After bringing this lot to Jim Halperin's attention, he checked the provenance of the coin and sent me the following note:
It is the same coin and therefore genuine, since ANACS authenticated it once. (The present consignor bought it less than a year ago from the dealer who bought in our NYC 2002 sale). We will note the pedigree and additional repair work in the online description. Feel free to post this email string on the Forum if you'd like.
End of story, I suppose.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Thanks Mr Eureka. A gentleman and a scholar. Shows how angle and lighting to create different photos will make the same coin look like two different coins - but as you first noted, there were enough similarities that this had to be either the same coin or at least one was a fake from a casting of the other - or both castings from yet another.
In the two photos that numeral 2 still looks like two different numbers, one with a full curl and the other without.
<< <i>After bringing this lot to Jim Halperin's attention, he checked the provenance of the coin and sent me the following note: It is the same coin and therefore genuine, since ANACS authenticated it once. (The present consignor bought it less than a year ago from the dealer who bought in our NYC 2002 sale). We will note the pedigree and additional repair work in the online description. Feel free to post this email string on the Forum if you'd like. End of story, I suppose. >>
This makes perfect sense, and it highlights the nasty underside of our hobby.
A guy buys the properly graded and attributed coin and immediately does further damage to it by adding detail. Then, he sends it to NTC (knowing full well their standards) and hits the jackpot with an un-netted AU50. He now has a year or more to find somebody ingorant and wealthy enough to buy the coin for what the label says.
You might say he failed, in that he didn't find a buyer, but re-flopped to Heritage it has the same "repaired" tag that it had before and he will probably end up selling it for a profit. After all, it is at first glance more attractive now than before. Pretty sells.
The problem I have with this whole affair is that Heritage now says the coin has XF details. This isn't possible on a coin that previously had VF details. It isn't proper to base a details grade on fake details, IMO. This begs the question as to what its prior detail grade was. Fine, then tooled to VF? Maybe. A much more honest description of the coin would have been to simply call it "Tooled" without a misleading detail grade.
The quote "additional repair work" tips me off that Heritage may have been blowing smoke on this coin in 2002, when they said "if a repair was made we can't find it."
So is 59K a fair value for this coin when all is said and done? Did Heritage keep their promise and add the previously undisclosed details before it went on the auction block so the buyer would have been fully informed?? I didn't see what appeared to me to be full disclosure with the added information identifying this as the same coin that was differently described and graded lower in the prior Heritage auction.
In retrospect I suppose Heritage really should have pulled this lot and relisted it in a new auction with full disclosure. Of course the buyer may not care anyway if his intent is simply to pass it on to someone else. Heritage probably doesn't care as it likely has a large errors and omissions policy in place in the event the buyer was a duped collector and not an unscrupulous dealer hoping to turn this coin as something it clearly appears to not be by its NTC mislabel.
far as i'm concerned, a piece of ntc plastic is no different than ANY other plastic holder. i'd of bid on the coin regardless of what it was holdered in, if i could afford it.
Same auction house sells the same coin in two different auctions within two years and has two different grades as well as two different descriptions in the respective auction catalogues. No one has any problem with this?
Correct, you and I can't do anything. However, Heritage Auctions certainly can make full disclosure as to the coins they are making a 15% buyers premium on plus whatever the seller has to pay. For a $59,000 sale on a coin worth at most half that we are talking about $4425.00 to $8000.00 additional profit in Heritage's pocket solely attributable to their own apparent failure to fully disclose.
You are wrong. Heritage disclosed a discription of the coin, then it is up to YOU to do your homework and decide. They have thousands of write-ups they have to submit a month. What do you expect them to do??? Buyers spending that kind of money are doing their research, and then spend the money.
I (less than a year and a half ago) was WINNING bidder on an 1818/7-S SLQ MS64FH NGC. I WON the bid, took thousands of looks at it, asked a ton of dealers, and they all said is was NOT a Full Head. The holder said so, I didnt even think so. I wrote Heritge a letter, saying I didnt want it. They said O.K.!!! Heritage is a class act, and professional to all its clients. But you have to remember..... SOME of the write-ups are going to be wrong. Not all of the authors are looking into the past of these coins for sale. How could they possibly find the time???????
Lloyd - I agree with what you note to a point - but this particular lot was flagged as being a possible forgery. In response Jim H. at Heritage admitted the coin was one and the same as a prior sold coin and promised to Eureka that the description would be corrected to identify its provenance. When I read the description that now goes with the coin I do not see the full disclosure that would alert a buyer as to the facts admitted to have been known to Heritage. This is not a case where a busy writer did not have time to check the database to see if the same coin had been sold by Heritage in the recent past. The posts above confirm that even if that had been the case it no longer was so once Heritage had been alerted to the matter.
I would be interested in hearing the buyer's take on this.
<< <i>Lloyd - I agree with what you note to a point - but this particular lot was flagged as being a possible forgery. In response Jim H. at Heritage admitted the coin was one and the same as a prior sold coin and promised to Eureka that the description would be corrected to identify its provenance. When I read the description that now goes with the coin I do not see the full disclosure that would alert a buyer as to the facts admitted to have been known to Heritage. This is not a case where a busy writer did not have time to check the database to see if the same coin had been sold by Heritage in the recent past. The posts above confirm that even if that had been the case it no longer was so once Heritage had been alerted to the matter. >>
I agree.
If they know this was the same coin...and they know the details of the previous sale and can tell the extent of the repair work...to me, all the details of the prior sale should be disclosed. Had they done that, I'd be fine with "whatever the market will bear" for this coin. But they didn't, and it makes me feel unclean.
far as i'm concerned, a piece of ntc plastic is no different than ANY other plastic holder. i'd of bid on the coin regardless of what it was holdered in,
While that philosophy may work sometimes, it can also backfire at other times. Some plastic companies are notorious for holdering problem coins without noting the problems. Some are notorious for doing a poor job of authentication. And when you can't examine a coin in hand, it helps to have some confidence in the folks that are doing the grading/authenticating......
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
<< <i>Any one here find Heritage's conduct unethical? >>
These days it's tough to know what, if anything, is "unethical' in the coin business.
I do know that Heritage had every reason to know, and did know, the full and complete story behind this coin. Yet, they intentionally decided not print that story in the catalog. The coin was sold with purposeful, incomplete disclosure, if not outright complicity.
In my home state, if this coin had been a house or a car, somebody from Heritage could be in front of a judge.
I hope the new owner shows off his new purchase to honest numismatists who are able to ascertain this coin's problems - and are willing to tell him the truth. Then maybe we will see how Heritage stands behind what it sells.
Comments
It is the same coin and therefore genuine, since ANACS authenticated it once. (The present consignor bought it less than a year ago from the dealer who bought in our NYC 2002 sale). We will note the pedigree and additional repair work in the online description. Feel free to post this email string on the Forum if you'd like.
End of story, I suppose.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
K S
In the two photos that numeral 2 still looks like two different numbers, one with a full curl and the other without.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>After bringing this lot to Jim Halperin's attention, he checked the provenance of the coin and sent me the following note: It is the same coin and therefore genuine, since ANACS authenticated it once. (The present consignor bought it less than a year ago from the dealer who bought in our NYC 2002 sale). We will note the pedigree and additional repair work in the online description. Feel free to post this email string on the Forum if you'd like. End of story, I suppose. >>
This makes perfect sense, and it highlights the nasty underside of our hobby.
A guy buys the properly graded and attributed coin and immediately does further damage to it by adding detail. Then, he sends it to NTC (knowing full well their standards) and hits the jackpot with an un-netted AU50. He now has a year or more to find somebody ingorant and wealthy enough to buy the coin for what the label says.
You might say he failed, in that he didn't find a buyer, but re-flopped to Heritage it has the same "repaired" tag that it had before and he will probably end up selling it for a profit. After all, it is at first glance more attractive now than before. Pretty sells.
The problem I have with this whole affair is that Heritage now says the coin has XF details. This isn't possible on a coin that previously had VF details. It isn't proper to base a details grade on fake details, IMO. This begs the question as to what its prior detail grade was. Fine, then tooled to VF? Maybe. A much more honest description of the coin would have been to simply call it "Tooled" without a misleading detail grade.
The quote "additional repair work" tips me off that Heritage may have been blowing smoke on this coin in 2002, when they said "if a repair was made we can't find it."
Cool Things
Bust Coin Forum
In retrospect I suppose Heritage really should have pulled this lot and relisted it in a new auction with full disclosure. Of course the buyer may not care anyway if his intent is simply to pass it on to someone else. Heritage probably doesn't care as it likely has a large errors and omissions policy in place in the event the buyer was a duped collector and not an unscrupulous dealer hoping to turn this coin as something it clearly appears to not be by its NTC mislabel.
K S
What can you do? The coin doctors are everywhere.
I (less than a year and a half ago) was WINNING bidder on an 1818/7-S SLQ MS64FH NGC. I WON the bid, took thousands of looks at it, asked a ton of dealers, and they all said is was NOT a Full Head. The holder said so, I didnt even think so. I wrote Heritge a letter, saying I didnt want it. They said O.K.!!! Heritage is a class act, and professional to all its clients. But you have to remember..... SOME of the write-ups are going to be wrong. Not all of the authors are looking into the past of these coins for sale. How could they possibly find the time???????
I would be interested in hearing the buyer's take on this.
<< <i>Lloyd - I agree with what you note to a point - but this particular lot was flagged as being a possible forgery. In response Jim H. at Heritage admitted the coin was one and the same as a prior sold coin and promised to Eureka that the description would be corrected to identify its provenance. When I read the description that now goes with the coin I do not see the full disclosure that would alert a buyer as to the facts admitted to have been known to Heritage. This is not a case where a busy writer did not have time to check the database to see if the same coin had been sold by Heritage in the recent past. The posts above confirm that even if that had been the case it no longer was so once Heritage had been alerted to the matter. >>
I agree.
If they know this was the same coin...and they know the details of the previous sale and can tell the extent of the repair work...to me, all the details of the prior sale should be disclosed. Had they done that, I'd be fine with "whatever the market will bear" for this coin. But they didn't, and it makes me feel unclean.
While that philosophy may work sometimes, it can also backfire at other times. Some plastic companies are notorious for holdering problem coins without noting the problems. Some are notorious for doing a poor job of authentication. And when you can't examine a coin in hand, it helps to have some confidence in the folks that are doing the grading/authenticating......
<< <i>Any one here find Heritage's conduct unethical? >>
These days it's tough to know what, if anything, is "unethical' in the coin business.
I do know that Heritage had every reason to know, and did know, the full and complete story behind this coin. Yet, they intentionally decided not print that story in the catalog. The coin was sold with purposeful, incomplete disclosure, if not outright complicity.
In my home state, if this coin had been a house or a car, somebody from Heritage could be in front of a judge.
I hope the new owner shows off his new purchase to honest numismatists who are able to ascertain this coin's problems - and are willing to tell him the truth. Then maybe we will see how Heritage stands behind what it sells.
Cool Things
Bust Coin Forum