A Monumental Act of Vandalism
pruebas
Posts: 4,567 ✭✭✭✭✭
Six decades ago, as New York's grand Pennsylvania Station, this country's homage to Roman elegance, was on the cusp of demolition, the New York Times proclaimed the act "A Monumental Act of Vandalism." A mere 53 years old, the station succumbed to decay and dereliction as its owner no longer had the requisite income to properly maintain it. Demolition would obviate the need for expensive maintenance.
New York's Pennsylvania Station shortly after construction.
Two months ago, on March 19, 2023, Heritage Auctions committed a monumental act of vandalism against Mexican numismatics. On that date, the firm broke up and sold piecemeal a fabulous and historically important Mexican 1879 presentation set, WITHOUT A WORD ABOUT ITS IMPORTANCE OR THAT ITS PIECES CAME FROM THE SET. Without knowing the set was being broken up, the option for someone to keep it together was unilaterally eliminated.
It wasn't for lack of potential buyers of the ensemble—there's plenty of money floating around and interest in such unique historical items is at an all-time high. It was due to {redacted by author} on the part of the auction house staff.
Here's the story:
Re-discovered in 1964, a few short years after the more infamous King of Siam proof presentation set (of US coins), the 1879 Mexican presentation set find was shared with the numismatic community in the April 1964 volume of the Whitman Numismatic Journal, a short-lived popular periodical of some importance. At the time, the set was said to be owned by dealer Henry Christensen.
The set as it appeared in 1964.
The set next made its appearance in the auction catalog of Henry Christensen at the Convention of International Numismatics (COIN) in June 1977 as Lot 1266. The set appeared plated in the catalog with all its original coins and a detailed description of its importance to Mexican-American relations. Ultimately selling for $15,000 (equivalent to almost $75,000 in 2023), the set then went into hiding and entered numismatic lore.
The set as it appeared in the 1977 auction catalog (blurry image due to poor scan at NNP).
Here is the description from the 1977 auction catalog explaining the importance of the set (and of course, Mr. Christensen's effort to maximize its value at auction):
[Beginning of Catalog Description]
A Unique 1879 Presentation Specimen Set in a lavish fitted case, approximately 8-3/4 x 3-7/8 x 1-1/4 inches, or 225 x 98.5 x 32mm. The set includes GOLD 20, 10, 5, 2-1/2, and 1 Peso; Silver 8 Reales, 50, 25, 10, and 5 Centavos; and Copper 1 Centavo. Each coin is a splendid specimen striking with brilliant fields. The Copper centavo is toning off.
The coins included are:
GOLD
20 Pesos 1872 M
10 Pesos 1872/1 M/C
5 Pesos 1875/3 B/M
2-1/2 Pesos 1873/2 M
1 Peso 1872/1 M/C
SILVER
8 Reales 1879/8 MH
50 Centavos 1879 M
25 Centavos 1879 M
10 Centavos 1879 M/C
5 Centavos 1879/8 M
COPPER
1 Centavo 1879
This is the set illustrated on page 250 of the 2nd edition of a GUIDEBOOK OF MEXICAN COINS by T.V.Buttrey and Clyde Hubbard. See also the article by Neil Shafer in the April, 1964 issue of WHITMAN NUMISMATIC JOURNAL.
The case itself is magnificently executed. It is covered and lined with purple velvet, the interior having fitted depressions for the eleven coins in the set. The top and sides of the case are covered with elaborate Gold and Silver filigree work, made to an extremely high standard. In the center of the lid is a Gold presentation plaque, surrounded by a Gold wreath. The plaque is engraved: "A la Exma. Señora Da. Maria P. de Forster. Francisca Temple de Ajuria. Casa de Moneda de Mexico. 1879." which translates to: "To Her Excellency Mrs. Maria P. Forster. Francisca Temple Ajuria. Mexico City Mint. 1879."
This set was a government gift from the wife of the director and lessee of the Mexico City Mint to the wife of the United States Ambassador to Mexico. We quote from a letter of 1964 from the preeminent Mexican numismatic historian, Dr. Alberto Francisco Pradeau: "...The exquisite presentation case from Mme. Temple de Ajuria to Mrs. Forster (sic) who was the wife of the U.S. Minister to Mexico the Hon. John Watson Foster who, by reason of his post, could not accept such a valuable gift, but from a woman to Mrs. Foster, no one could offer criticism. The misspelling of the name may be attributed to the ignorance of the language by both the engraver and Mrs. Ajuria... It is unique.”
The personalities involved in giving and receiving this remarkable set and the circumstances which led to the gift itself are noteworthy enough to merit some elaboration.
John (Juan) Temple, the father of the donor of the set, was a New Englander who moved to California in the late 1830's and became a Mexican citizen. He grew in affluence and in influence with the Mexican government. During this period the Mexican mints were rented out or leased to private contractors who operated them for the government in return for a percentage of the profits. Juan Temple became Lessee and Director of the Mexico City Mint and was instrumental in founding the Oaxaca Mint. He also made large loans to the Mexican Government, at times under duress.
During the ill-fated Second Mexican Empire of Maximilian, the Temple family continued its close financial relationships with the government, including mint contracts and loans to the Imperial Government.
Upon the fall of the empire, Benito Juarez declared that the Temple family had been in collusion with the French and that all government debts to the Temples were null and void. Not too surprisingly, this did not please the Temples, and they reacted accordingly.
Juan Temple died in 1866 leaving as his sole heiress his daughter Francisca. She married Gregorio Ajuria, a political protege of Temple's who succeeded him as lessee and director of the Mexico City Mint. The daughter's name thus became Francisca Temple de Ajuria.
Even when they were on the outs with Juarez, the Temple family had considerable clout both in Mexico and in the United States. They had extensive holdings in the Federal District, the State of Mexico, Chihuahua, and Sonora. In Texas the town of Temple was named for them, and in California the family once owned what is now called Temple City to the East of Los Angeles.
As the interests of American citizens were involved, the Temple/Ajuria family enlisted the aid of the American Minister to Mexico, John Watson Foster. On December 12, 1872 he succeeded in having the Temple/Ajuria family reinstalled as lessees of the mint. In 1873 and in 1875, after pressure was applied by Ambassador Foster, installment payments were made by the Mexican Government to Mrs. Ajuria, and in 1879, again with the aid of Foster, the government contracts were renegociated, and the Mexican debt to Mrs. Ajuria was settled to the satisfaction of both parties.
Obviously, a gesture of appreciation to the American Ambassador was in order; so Sr. Ajuria, as Director of the Mint, had this extraordinary set made. To avoid any political problems the set was given by the Director's wife to the Ambassador's wife.
John Watson Foster's diplomatic career is also worthy of note. He was U.S. Ambassador to Mexico 1873-1880; U.S. Ambassador to Russia 1880-1881 ; U.S. Ambassador to Spain 1883-1885. He served as U.S. Secretary of State from 1892-1893 during the Presidency of Benjamin Harrison. He resigned that post to negotiate the peace treaty between China and Japan after the Sino Japanese War and later represented China at the Hague Conference of 1907. He was also the arbitrator who negociated the Alaska/Canada boundary line in 1903. Obviously, he was not just a petty meddler!
We are proud to offer this set at Public Auction for the first time. No other Mexican Government presentation sets are known. Contemporary reports indicate that a similar elaborately cased set was given to U.S. Secretary of State William Seward or his wife in 1869, but its whereabouts have been unknown for over a century.
The silver and bronze coinage in this set all carries the date of presentation, 1879. The dates of the gold coinage vary from 1872 to 1875. It is possible that choice pieces of earlier dates on hand were selected for the set as no gold was in production at the mint during the part of 1879 when this set was made up. It may well be that the dates of the gold coins were chosen to commemorate events in the negotiations between the Temple/Ajuria family and the Mexican Government. Such mixed date government presentation sets are not unknown. After all, the original U.S. 1804 silver dollars come from presentation sets of 1834!
How does one place a valuation on such a state gift, as lovely today as when it was presented nearly 100 years ago? Coupled with its aesthetic qualities, the set has significant historical ties to early California, early Texas, and the Empire of Maximilian. Needless to say, it would grace any collection, public or private. It does seem to us that a strong five figure bid would be in order.
[End of Catalog Description]
The set was photographed and briefly described in the colloquially-named Buttrey-Hubbard catalog of Mexican coins throughout it's six editions and stoked the interest of many a budding Mexican numismatist from the 1970s to the 1990s, including yours truly. By the 2000s, the set became forgotten as the Buttrey-Hubbard catalog lost its importance in Mexican numismatics.
The set as it appeared in the last Buttrey-Hubbard catalog (circa 1992).
In a January 2020 Heritage Numismatic Auction at the NYINC, a Mexican coin presentation case (also dated 1879) appeared as lot 31059, selling to the author for $2520. This case, which was a different case than the case re-discovered in 1964, was of the same "fabric" and style, but came without its original coins and had a different inscription. The appearance of this case renewed speculation on the whereabouts of the original case that was unearthed in 1964 and unheard of since 1977.
The 2020 Presentation Case (which isn't the one discovered in 1964).
Then, in February 2023, Heritage posted its auction catalog for a monthly online-only auction of Mexican coins, to take place on March 19, 2023. In that auction, another Mexican presentation case appeared, also without coins, as lot 23256.
As the owner of the "2020" presentation case, I thought I would try for the "2023" case to re-unite them. I ultimately bought that case, but at the very steep price of $7500. Why would someone be so interested in the case and not the prior case? Was the Mexican numismatic market in March 2023 that much more frothy than January 2020? [Definitely!] Was someone "in the know about something" bidding me up?
After the auction, I was chatting with a friend in Mexico on WhatsApp about his results and the auction prices in general. We determined this was in fact the case for the lost 1879 presentation set! So what happened to the coins? He suggested that I try to find appropriate (replacement) coins to fill the presentation case. "Too much work," I replied. And I really have little interest in circulation coins.
But after thinking on it for a while, I came to the realization maybe the original coins were actually in the sale that just occurred. Armed with the coin list from the Buttrey-Hubbard catalog, I did some investigative work.
Sure enough, it turned out that 8 of the 11 original coins from the set were in fact in the just-occurred sale! They were not identified as special in any way, except for the grade. I could have purchased them all, but I missed them!
I compiled the lot numbers of these coins and made a quick call to Heritage with a simple question. Did the same buyer purchase all these lots? No names, I just wanted to know if someone had figured out those coins and the case belonged together. It turned out, the lots all went to varied buyers, so apparently, no one had been trying to rebuild the presentation set. (Side note, if it turned out that someone was trying to rebuild the original set, I was going to offer them the case at my cost so they could do so, with my apologies for bidding them up on it.)
Now, I was determined to attempt to rebuild the set myself, as much as I could. My first bit of luck came with the 2 1/2 Peso gold from the March sale. The winner of that lot had apparently decided he didn't want it and it became "unsold" online. A quick call to Heritage and it was mine at its original sales price.
What about the remaining 3 coins missing from the March sale? Well, I found them in the HA Central States sale scheduled for May. And I was determined to obtain them!
I can now reveal that I have reunited the 1879 presentation case along with the 4 largest denomination (gold) coins from the set: the 20, 10, 5 and 2 1/2 Peso gold. The other 7 coins remain "at large" and may end up a lifetime goal to reunite.
If anyone runs across any of the other coins from the set, I would gladly pay a premium to purchase them so the set can be made whole again and we can undo the monumental act of vandalism.
The 1879 Presentation Set case (which I purchased sans coins).
1872-MoM 20P (NGC 5854597-015 MS66) which I purchased.
1872/1-MoM/C 10P (NGC 5854597-014 MS64) which I purchased.
1875/3-MoB/M 5P (NGC 5854597-013 MS64+) which I purchased.
1873/2-MoM 2.5P (NGC 5854597-012 MS65) which I purchased.
Here is a list of the rest of the coins from the set—the ones that "got away."
1872-MoM/C Gold Peso (NGC 5854597-011 MS65)
1879/8-MoMH 8R (NGC 5854597-010 MS66)
1879-MoM 50C (NGC 5854597-008 MS65)
1879-MoM 25C (NGC 5854597-009 MS66)
1879/69-MoM 10C (NGC 5854597-006 MS64)
1879-MoM 5C (NGC 5854597-005 MS63)
1879/8-Mo 1C (NGC 5854597-007 MS65BN)
Fun fact: the combined coin and case lots (i.e. "the parts") sold for a grand total of $66,426 in 2023, which is less than the inflation-adjusted sale price of the set in 1977 (just under $75,000).
Does anyone else think the complete presentation set would have sold for more than $66,426 fully intact?
Special thanks to @Coinosaurus and the Newman Numismatic Portal for some of the scans for this article.
Comments
Stories and history always drive the interest and price up. What a travesty.
Shocking that the consignor allowed these coins to be marketed without the background included in the lot descriptions. Such a disservice all around.
You need to look at Heritage. 1879-MoM 25C (NGC 5854597-009 MS66) is listed as the owner is taking offers.
Perhaps this was done simply so they could slab them. No need for a case once entombed.
Agreed on both counts.
All I could come up with was that the consignor was an estate, but I understand that isn't the case.
Wow amazing story and coins thanks for sharing!!!
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
You need to write a numismatic book about this; amazing!! With pictures and everything. And I hope you get all the coins soon.
Coinsof1984@martinb6830 on twitter
What a saga! I saw the coins and was clear they were of superb quality. It is great that you are re building the set. My guess? Likely the set with coins would have reached the ceiling as opposed to the individual coins.
I love this post
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
I would think so. I note that all coins were from the Mexico City Mint, which would make sense for a set presented by the government of Mexico. Is it known who the presentation set was for ?
The gift was not from the government itself. It was from the politically-connected Temple/Ajuria family, the lessees of the most important mint in Mexico, the Mexico City Mint, to the US Ambassador. However, due to diplomatic protocol, the gift was from the wife of the giver to the wife of the recipient.
I think having the unique presentation case is the most special part of the set so congratz on acquiring that!
What a great post! Congrats on being able to acquire the ones you did. How could HA do such a thing??
Latin American Collection
Alas, the days have passed here at this forum where threads such as this were a daily occurrence. Thanks for the memories pruebas!
karlgoetzmedals.com
secessionistmedals.com
You truly are a numismatist at heart!!! Love the passion!!!
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
Wow, I know the feeling as I have 2/3 of a specimen set that is nearly unknown (but in cats) - I doubt I will get the last bits. Absolutely beautiful presentation case and wonderful that you have some of the capital pieces at least.
I wish you better luck than me!
Well, just Love coins, period.
Hopefully very soon we will be updated that all the coins from the set have been re-united.
Just a comment on breaking up a set, or removing coins from cases to grade - yes that is done - especially for Maundy Sets from the United Kingdom and coins and medals in exceptional grade. But the graded coins and medals are most collectable with their original cases of issue and their provenance!
On Heritage's end - the team taking the consignment of the set could have and should have done a little bit of research, obviously @pruebas did so. The loss for the consignor and Heritage as the auctioneer is tremendous in consideration of how much this set could have realised with the provenance and the original case.
Hopefully this travesty will be fixed very soon.
While I fault Heritage, everyone makes mistakes. Granted this was a BIG mistake, but they are a great company and do try very hard in most instances. They have promised to try harder, and that's really all we can ask for.
I do not know the consignor, but s/he shouldn't have allowed this. That it was allowed suggests to me something strange. I just don't know what it might have been.
Others have commented that coins from sets be graded. While I do agree with that, they should remain together and be sold together as they have been for 144 years. (Just like the King of Siam set.) And if they really must auction them separately, at least add the information to the auction description on their provenance so as to allow someone who wants to re-assemble the set to do so.
Another suggestion is to auction them separately in a consecutive manner, then a final lot with the whole set together which must start at the combined total (plus one increment) of each of the lots individually. If no one bids on the final (set) lot, then the winners of each individual lot get to keep their won lot(s). Otherwise, the winner of the set takes the whole thing at the set price.
This has been done in auctions from time to time, but I believe that capability is beyond the functionality of the HA platform.
I personally feel that this set in a Platinum Night lot with proper documentation would have done fantastically, probably over $100k. You can surely bet that if this was a US item, that would have been done.
Great post-
I like the initial analogy to Penn Station mainly because NYC is the architectural capital of the US with so much to see and appreciate. With Art and design, certain buildings, products, medals or coins achieve a well deserved iconic status- something that will withstand the test of time and prove to be timeless. And rightfully should be preserved for future generations. Progress should not be an excuse to dismantle or simply demolish what should matter. Progress should be measured by where we have been and how we plan to proceed forward. And within this analysis, we need to look at technology which is moving at an accelerated pace faster than it can be absorbed. We know this based on the shortened life span of various products- including our coinage. Simply stated... technology has forever changed what we will see in coinage throughout the world. Coinage has become a sterile product that lacks depth as well as human craftsmanship.
Turning full circle back to the op and my only concern... I would not suggest this would be an act of vandalism against or imposed upon Mexican Numismatics. Instead, there is a clear case of ignorance which in the final analysis is unacceptable. And sadly, these facts could easily be framed in a less flattering light which really will serve no useful purpose to discuss or pursue.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I love architecture too. I believe I missed my calling, except that I can't draw. Today, that wouldn't be a problem with CAD, etc. but back when I went to engineering school, we still did mechanical drawing with pencils, triangles, French curves, protractors, and dividers. We even had a course in the slide rule, but that was already on the way out when my dad went to college.
The reason I used the analogy is because that quote is forever stuck in my head and it was the first thing that came to mind upon learning about what happened.
At some point, I saw this post card (I think it was a Heritage auction) and thought the message was appropriate enough to save. I didn't buy the card because well, who needs more stuff.
It reads:
France has the lily,
England the rose,
Africa the ostrich,
With it's great big toes.
Scotland has the thistle,
It grows upon the hill,
But the emblem of America,
Is the one Dollar bill.
That about sums things up, I guess.
Wonderful piece of collecting, and numismatic research!
I do not think it hurts the overall importance of the collection you are building that it will not be complete.
While it's sad the set was not kept intact, the collector base market for intact sets just isn't that large, with the large cost of acquisition associated. Also these old sets that remain complete are probably too rare to actively collect. Whoever decided the set was to be split (and graded) did so because it must have been thought to be of some benefit.
I'll share a story of a similar collecting story. In 2017, a grouping of rare British coins was sold by a smaller London auctioneer, known to collectors but not as widely known as, say, Baldwin's. These coins were once owned by Archbishop Sharp, who was Archbishop of York 1691-1715, and an early known collector. The churchman collected coins as a hobby, and his descendants added here and there to the collection. Of particular interest to me was a parcel of Northumbrian stycas, which were believed to be from the Hexham hoard of 1695. While the hoard may have contained other coins, the bulk went to Sharp and was kept intact for over 300 years! I suspected Sharp kept notes about his collection, and ended up hiring a genealogy researcher to go through his records, which were kept at the local county archives, and take pictures of the relevant notes. I was able to confirm the Hexham origin of the hoard and get copies of Sharp's own notes, which describe the legends on each of the coins. But unfortunately, the auction for these coins came at a rotten time. I had just put a down payment down on a house and disposable cash just wasn't there. In the end, the entire hoard was sold for less than $5000, but I couldn't buy more than a few lots, though I had planned to be an aggressive buyer. The online bidding system failed, preventing my bidding on several lots (a friend of mine also bidding had the same problem, so it was on their end). My attempts to keep the hoard intact were a failure. I only bought 6 coins, out of 30+ in the hoard, and was able to get a few more on the aftermarket.
But in your case and mine, time marches and inevitably things that were meant to be together are parted, and things once easily found become rare. Such is the fate of past future collectibles.
Thanks for a fascinating write-up, and best of luck in your endeavor to reunite this incredible set!
I do have to say that what disappoints me more than the breakup of the set -- in principle, justifiable as an economic decision and by all means the prerogative of the consignor and the auction house -- is the erasure of the pieces' provenance and their incredible historic context. It saddens me that through the entire consignment and sale process at Heritage, a firm I respect immensely, that handling this set either failed to pique anyone's curiosity into investigating further, or worse, that it could even have led to actively suppressing its history.
I find it interesting to contrast the handling of this set with that of the complete 1888 US proof set that recently came to light. A "tale of two sets" if you will. This set was acquired by an English tissue paper manufacturer, John Robert Fletcher, during a visit to the US Mint. He brought it back to England where it stayed in the family for three more generations, before being sold under some extraordinary marketing as the "last known intact set in private hands." Spink prepared a 126-page catalog to advertise this set alone! The set sold for upwards of $500,000 in the original Spink sale and again last night.
No offense to Mr. Fletcher, but I didn't find him to be a terribly interesting individual. Nor does his set play such a rich role in the fabric of numismatic lore as the one you've uncovered!
What a catalog! That's how it's done.
Imagine this set being broken up and sold piecemeal:
https://greatcollections.com/Coin/1344483/Original-1888-Complete-Proof-Set-Including-All-Gold-Graded-by-PCGSCAC-Ex-John-Robert-Fletcher-13-Coins-with-Vintage-Custom-Case-from-Time-of-Issue
And see that it went all together with the case of issue for a cool half million dollars.
...mechanical drawing with pencils, triangles, French curves, protractors, and dividers.
I remember those days back in the early 1971.
Or this one (though I forgot if it included a case).
Cool story, I watched the 25c go in the March 23 HA auction. Unfortunately my finances were tapped out by previous coin purchases, wife, house, dogs, food, taxes... oh shot lets just say I was broke and I cannot have it all. That 25c would have looked good in my collection with a cool story to boot.
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it - Clint Eastwood
Pruebas, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to put together such an interesting and important post.
@pruebas this was an incredible post! Thanks for putting it together. Have you had any luck tracking down the other coins in the set?
Unfortunately not. Given their high quality, the coins are gone forever I am quite sure.
But I have discovered some errors in Mr. Christensen’s cataloging and some additional facts. I will post them in due course.
Incredible story. Incredible coins. Thanks for the insightful post.
Numismatic Asset Management
"helping rare coin buyers avoid critical mistakes"