What are the criteria used for slab attributions to previous collections?

RobP

What criteria are used by PCGS or NGC when attributing a coin to a former collection eg. Norweb or Lingford. When a coin is slabbed, any corroborative information such as envelopes or coin tickets (respectively in the case of these two) that previously accompanied it are separated and in most instances I suspect are lost forever. This therefore requires the attribution to be accurately recorded. I'm sure that in most instances it will be correct but this can not be guaranteed. Is it slabbed based on the information provided by the submitter or are other checks made? This loss of historical evidence is potentially quite a problem for coins that aren't attributed at the eponymous sale. I mention the two named above because I have seen slabbed 19th century British coins (both NGC) where I have well founded doubts in my mind that the attribution is accurate, and in the case of the 'Norweb' coin may have resulted in a premium being paid for the coin based on this attribution. My concern is for links to older collections where the coins are frequently not illustrated and so the only continuity is provided by the written information in the handwriting of the original owner(s).

I appreciate this is a problem specific to the world of slabbed coins as collectors who keep their coins in cabinets store the tickets under the felts (assuming they fit). Would a potential solution to this problem be the simultaneous slabbing of any associated tickets with the same reference number with an identifying suffix which would at least give some protection to the provenance evidence? Thoughts anyone?

Sorry if this is in the wrong section, but I have only noticed this on two British coins to date.

MacCrimmon

Your word alone would not be accepted as proof of pedigree by PCGS.

The coin would have to either still be sealed in a flip (the potential horrors of PVC notwithstanding) with the auction lot/sale/pedigree info, or barring that, the subject coin would need to have been plated in the eponymous sale, and identifiable as such by PCGS. Likewise, a copy of that plate and the accompanying description by the original auction house would need to be provided.

This is basically what Ron Guth told me at a CICF show some years ago.

I have such a coin, an 1895 halfpenny, which traces to the Christie's sale of the Freeman collection on 10/23/84. By good fortune, that coin was plated in the sale cat. Now, I just need to make copies, etc. and submit some day.

RobP

What about NGC? They clearly don't operate an identical system to PCGS based on what I have for the two coins relating to my query. The 'ex-Lingford' coin was a George IV half crown and so was not in Lingford's crowns or James I sales at Glendining in 1950, and the 'Norweb' piece didn't match the image in the Norweb catalogue - although it matched the coin illustrated in the Baron Ferrari la Renotiere sale (Sotheby 1922) which was bought by Brand.

This is why I also raised the question of envelopes and coin tickets. Some, such as Norweb's or Lingford's are very distinctive. Most Norweb coins were illustrated, but vast numbers of Lingford coins were not.

7Jaguars

I suppose that our answers including mine would be speculative or anecdotal. I had a very interesting pattern that looked very odd and maybe even homemade but also had plated pictures in a Sotheby's sale and original envelopes (two if memory serves) so this was fairly easy. I have some ex-Norweb as well but they are VERY hard to prove as not all of Norweb's plates of high quality. In fact, I believe that most often they will NOT pedigree the coins unless documentation is very good rather than your experience Rob. Sad as I am sure much information is lost this way.

Anecdotally I saved from many years ago the original Spink envelopes and descriptive discs but when my wife left, she saw fit to take everything she could find, including much of this material. So even the slabbed pieces have lost much of their provenance (I guess good that she did not get the core collection).

I think it is our duty to save as much of this related material as we can.

RobP

The original question was asked not because I wanted to get coins slabbed with a noted pedigree but rather to establish how the two main TPG's treated this aspect. Clearly there is a difference between the companies and I can see that PCGS obviously operate a stricter regime than NGC even without having had a reply on the latter's policy. I had simply noted a couple of anomalies, so felt compelled to ask the question. I don't have the 'Norweb' which was a decimal pattern as the price asked was way too high for what I would be willing to pay. It was slabbed proof 66 and had a blob of wax adhering to the coin. As poor as some of the images are in Norweb, this would still be obvious. The Sotheby catalogue for1922 clearly shows the pit on the coin corresponding to the missing wax. The second coin I do have and is the 1824 uniface halfcrown in Barton's Metal from the last DNW sale. This was slabbed as ex Lingford and was previously in the Colin Adams halfcrown collection. Colin purchased that coin from Baldwins in 1998. There was no Lingford ticket with the coin, but it was ex Whetmore based on information provided as his collection notes (which I have) are clear on this and given he had 95 coins in the collection with a known Lingford provenance & ticket it is almost inconceivable he would not have noted yet another one when acquired. It wasn't a coin that had remained in Baldwins basement until he was invited to take his pick of the remaining Lingford pieces in 1995, but found its way back to Baldwins subsequently. To provide a Lingford attribution therefore requires the original ticket to have been lost prior to its return to Baldwins, who had to have forgotten that it was ex-Lingford but still knew it was ex Whetmore and then someone else had to rediscover the provenance independently - it's possible, but seriously questionable unless the person who submitted the coin had proof that Lingford bought it at the Whetmore sale.

Personally I don't like slabbed coins as a few members of this forum who know me from across the pond are well aware, but I also have to recognise they are part of the scene and won't go away. As I am not going to stop the TPG's slabbing, limiting any collateral damage which the ongoing loss of tickets surely is therefore has to be a good thing. I too believe we have a duty to preserve the historical evidence and providing slabbed coin tickets to accompany the slabbed coin would serve this purpose.

SYRACUSIAN

<< <i>Your word alone would not be accepted as proof of pedigree by PCGS.

That was the part that perplexed me, as ICCS coins are sealed in a flip inside another flip, and the inside ICCS flip clearly stated "Pittman Sale" along with the certification number and grade, so I can only assume that PCGS didn't recognize ICCS as a reliable source of pedigree information.

ICCS is the equivalent of PCGS in terms of respectability in the Canadian coin market. I wonder if PCGS has ever considered consulting with ICCS on pedigree crossovers, especially with the increasing number of ICCS-graded coins that are sent to PCGS for crossover grading for the registry? There are a fair number of Pittman-pedigreed coins in ICCS holders out there.... >>




Just speculating here. Was the coin submitted as part of a crossgrade submission, or was it liberated from the ICCS flip, but you sent along the flip anyway, that contained the Pittman sale label? If the latter, PCGS wouldn't have been able to establish that the coin submitted was the same coin that was in the initial ICCS flip. So, it is equivalent to your word alone. If it was indeed part of a crossgrade submission (again I assume), it depends on what year and denomination it was. If for example it was a 1936 small cent, it is well known that Pittman had rolls of these, and PCGS didn't think it was important to mention the pedigree on the holder of an otherwise common coin, even with the above mentioned pedigree.