If a coin dealer has a personal collection (and I assume most of us do) how long do you think a particular piece needs to be in his/her possession to distinguish it as having belonged in that collection and not just inventory?
In exonumia, we often see provenance from Tanenbaum, Bowers, Rossa, Fuld, etc. All prominent dealers that were also rabid collectors in their own right. So where is the line drawn?
It isn't.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Here is an example, a token I purchased from CRO years ago:
As John Agre noted, Steve Tanenbaum basically collected the best of the best and had his pick of virtually every token out there over the years. But he chose this one for his personal set. It wasn't for sale until he passed away.
To me, THAT is the difference. He was a huge dealer of exonumia, but he had his amazing collection built over decades.
And you can basically buy any single one of the pieces that bear his provenance sight unseen, because you know they are the best he could find.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Does a line need to be drawn? No. That is, of course, a figure of speech that some people have taken literally I guess. Part of the discussion. For many, provenance matters very little.
For me? It matters a great deal. It is part of the history of the piece itself.
I guess I just like to know if it was part of a collection or was simply "handled" by a dealer.
Another example:
When Steve Tanenbaum passed, Steve Hayden wound up with the lion's share of his CWTs with the intent of re-selling them. I would never consider those to be part of Hayden's personal collection, assuming he has one.
He is merely a broker.
To some, there is a difference there, and to others it is all the same.
For those interested in provenance a line, would inevitably be drawn.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Looking it up, the definitions of "provenance" I read all relate to ownership of an item, none include anything regarding the reason for owning it. Where is the definition you're using from?
@MasonG
I think you maybe are overthinking this a little. I really don't think you needed to run to the dictionary.
But, since you asked (from Google):
"a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality."
So technically you are right. Everyone owns something they are selling unless it is on consignment. However, I really meant the discussion to go beyond that to see what people thought about dealers who kept a collection of their own going alongside things that were generally for sale. Provenance in respect to their collections, not inventory.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Does a line need to be drawn? No. That is, of course, a figure of speech that some people have taken literally I guess. Part of the discussion. For many, provenance matters very little.
For me? It matters a great deal. It is part of the history of the piece itself.
I guess I just like to know if it was part of a collection or was simply "handled" by a dealer.
Another example:
When Steve Tanenbaum passed, Steve Hayden wound up with the lion's share of his CWTs with the intent of re-selling them. I would never consider those to be part of Hayden's personal collection, assuming he has one.
He is merely a broker.
To some, there is a difference there, and to others it is all the same.
For those interested in provenance a line, would inevitably be drawn.
But it doesn’t seem that the line would be one of time. Rather, it would be one of whether the coin was part of a collection, as opposed to inventory.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DCW said:
I think you maybe are overthinking this a little. I really don't think you needed to run to the dictionary.
You're using the word differently from what I understand its meaning to be. So yes, I did have to check to see if I was missing something.
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Maybe I could have phrased that differently in the OP, because evidently there are some misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
Thanks to all for opinions and contributions.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Does a line need to be drawn? No. That is, of course, a figure of speech that some people have taken literally I guess. Part of the discussion. For many, provenance matters very little.
For me? It matters a great deal. It is part of the history of the piece itself.
I guess I just like to know if it was part of a collection or was simply "handled" by a dealer.
Another example:
When Steve Tanenbaum passed, Steve Hayden wound up with the lion's share of his CWTs with the intent of re-selling them. I would never consider those to be part of Hayden's personal collection, assuming he has one.
He is merely a broker.
To some, there is a difference there, and to others it is all the same.
For those interested in provenance a line, would inevitably be drawn.
But it doesn’t seem that the line would be one of time. Rather, it would be one of whether the coin was part of a collection, as opposed to inventory.
Totally agree with this. Again, maybe "time" held was the wrong choice of words. It is difficult, however, when looking back at a dealer who actively collected and finding another parameter.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Fair enough. A question, then... two scenarios:
1 - Dealer buys coin for inventory, ends up holding it for several years before finding a buyer.
2 - Dealer buys coin for his collection and the very next week, finds a better one and sells the first.
Which (if either) do you think is part of the coin's provenance?
@DCW said:
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Fair enough. A question, then... two scenarios:
1 - Dealer buys coin for inventory, ends up holding it for several years before finding a buyer.
2 - Dealer buys coin for his collection and the very next week, finds a better one and sells the first.
Which (if either) do you think is part of the coin's provenance?
Both, but only the latter was part of the dealer’s collection.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DCW said:
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Fair enough. A question, then... two scenarios:
1 - Dealer buys coin for inventory, ends up holding it for several years before finding a buyer.
2 - Dealer buys coin for his collection and the very next week, finds a better one and sells the first.
Which (if either) do you think is part of the coin's provenance?
Going to say neither. And this is where I guess "time" factored into my original thought process. When something is held for such a short time that it is immediately replaced the next week, then I dont personally consider it part of the collection (though technically it was.) I consider the one he decided to "keep" a part of the collection
Hence the question, "Where do we draw the line?"
Opinions on that will most obviously vary.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Fair enough. A question, then... two scenarios:
1 - Dealer buys coin for inventory, ends up holding it for several years before finding a buyer.
2 - Dealer buys coin for his collection and the very next week, finds a better one and sells the first.
Which (if either) do you think is part of the coin's provenance?
Going to say neither. And this is where I guess "time" factored into my original thought process. When something is held for such a short time that it is immediately replaced the next week, then I dont personally consider it part of the collection (though technically it was.) I consider the one he decided to "keep" a part of the collection
Hence the question, "Where do we draw the line?"
Opinions on that will most obviously vary.
So 1, 3 or 6 months later, the “better one” that replaced the previous one, is replaced by yet another better one. Does that make the second of the three ineligible to be considered part of the collection? Does only the most recent one count?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@DCW said:
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Fair enough. A question, then... two scenarios:
1 - Dealer buys coin for inventory, ends up holding it for several years before finding a buyer.
2 - Dealer buys coin for his collection and the very next week, finds a better one and sells the first.
Which (if either) do you think is part of the coin's provenance?
Going to say neither. And this is where I guess "time" factored into my original thought process. When something is held for such a short time that it is immediately replaced the next week, then I dont personally consider it part of the collection (though technically it was.) I consider the one he decided to "keep" a part of the collection
Hence the question, "Where do we draw the line?"
Opinions on that will most obviously vary.
So 1, 3 or 6 months later, the “better one” that replaced the previous one, is replaced by yet another better one. Does that make the second of the three ineligible to be considered part of the collection? Does only the most recent one count?
It's all subjective, let me go a step further. With someone like John J. Ford, he had multiple examples of very rare pieces of exonumia. In some instances, I think he owned all examples of a variety.
We all know he owned them until he died. They were auctioned with much hoopla. They all carry his provenance, and all were a part of his collection. NOT inventory.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Fair enough. A question, then... two scenarios:
1 - Dealer buys coin for inventory, ends up holding it for several years before finding a buyer.
2 - Dealer buys coin for his collection and the very next week, finds a better one and sells the first.
Which (if either) do you think is part of the coin's provenance?
Going to say neither. And this is where I guess "time" factored into my original thought process. When something is held for such a short time that it is immediately replaced the next week, then I dont personally consider it part of the collection (though technically it was.) I consider the one he decided to "keep" a part of the collection
Hence the question, "Where do we draw the line?"
Opinions on that will most obviously vary.
So 1, 3 or 6 months later, the “better one” that replaced the previous one, is replaced by yet another better one. Does that make the second of the three ineligible to be considered part of the collection? Does only the most recent one count?
People have their own opinions. Naftzger and Hansen are two collectors that upgrade(d) often and there are a lot of coins associated with both that were only owned for a short period of time. Both are correctly associated with the collector's provenance, but at the same time, some discount those provenances in general because of the churn.
So length of ownership matters for collectors to some as well.
Here's a a thread on Naftzger:
@Sunnywood said:
Naftzger owned an awful lot of large cents, including many that were held only for a short time, as he actively traded and bartered them. So a "Naftzger pedigree" sometimes means a coin that he owned only for a month. If you weed those out, and consider the coins that he had for years, then you're onto something ... the ones he held onto are the good ones !!
Holmes and Husak were also great collectors, and all of those pedigrees should be respected !!
R.E. “Ted” Naftzger has been called the "King of United States large cents":
Chris McCawley of McCawley-Grellman, who is cataloging the Naftzger coins said:
This is the finest collection of large cents ever assembled or sold, and they've been off the market for 20-30 years. They are of exceptional quality, and many are the finest-known of their variety, in high grade mint and gem state.
@DCW By the way, I think you have an awesome provenance, even if pieces are eventually sold. And there is a distinction between your collection and Box of 20. Length of time in your Box of 20 doesn't matter to me, just that it's in there or not.
1- Suppose you (in general, not directed at any specific poster) buy a coin for your collection from someone you don't think deserves to be included in the provenance because he didn't own it long enough. Some years later, you decide to sell the coin and the prospective buyer asks about the provenance. Do you tell him about the guy you bought it from?
2- Suppose you buy a coin for your collection from someone you don't think deserves to be included in the provenance because he didn't own it long enough. Surprisingly enough, soon afterwards, the opportunity to buy another example that you never expected to be available presents itself. You buy that coin and proceed to sell the one you recently acquired. If you didn't own it as long as the previous owner, do you think you should be included in the provenance?
1- Suppose you (in general, not directed at any specific poster) buy a coin for your collection from someone you don't think deserves to be included in the provenance because he didn't own it long enough. Some years later, you decide to sell the coin and the prospective buyer asks about the provenance. Do you tell him about the guy you bought it from?
2- Suppose you buy a coin for your collection from someone you don't think deserves to be included in the provenance because he didn't own it long enough. Surprisingly enough, soon afterwards, the opportunity to buy another example that you never expected to be available presents itself. You buy that coin and proceed to sell the one you recently acquired. If you didn't own it as long as the previous owner, do you think you should be included in the provenance?
1) Probably only if I bought it from somebody famous and want to impress the buyer by name dropping.
2) If I don't think the previous owner owned it long enough to deserve mention in the provenance, why would I think I do, having owned it for a shorter time?
@CoinJunkie said:
1) Probably only if I bought it from somebody famous and want to impress the buyer by name dropping.
My question wasn't very clear- sorry. Are you saying if they weren't famous, you'd tell the buyer about all the other owners, but not the one you bought the coin from?
@CoinJunkie said:
2) If I don't think the previous owner owned it long enough to deserve mention in the provenance, why would I think I do, having owned it for a shorter time?
The OP was making a distinction between dealers and collectors. My question was whether the length of ownership mattered for dealers and collectors or just dealers.
@CoinJunkie said:
1) Probably only if I bought it from somebody famous and want to impress the buyer by name dropping.
My question wasn't very clear- sorry. Are you saying if they weren't famous, you'd tell the buyer about all the other owners, but not the one you bought the coin from?
@CoinJunkie said:
2) If I don't think the previous owner owned it long enough to deserve mention in the provenance, why would I think I do, having owned it for a shorter time?
The OP was making a distinction between dealers and collectors. My question was whether the length of ownership mattered for dealers and collectors or just dealers.
1) If the person who sold me the coin didn't own it for long and wasn't a noteworthy collector, why would I mention him/her to the buyer unless specifically asked?
2) I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
A dealer who keeps a coin in his personal collection is a collector for the purposes of this discussion. At least the way I see it.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
Dealers may be mentioned (somewhere, such as an auction listing), but they don't typically appear on the slab label. I guess I should have made a distinction between the full provenance and the shorthand one.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
A dealer who keeps a coin in his personal collection is a collector for the purposes of this discussion. At least the way I see it.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
Dealers may be mentioned (somewhere, such as an auction listing), but they don't typically appear on the slab label. I guess I should have made a distinction between the full provenance and the shorthand one.
Slab labels are so short that many collectors also don't appear and things are changing so it's common just to have 1 name now. For example, the 1794 SP66 plugged dollar used to say Neil/Carter/Contursi but now just has the current name.
The better coins in inventory one will mark up higher like 100 pct vs 50 pct. Everything is for sale but if they want the best they gonna hafta pay the money. Tire kicker free zone lol.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
A dealer who keeps a coin in his personal collection is a collector for the purposes of this discussion. At least the way I see it.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Neither is a collector by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of their coins are offered for sale (at non-insane prices) shortly after they are acquired.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
Dealers may be mentioned (somewhere, such as an auction listing), but they don't typically appear on the slab label. I guess I should have made a distinction between the full provenance and the shorthand one.
Slab labels are so short that many collectors also don't appear and things are changing so it's common just to have 1 name now. For example, the 1794 SP66 plugged dollar used to say Neil/Carter/Contursi but now just has the current name.
My original comment was that dealers are almost never mentioned in the provenance unless it's in the context of providing an exhaustive history of a famous coin. The fact that some collectors may also not be mentioned doesn't change my assertion.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
A dealer who keeps a coin in his personal collection is a collector for the purposes of this discussion. At least the way I see it.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Neither is a collector by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of their coins are offered for sale (at non-insane prices) shortly after they are acquired.
Thanks for your answer. I can understand this point of view.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
Dealers may be mentioned (somewhere, such as an auction listing), but they don't typically appear on the slab label. I guess I should have made a distinction between the full provenance and the shorthand one.
Slab labels are so short that many collectors also don't appear and things are changing so it's common just to have 1 name now. For example, the 1794 SP66 plugged dollar used to say Neil/Carter/Contursi but now just has the current name.
My original comment was that dealers are almost never mentioned in the provenance unless it's in the context of providing an exhaustive history of a famous coin. The fact that some collectors may also not be mentioned doesn't change my assertion.
Going back to the statement I was responding to, my comment is that no provenance chain other than the current owner now belongs on the label, so no collector or dealer. While having no provenance on the label certainly covers no dealers, I think having no other collectors is a pretty big change.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
A dealer who keeps a coin in his personal collection is a collector for the purposes of this discussion. At least the way I see it.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Neither is a collector by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of their coins are offered for sale (at non-insane prices) shortly after they are acquired.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
Dealers may be mentioned (somewhere, such as an auction listing), but they don't typically appear on the slab label. I guess I should have made a distinction between the full provenance and the shorthand one.
Slab labels are so short that many collectors also don't appear and things are changing so it's common just to have 1 name now. For example, the 1794 SP66 plugged dollar used to say Neil/Carter/Contursi but now just has the current name.
My original comment was that dealers are almost never mentioned in the provenance unless it's in the context of providing an exhaustive history of a famous coin. The fact that some collectors may also not be mentioned doesn't change my assertion.
But you did clarify your answer to be regarding the "shorthand provenance" on the slab. Given that slabs are moving to single names, I don't think they can really be relied on for provenance chains any more.
That was probably a bad example on my part. Exactly who should be mentioned in a coin's provenance is clearly based on the context and who is doing the mentioning, but dealers who've handled the coin are probably near the bottom of the list in terms of priority in all cases.
@CoinJunkie said:
I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
A dealer who keeps a coin in his personal collection is a collector for the purposes of this discussion. At least the way I see it.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Neither is a collector by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of their coins are offered for sale (at non-insane prices) shortly after they are acquired.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
Dealers may be mentioned (somewhere, such as an auction listing), but they don't typically appear on the slab label. I guess I should have made a distinction between the full provenance and the shorthand one.
Slab labels are so short that many collectors also don't appear and things are changing so it's common just to have 1 name now. For example, the 1794 SP66 plugged dollar used to say Neil/Carter/Contursi but now just has the current name.
My original comment was that dealers are almost never mentioned in the provenance unless it's in the context of providing an exhaustive history of a famous coin. The fact that some collectors may also not be mentioned doesn't change my assertion.
But you did clarify your answer to be regarding the "shorthand provenance" on the slab. Given that slabs are moving to single names, I don't think they can really be relied on for provenance chains any more.
That was probably a bad example on my part. Exactly who should be mentioned in a coin's provenance is clearly based on the context and who is doing the mentioning, but dealers who've handled the coin are probably near the bottom of the list in terms of priority in all cases.
Thanks. I agree with this.
Dealers may not be happy about this, but provenance is generally about the collections a coin has been in. They generally only show up after all collectors are added, and often only for very prominent coins.
@DCW said:
Here is an example, a token I purchased from CRO years ago:
As John Agre noted, Steve Tanenbaum basically collected the best of the best and had his pick of virtually every token out there over the years. But he chose this one for his personal set. It wasn't for sale until he passed away.
To me, THAT is the difference. He was a huge dealer of exonumia, but he had his amazing collection built over decades.
And you can basically buy any single one of the pieces that bear his provenance sight unseen, because you know they are the best he could find.
An issue I see with the Tanenbaum provenance is that there doesn't seem to be good references for what was part of his collection.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Neither is a collector by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of their coins are offered for sale
Nice, I guess I am not a collector even tho I absolutely love the coins that I own
Provenance does not just exist for the purposes of fame. It's important to establish a chain of custody to help verify authenticity and sometimes to maintain the accuracy of census reports. From that perspective, any ownership information is useful.
I can't think of a length of time that's key. It's more important that the coin wasn't for sale the entire time.
Strange thread. I’m not sure what time has to do with it. If a dealer has a coin I want to buy, and he is a willing seller, it’s a part of inventory. If a dealer has a coin I want to buy and he will not part with it (at least not at a reasonable price), it’s part of his collection.
The situation is probably fluid, as tastes, cash positions, desires, and knowledge are continuously changing. The distinction probably only exists in the mind of the dealer, and I imagine coins can move back and forth from inventory to collection and back to inventory on a whim.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Neither is a collector by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of their coins are offered for sale
Nice, I guess I am not a collector even tho I absolutely love the coins that I own
That wasn’t my quote, so I don’t know why you included my name.
Sure, you can be a collector, love the coins you own and still have them for sale. No one said otherwise. However, if you consider 95% of your inventory to be your “collection”, it’s understandable that many people will consider the coins to be inventory, rather than a collection.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
Sorry trying to edit a huge quote sometimes things come out weird. I know it was not your quote.
Why can a coin dealer NOT openly collect in their inventory?
Yes, sometimes, they do.
A dealer CAN do that. But as I stated previously, some will consider such coins to be inventory, as opposed to a collection. Surely, you can understand that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Sunnywood said:
Naftzger owned an awful lot of large cents, including many that were held only for a short time, as he actively traded and bartered them. So a "Naftzger pedigree" sometimes means a coin that he owned only for a month. If you weed those out, and consider the coins that he had for years, then you're onto something ... the ones he held onto are the good ones !!
.
.
.
I read some but not all of the replies @DCW and I don’t mean to over simplify what you are asking but this quote by Sunnywood sums it up for me. Especially since I am into tokens more than anything else the last 8 years or so. I try to research each and every purchase but I feel it is extremely difficult with tokens since most coin dealers will purchase tokens randomly and keep it in his own collection for years
till he tires of it or receives an offer from a collector that follows the token.
.
I’m probably not the only collector that keeps tabs on certain better grade and rarities. I know several
on the forum here.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
Sorry trying to edit a huge quote sometimes things come out weird. I know it was not your quote.
Why can a coin dealer NOT openly collect in their inventory?
Yes, sometimes, they do.
A dealer CAN do that. But as I stated previously, some will consider such coins to be inventory, as opposed to a collection. Surely, you can understand that.
Agree.
One can consider their collection to be part of their inventory, but others may view it differently.
In the same vein, one can consider short term collector holdings as part of their provenance, but others may consider them less important.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
Sorry trying to edit a huge quote sometimes things come out weird. I know it was not your quote.
Why can a coin dealer NOT openly collect in their inventory?
Yes, sometimes, they do.
A dealer CAN do that. But as I stated previously, some will consider such coins to be inventory, as opposed to a collection. Surely, you can understand that.
Agree.
One can consider their collection to be part of their inventory, but others may view it differently.
In the same vein, collectors can consider short term holdings as part of their provenance, but others may consider them lss important.
There's no universal view.
It should be up to the dealer's thinking.
Some dealers buy huge lots of widgets to flip. Some buy nice coins for resale. And some, hand pick (almost) every single coin. Ask the dealer.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
Sorry trying to edit a huge quote sometimes things come out weird. I know it was not your quote.
Why can a coin dealer NOT openly collect in their inventory?
Yes, sometimes, they do.
A dealer CAN do that. But as I stated previously, some will consider such coins to be inventory, as opposed to a collection. Surely, you can understand that.
Agree.
One can consider their collection to be part of their inventory, but others may view it differently.
In the same vein, one can consider short term collector holdings as part of their provenance, but others may consider them less important.
There's appears to be no universal view.
Provenance is provenance, regardless of how important or unimportant someone considers it to be.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
This is my thread, dude. We are actually discussing a topic of a thread that I generated. You can participate or go have a bad day elsewhere.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
.> @DCW said:
It isn't.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Here is an example, a token I purchased from CRO years ago:
As John Agre noted, Steve Tanenbaum basically collected the best of the best and had his pick of virtually every token out there over the years. But he chose this one for his personal set. It wasn't for sale until he passed away.
To me, THAT is the difference. He was a huge dealer of exonumia, but he had his amazing collection built over decades.
And you can basically buy any single one of the pieces that bear his provenance sight unseen, because you know they are the best he could find.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Why does a line need to be drawn?
Does a line need to be drawn? No. That is, of course, a figure of speech that some people have taken literally I guess. Part of the discussion. For many, provenance matters very little.
For me? It matters a great deal. It is part of the history of the piece itself.
I guess I just like to know if it was part of a collection or was simply "handled" by a dealer.
Another example:
When Steve Tanenbaum passed, Steve Hayden wound up with the lion's share of his CWTs with the intent of re-selling them. I would never consider those to be part of Hayden's personal collection, assuming he has one.
He is merely a broker.
To some, there is a difference there, and to others it is all the same.
For those interested in provenance a line, would inevitably be drawn.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Looking it up, the definitions of "provenance" I read all relate to ownership of an item, none include anything regarding the reason for owning it. Where is the definition you're using from?
@MasonG
I think you maybe are overthinking this a little. I really don't think you needed to run to the dictionary.
But, since you asked (from Google):
"a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality."
So technically you are right. Everyone owns something they are selling unless it is on consignment. However, I really meant the discussion to go beyond that to see what people thought about dealers who kept a collection of their own going alongside things that were generally for sale.
Provenance in respect to their collections, not inventory.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
You're using the word differently from what I understand its meaning to be. So yes, I did have to check to see if I was missing something.
But it doesn’t seem that the line would be one of time. Rather, it would be one of whether the coin was part of a collection, as opposed to inventory.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's ok. This is not a pissing match or vocabulary lesson. Usually people fight over Provenance vs. Pedigree
My point?
"Owning" something for your personal collection and "owning" something to sell in one's inventory are different. To me at least.
Maybe I could have phrased that differently in the OP, because evidently there are some misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
Thanks to all for opinions and contributions.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Totally agree with this. Again, maybe "time" held was the wrong choice of words. It is difficult, however, when looking back at a dealer who actively collected and finding another parameter.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Fair enough. A question, then... two scenarios:
1 - Dealer buys coin for inventory, ends up holding it for several years before finding a buyer.
2 - Dealer buys coin for his collection and the very next week, finds a better one and sells the first.
Which (if either) do you think is part of the coin's provenance?
Both, but only the latter was part of the dealer’s collection.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Going to say neither. And this is where I guess "time" factored into my original thought process. When something is held for such a short time that it is immediately replaced the next week, then I dont personally consider it part of the collection (though technically it was.) I consider the one he decided to "keep" a part of the collection
Hence the question, "Where do we draw the line?"
Opinions on that will most obviously vary.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
So 1, 3 or 6 months later, the “better one” that replaced the previous one, is replaced by yet another better one. Does that make the second of the three ineligible to be considered part of the collection? Does only the most recent one count?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's all subjective, let me go a step further. With someone like John J. Ford, he had multiple examples of very rare pieces of exonumia. In some instances, I think he owned all examples of a variety.
We all know he owned them until he died. They were auctioned with much hoopla. They all carry his provenance, and all were a part of his collection. NOT inventory.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
People have their own opinions. Naftzger and Hansen are two collectors that upgrade(d) often and there are a lot of coins associated with both that were only owned for a short period of time. Both are correctly associated with the collector's provenance, but at the same time, some discount those provenances in general because of the churn.
So length of ownership matters for collectors to some as well.
Here's a a thread on Naftzger:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/922256/holmes-vs-husak-vs-naftzger
R.E. “Ted” Naftzger has been called the "King of United States large cents":
https://coinweek.com/us-coins/early-american-coppers/the-ted-naftzger-collection-of-united-states-large-cents-to-be-sold/
@DCW By the way, I think you have an awesome provenance, even if pieces are eventually sold. And there is a distinction between your collection and Box of 20. Length of time in your Box of 20 doesn't matter to me, just that it's in there or not.
When its pulled from inventory and shown as "withdrawn for personal use"
Ok- more hypotheticals...
1- Suppose you (in general, not directed at any specific poster) buy a coin for your collection from someone you don't think deserves to be included in the provenance because he didn't own it long enough. Some years later, you decide to sell the coin and the prospective buyer asks about the provenance. Do you tell him about the guy you bought it from?
2- Suppose you buy a coin for your collection from someone you don't think deserves to be included in the provenance because he didn't own it long enough. Surprisingly enough, soon afterwards, the opportunity to buy another example that you never expected to be available presents itself. You buy that coin and proceed to sell the one you recently acquired. If you didn't own it as long as the previous owner, do you think you should be included in the provenance?
1) Probably only if I bought it from somebody famous and want to impress the buyer by name dropping.
2) If I don't think the previous owner owned it long enough to deserve mention in the provenance, why would I think I do, having owned it for a shorter time?
My question wasn't very clear- sorry. Are you saying if they weren't famous, you'd tell the buyer about all the other owners, but not the one you bought the coin from?
The OP was making a distinction between dealers and collectors. My question was whether the length of ownership mattered for dealers and collectors or just dealers.
1) If the person who sold me the coin didn't own it for long and wasn't a noteworthy collector, why would I mention him/her to the buyer unless specifically asked?
2) I guess I'm confused at this point. In general, dealers don't belong in the provenance of a coin, IMHO. If a famous dealer handled the coin at some point, that might be interesting to note, but probably not something that belongs on the label.
There are two things here.
One is that some dealers also collect so should a dealer's personal collection be treated the same way as a collector from a provenance perspective.
Not mentioned here, but for very noteworthy coins like 1804 dollars and 1913 Barber nickels, almost everyone involved is mentioned in the provenance, which can be huge.
A dealer who keeps a coin in his personal collection is a collector for the purposes of this discussion. At least the way I see it.
Dealers may be mentioned (somewhere, such as an auction listing), but they don't typically appear on the slab label. I guess I should have made a distinction between the full provenance and the shorthand one.
But what about @ErrorsOnCoins and @jmlanzaf's approaches? @ErrorsOnCoins considers 95% of his inventory to be his collection, and @jmlanzaf has his collection for sale, albeit at high prices.
Slab labels are so short that many collectors also don't appear and things are changing so it's common just to have 1 name now. For example, the 1794 SP66 plugged dollar used to say Neil/Carter/Contursi but now just has the current name.
The better coins in inventory one will mark up higher like 100 pct vs 50 pct. Everything is for sale but if they want the best they gonna hafta pay the money. Tire kicker free zone lol.
Neither is a collector by any reasonable definition. Virtually all of their coins are offered for sale (at non-insane prices) shortly after they are acquired.
My original comment was that dealers are almost never mentioned in the provenance unless it's in the context of providing an exhaustive history of a famous coin. The fact that some collectors may also not be mentioned doesn't change my assertion.
Thanks for your answer. I can understand this point of view.
Going back to the statement I was responding to, my comment is that no provenance chain other than the current owner now belongs on the label, so no collector or dealer. While having no provenance on the label certainly covers no dealers, I think having no other collectors is a pretty big change.
That was probably a bad example on my part. Exactly who should be mentioned in a coin's provenance is clearly based on the context and who is doing the mentioning, but dealers who've handled the coin are probably near the bottom of the list in terms of priority in all cases.
Thanks. I agree with this.
Dealers may not be happy about this, but provenance is generally about the collections a coin has been in. They generally only show up after all collectors are added, and often only for very prominent coins.
An issue I see with the Tanenbaum provenance is that there doesn't seem to be good references for what was part of his collection.
Thread is getting hijacked with provenance and labeling.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Nice, I guess I am not a collector even tho I absolutely love the coins that I own
How can it be hijacking if it’s done by the OP to clarify his thread goals?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Provenance does not just exist for the purposes of fame. It's important to establish a chain of custody to help verify authenticity and sometimes to maintain the accuracy of census reports. From that perspective, any ownership information is useful.
I can't think of a length of time that's key. It's more important that the coin wasn't for sale the entire time.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Strange thread. I’m not sure what time has to do with it. If a dealer has a coin I want to buy, and he is a willing seller, it’s a part of inventory. If a dealer has a coin I want to buy and he will not part with it (at least not at a reasonable price), it’s part of his collection.
The situation is probably fluid, as tastes, cash positions, desires, and knowledge are continuously changing. The distinction probably only exists in the mind of the dealer, and I imagine coins can move back and forth from inventory to collection and back to inventory on a whim.
That wasn’t my quote, so I don’t know why you included my name.
Sure, you can be a collector, love the coins you own and still have them for sale. No one said otherwise. However, if you consider 95% of your inventory to be your “collection”, it’s understandable that many people will consider the coins to be inventory, rather than a collection.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sorry trying to edit a huge quote sometimes things come out weird. I know it was not your quote.
Why can a coin dealer NOT openly collect in their inventory?
Yes, sometimes, they do.
A dealer CAN do that. But as I stated previously, some will consider such coins to be inventory, as opposed to a collection. Surely, you can understand that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
.
.
I read some but not all of the replies @DCW and I don’t mean to over simplify what you are asking but this quote by Sunnywood sums it up for me. Especially since I am into tokens more than anything else the last 8 years or so. I try to research each and every purchase but I feel it is extremely difficult with tokens since most coin dealers will purchase tokens randomly and keep it in his own collection for years
till he tires of it or receives an offer from a collector that follows the token.
.
I’m probably not the only collector that keeps tabs on certain better grade and rarities. I know several
on the forum here.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
Agree.
One can consider their collection to be part of their inventory, but others may view it differently.
In the same vein, one can consider short term collector holdings as part of their provenance, but others may consider them less important.
There's appears to be no universal view.
It should be up to the dealer's thinking.
Some dealers buy huge lots of widgets to flip. Some buy nice coins for resale. And some, hand pick (almost) every single coin. Ask the dealer.
Provenance is provenance, regardless of how important or unimportant someone considers it to be.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Careful. keeets is known to shut down and close threads.
He can also leap tall buildings in a single bound!😆
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
If it's not for sale, then I consider it to be a part of said dealer's COLLECTION.
There's a guy I see at local (and major) shows like that.
They are beautiful, high-grade TONERS.
He displays them with a sign that says 'NOT FOR SALE'.
They are sooo gorgeous that I look at them EVERY time he sets up!!
They are a lot of Seated and Barber coinage.....
He's great to talk to. I shared images, of my Registry set, with him on my tablet. We had a great conversation!!
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Odd use of precious space, unless of course, they are for sale
I never tried to make him an offer......Maybe, if the price was right, he'd consider?
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/