different collectors...
I would rather know the story of a VG Cent or half cent from 1803. The name of the little girl who found it in the trampled grass while waiting for the 1807 Independence Day Parade in Windsor Vt., the sailor in Nantucket Mass. who gave it to the well endowed barmaid as a tip. The widow in upstate NY who saved it with a hundred other coins in a sugar tin until she had enough to pay the back taxes so she could keep the farm her late husband worked his whole life to provide for her and the kids.
@Moxie15 said:
Ok, sure, a high grade coin that sat in coin cabinets its entire existence loses its story when someone gets it upgraded or graded by a different company and it is put into an unmarked slab.
But how much of a story did it have?
The exciting days and night of spending years in coin cabinets owned by different collectors...
I would rather know the story of a VG Cent or half cent from 1803. The name of the little girl who found it in the trampled grass while waiting for the 1807 Independence Day Parade in Windsor Vt., the sailor in Nantucket Mass. who gave it to the well endowed barmaid as a tip. The widow in upstate NY who saved it with a hundred other coins in a sugar tin until she had enough to pay the back taxes so she could keep the farm her late husband worked his whole life to provide for her and the kids.
To me those are the stories that are sad to lose.
Those types of stories would be sad to lose. But collectors of our generation rarely have access to them in the first place (to even be able to lose). At least some provenances are far more readily available.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The Dahmer collection of coins taken from his victims
The Street King Collection Top Pop PCGS of US 50 Cent pieces acquired by Boss Man 50 Cent from money importing women for the XXX trade
The Opioid Collection from the President of Flood the Streets with Poison finest Silver Dollar Set ever assembled
What Pittman lacked in money, he made up by knowing what to buy and when to buy. I believe his collection sold for more than $40,000,000. Not bad for a guy who mortgaged his home to go to Cairo to buy coins. His wife was very understanding.
When you collect in an area where Ford & friends manufactured convincing fakes that were widely accepted at the time, the name on the label is...comforting.
@OriginalDan said:
When you collect in an area where Ford & friends manufactured convincing fakes that were widely accepted at the time, the name on the label is...comforting.
Eliasberg:
Kaufman:
Mehl-Garrett:
Wilharm-Mehl-Garrett:
I rarely say this, but wow!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Numbers 2, 3 and 4 weren’t connected to the former collection until recently. Thanks to Señor McCarthy and PCGS for helping get the names back on the labels.
Numbers 2, 3 and 4 weren’t connected to the former collection until recently. Thanks to Señor McCarthy and PCGS for helping get the names back on the labels.
@OriginalDan said:
Numbers 2, 3 and 4 weren’t connected to the former collection until recently. Thanks to Señor McCarthy and PCGS for helping get the names back on the labels.
I checked the certs. 1 and 2 look good, but others have some issues:
3 doesn't appear to be in the PCGS Cert Verification right now
They all went through PCGS recently, that one has a new cert #. Try 38112025. I like the old true view better, the new one has the obv/rev flipped (IMO).
4 still doesn't have the provenance attached in Cert Verification yet
Working on that. It's attached to the coin, but not on the cert page yet for some reason.
@Zoins said:
Good info. It does look like a lot of wear for a 58. Do you think it was market graded?
Pioneer gold is super tough to grade, much of it is weakly struck. The Eagle on the Miner's Bank Ten is certainly flat on the high points, but the fields show only the lightest hint of handling (and are incredibly clean for this issue). I grade it "one of the nicest out there".
Bruce you might appreciate the Eliasberg coin was graded EF40 in that sale, but now resides in a P58 CAC holder. Things were....different, then.
A perfect illustration of my point
Not that there hasn't been some gradeflation over the years, but it's worth noting that the Eliasberg US collection was sold raw. The EF40 grade in the catalog was only the cataloger's opinion, and probably a conservative one even back then. (I'd probably voice that more strongly if I knew which coin we were talking about.)
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Bruce you might appreciate the Eliasberg coin was graded EF40 in that sale, but now resides in a P58 CAC holder. Things were....different, then.
A perfect illustration of my point
Not that there hasn't been some gradeflation over the years, but it's worth noting that the Eliasberg US collection was sold raw. The EF40 grade in the catalog was only the cataloger's opinion, and probably a conservative one even back then. (I'd probably voice that more strongly if I knew which coin we were talking about.)
Comments
I like provenances of all levels. I even like forum member provenance
A couple years ago I purchased a great selection of Early German States coins from a couple. The man's father brought them back after WW2. His platoon found a coin collection in a bombed out house and they split it up amongst themselves!
The provenance is important because of the collection(s) the coin came from, not because of the wealth of the previous owner(s). The fact that such collections were typically formed by people of wealth doesn’t change that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As the Taking Heads would say “stop making sense, making sense”!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I didn't say it was because of the wealth, I was just noting the correlation/observation. I still haven't seen a post explaining the factual importance of a previous owner other than what seems to be a psychological pleasure of being next in line after the rich and numismatically famous. But to each his own. If that makes someone happy then enjoy!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
You said “ It seems from most of the responses here a coin's provenance is only important if the previous custodian was a millionaire.“ That’s quite similar to saying it was ”because of the wealth”
It’s sounds as if you’re the one focused on the financial (“rich”) part. I hear numismatists talk about the quality and/or scope of name collections, as well as the dedication and passion of the collectors who formed them. Those considerations are typically (though granted, not always) far more important than the “rich” part.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You can play the "but you said" semantics game all you want. Have fun.
BTW, when a coin leaves a collection, it's no longer in that collection. Like it never happened. But again, if someone is happy over that, then they should enjoy it.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Nice try with the “semantics game”, but I quoted your words and you were very clear in what you said.
When a coin leaves a collection, it might be “like it never happened” as far as you’re concerned. But many collectors feel otherwise. The provenance of other collectibles can be as or more important, as well and not because of how rich the previous owners were.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"But many collectors feel otherwise."
Which is what I said. Unless you want to twist it. Thanks for playing.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The beauty of the provenance is the history & chronological order of ownership. It is kind of sad to think great collectors pass on, their collections get dispersed, and new generations of collectors , by and large, miss out on what those "famed", and astute collectors did for us and the hobby.... (not to mention protecting the sanctity of it)
With respect to Byron Reed, Aubrey Beebee (notables in my own town): it was sad and happy seeing their coins, and seeing their coins go to somebody else. But I enjoy the coins, the hobby, and the trade. Plastic and stickers and hyperbole aside..... I hate seeing the provenance go away for a "re-grade", or crack-out, for that matter.
For 18 grand (in this particular case), somebody might be happy. It's a great strike.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Awesome story. At least they made it out of the war (and the house) without being destroyed!
Part of the joy of this hobby is to appreciate the history behind the coin, both in terms of the times in which it was made and those who have been good stewards of the pieces we can still enjoy today. My little collection does not likely include any prior famous collector owner, but I’d sure be interest to know each coin’s travels along the way to me.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I have no desire to twist your words, though you seem to do that on your own.
I must have missed the part where you said “But many collectors feel otherwise” Please show us. All I could find was your quote below.
“ BTW, when a coin leaves a collection, it's no longer in that collection. Like it never happened. But again, if someone is happy over that, then they should enjoy it.”
Please have the last word and if you do so, it would be nice if you could make yourself clear.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The only way you can keep the certificate numbers was to do a reconsideration, BUT I believe our host has finally changed that. I too like to trace where everyone of my coins have come from and always wanted to send some back in for regrade but hated the idea of losing the certificate numbers.
I sent in 4 slabs 2 weeks ago under the Regrade knowing I would lose those numbers BUT I Did Not. They actually kept all my numbers the same and my guess is since they have decided to get a percentage of regrades they are now leaving those with the same certificate number....I like that...
Enjoy Tom
I used to be famous now I just collect coins.
Link to My Registry Set.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469
Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
Bruce, or anyone else - if a submitter re-submits a coin with a provenance already included on the label and asks that it be removed, would you be in favor of the grading company declining to do so?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Regarding provenance, not all of the "great" collectors were wealthy. John Jay Pittman was NOT a wealthy person, yet he amassed a fabulous collection, focusing on the coins that were out of favor during his time. (He was a worker at Eastman Kodak.) Decades later, those coins became all the rage, and sold for astronomical prices. The Pittman provenance is considered a significant provenance.
In more recent times, large quickly assembled collections have not carried any weight to their provenance in my opinion. Richmond, Bentley come to mind. The quality just wasn’t there regardless of grade or rarity. The old multi-generation and multi-collector provenances for me are a fascinating historical tie to the object I temporarily possess.
Latin American Collection
IMHO Provenance is becoming more important with the better stuff. The time may come with counterfeiters become so good that it may be the only way to determine if the coin is the real McCoy.
I'm firmly in the "provenance is important" camp. But we do need to make sure (best o' luck) that this doesn't become just another marketing angle - there is evidence of such already.
Such a policy would prevent me from buying any ex-Hansen coins (for example). I can abide a bit of additional text on my labels, but not a "full page" advertisement with graphics. YMMV.
No. The company should abide by the wishes of the submitter. In some cases provenance can actually lower the value of a coin unfairly. For instance, the Wells Fargo Hoard of Saint Gaudens double eagles is often viewed as being liberally graded/over graded. To prevent bias against a solid coin, an owner may wish to have the provenance information removed from the label and certification number online.
No.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
You might be on to something.....
Is he considered upper-middle class or lower-upper class? I don’t think he would be a billionaire in today’s dollars but I imagine he would have multiples millions of net worth in today’s dollars.
Pittman was upper middle class, based on his occupation. Remember that he was buying coins (and intimidating others when bidding in person at auctions) during a time before prices really started to explode. There is no way he could have assembled his collection today without access to far more financial resources than his salary and property.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Which responses gave you that ridiculous idea?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Well, of course. Then again, one could say that a collection is a work of art in itself, that the is collector the artist, and that individual coins are only the material from which the work of art is created.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy - very poignant
I remember Andy telling me “this coin doesn’t belong in your collection” when showing him a box of coins in my Latin American set. I appreciated that and this analogy of the artist and material brings that memory back.
Latin American Collection
Interesting concept. While building a fine collection is no doubt a creative process that requires several different skill sets, I'm not sure if indulging in a creative process unconditionally makes someone an artist. The collector is assembling objects not of his/her own making. I think of myself more as a curator and aesthete than as an artist. YMMV.
Was the next line, "this coin belongs in my collection"
Pittman is brought up as the less wealthy example all the time, but it seems like he's the only one.
Are there any other examples?
Ok, sure, a high grade coin that sat in coin cabinets its entire existence loses its story when someone gets it upgraded or graded by a different company and it is put into an unmarked slab.
But how much of a story did it have?
The exciting days and night of spending years in coin cabinets owned by different collectors...
I would rather know the story of a VG Cent or half cent from 1803. The name of the little girl who found it in the trampled grass while waiting for the 1807 Independence Day Parade in Windsor Vt., the sailor in Nantucket Mass. who gave it to the well endowed barmaid as a tip. The widow in upstate NY who saved it with a hundred other coins in a sugar tin until she had enough to pay the back taxes so she could keep the farm her late husband worked his whole life to provide for her and the kids.
To me those are the stories that are sad to lose.
Those types of stories would be sad to lose. But collectors of our generation rarely have access to them in the first place (to even be able to lose). At least some provenances are far more readily available.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But what is the provenances are not happy:
The Dahmer collection of coins taken from his victims
The Street King Collection Top Pop PCGS of US 50 Cent pieces acquired by Boss Man 50 Cent from money importing women for the XXX trade
The Opioid Collection from the President of Flood the Streets with Poison finest Silver Dollar Set ever assembled
What Pittman lacked in money, he made up by knowing what to buy and when to buy. I believe his collection sold for more than $40,000,000. Not bad for a guy who mortgaged his home to go to Cairo to buy coins. His wife was very understanding.
When you collect in an area where Ford & friends manufactured convincing fakes that were widely accepted at the time, the name on the label is...comforting.
Eliasberg:
Kaufman:
Mehl-Garrett:
Wilharm-Mehl-Garrett:
I rarely say this, but wow!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Wow is right!
Latin American Collection
Numbers 2, 3 and 4 weren’t connected to the former collection until recently. Thanks to Señor McCarthy and PCGS for helping get the names back on the labels.
Double wow
Much thanks to David / @Regulated !
I checked the certs. 1 and 2 look good, but others have some issues:
Bruce you might appreciate the Eliasberg coin was graded EF40 in that sale, but now resides in a P58 CAC holder. Things were....different, then.
Good info. It does look like a lot of wear for a 58. Do you think it was market graded?
Agreed!
They all went through PCGS recently, that one has a new cert #. Try 38112025. I like the old true view better, the new one has the obv/rev flipped (IMO).
Working on that. It's attached to the coin, but not on the cert page yet for some reason.
Pioneer gold is super tough to grade, much of it is weakly struck. The Eagle on the Miner's Bank Ten is certainly flat on the high points, but the fields show only the lightest hint of handling (and are incredibly clean for this issue). I grade it "one of the nicest out there".
@OriginalDan is this a new pursuit or an older one?
Latin American Collection
I have this one still and having the provenance on the slab makes it far more interesting to me...
A perfect illustration of my point from the other thread
Not that there hasn't been some gradeflation over the years, but it's worth noting that the Eliasberg US collection was sold raw. The EF40 grade in the catalog was only the cataloger's opinion, and probably a conservative one even back then. (I'd probably voice that more strongly if I knew which coin we were talking about.)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.