@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.
Do collectors ever agree on anything
I love your coins and like your collection being 95% of your inventory approach, which I think is a fun way to look at it, but I can also see the point raised by others.
Subjective opinion can be hard to rely on if one values consistency. For example, Mike Byers, Laura Sperber, John Agre, Doug Winter, Mark Feid and others all have / had great inventories. Should they all be considered part of the dealer's collection? For consistency, if one considers nice inventories to be the dealer's collection, it seems that their inventories should be considered part of their collections, regardless of what they call it.
@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.
Well, this is interesting.
There seems to be some debate on whether dealers belong on provenance chains. For me, the more information the better, but it is important to note whether it was in a collector's or dealer's holdings, or even in a consortium's holdings.
And some collectors go out of their way to not have their name associated with certain pieces. For example, if one needs to buy a 50 coin collection to get 1 coin, some don't want their name associated with the other 49 coins even though they owned them, and there are other collectors that want their name associated with all 50 even if 49 of the coins are immediately put up for sale.
I never understood why it mattered who owned the coin before. Art doesn’t seem to follow that logic. Actually, is there any other collectible where the precious owner brings a premium?
Every coin I have in inventory is in my collection until sold
@jessewvu said:
I never understood why it mattered who owned the coin before. Art doesn’t seem to follow that logic. Actually, is there any other collectible where the precious owner brings a premium?
Every coin I have in inventory is in my collection until sold
In the art world, provenance can be extremely important in helping to determine authenticity. And a piece with an impeccable provenance can sell for multiples of one without it. Provenance can also be important to many dealers and collectors in other collectible fields with which I’m familiar.
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.
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.
Do collectors ever agree on anything
I love your coins and like your collection being 95% of your inventory approach, which I think is a fun way to look at it, but I can also see the point raised by others.
Subjective opinion can be hard to rely on if one values consistency. For example, Mike Byers, Laura Sperber, John Agre, Doug Winter, Mark Feid and others all have / had great inventories. Should they all be considered part of the dealer's collection? For consistency, if one considers nice inventories to be the dealer's collection, it seems that their inventories should be considered part of their collections, regardless of what they call it.
@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.
Do collectors ever agree on anything
I love your coins and like your collection being 95% of your inventory approach, which I think is a fun way to look at it, but I can also see the point raised by others.
Subjective opinion can be hard to rely on if one values consistency. For example, Mike Byers, Laura Sperber, John Agre, Doug Winter, Mark Feid and others all have / had great inventories. Should they all be considered part of the dealer's collection? For consistency, if one considers nice inventories to be the dealer's collection, it seems that their inventories should be considered part of their collections, regardless of what they call it.
This one is in Mike's Inventory
Mike does have a personal collection that he sells from, but I wonder what percentage of his inventory it covers.
I do like that he has his provenance on his collection slabs and think it would be great for @ErrorsOnCoins too
THE BYERS COLLECTION
NGC began certifying a few major mint errors from Mike Byers' personal collection. These spectacular and rare coins each have "BYERS COLLECTION" designated on the NGC insert.
Perhaps @Byers can comment on what goes into his personal collection?
Zoins, I actually spoke (via email) with Mike many times yesterday as he asked me to write an article for his publication, Mint Error News. Yesterday I submitted a 10-page error coin article with 37 photos. Look for it in the upcoming issue
As some others have said, some people want their coins to have links to dealers with good eyes and feel better if they hear it was "part of that dealer's personal collection" but some don't care.
I'm in the "I don't care if a dealer said he had it is his/her personal collection or not". I look at the coin and I look at the price. If both are suitable to me, then I want it. I actually purchased a coin that had a certain dealer's "provenance" listed on it. The pics weren't that good, and I took a chance. I should have returned it.
The only redeeming factor was that it was early on for me, it wasn't a huge amount of money, and it quickly made me understand that some dealer's have great eyes for great coins but there is usually $$$$ involved somewhere, to their benefit, so don't just trade on their name, which they may be doing.
As for provenance I would like, it would have to be document provenance of ownership by historical figures. For instance, I have an everyman's collection of 1/2 cents. The "everyman's" part means they are considered circulated. Being circulated, I do wonder if my 1793 was ever handled by one of our founding fathers??? No way to tell, but, if there were....if a 1793 half cent were able to be traced to a Ben Franklin, or George Washington, etc.....then, THAT would be cool!!!!!
A dealer provenance though? Or even an admired collector's provenance? Nope. Not for me to pay anything "extra" to get one of those. And, I know people do. More power to them. I will still go by the coin itself.
My interest in provenance is pretty coin-centric. To the extent possible, I enjoy being able to follow the journey of the coin, from where it started to where it is today. In that context, the amount of time the dealer (or other owner) has held the coin is more important to me than whether it was considered inventory or part of a collection.
Say the dealer held the coin for 50 years. That covers a major chunk of the history of the coin, whether the coin was in inventory or a collection - either way, I would want to know about it. Knowing that link in the chain tells me much more about the history of the coin than knowing about dealer #2 that held it for only 2 weeks (unless something particularly important happened within those 2 weeks). Similarly, having the name of the relative unknown who owned the coin for 50 years tells me more than the big name who owned it for 2 weeks (although ideally, I'd like to have both).
The history of the coin may also point to key names I would want to have, regardless of the length of ownership. Say it is a major coin that was lost and then rediscovered. Who was the last person to own the coin before it was lost? Who was the first person to find it again? Who owned it in the interim not knowing what it was?
Comments
It is actually a brilliant way to market the set.
Do collectors ever agree on anything
I love your coins and like your collection being 95% of your inventory approach, which I think is a fun way to look at it, but I can also see the point raised by others.
Subjective opinion can be hard to rely on if one values consistency. For example, Mike Byers, Laura Sperber, John Agre, Doug Winter, Mark Feid and others all have / had great inventories. Should they all be considered part of the dealer's collection? For consistency, if one considers nice inventories to be the dealer's collection, it seems that their inventories should be considered part of their collections, regardless of what they call it.
Well, this is interesting.
There seems to be some debate on whether dealers belong on provenance chains. For me, the more information the better, but it is important to note whether it was in a collector's or dealer's holdings, or even in a consortium's holdings.
And some collectors go out of their way to not have their name associated with certain pieces. For example, if one needs to buy a 50 coin collection to get 1 coin, some don't want their name associated with the other 49 coins even though they owned them, and there are other collectors that want their name associated with all 50 even if 49 of the coins are immediately put up for sale.
I never understood why it mattered who owned the coin before. Art doesn’t seem to follow that logic. Actually, is there any other collectible where the precious owner brings a premium?
Every coin I have in inventory is in my collection until sold
In the art world, provenance can be extremely important in helping to determine authenticity. And a piece with an impeccable provenance can sell for multiples of one without it. Provenance can also be important to many dealers and collectors in other collectible fields with which I’m familiar.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This one is in Mike's Inventory
Mike does have a personal collection that he sells from, but I wonder what percentage of his inventory it covers.
I do like that he has his provenance on his collection slabs and think it would be great for @ErrorsOnCoins too
Perhaps @Byers can comment on what goes into his personal collection?
https://mikebyers.com/
Zoins, I actually spoke (via email) with Mike many times yesterday as he asked me to write an article for his publication, Mint Error News. Yesterday I submitted a 10-page error coin article with 37 photos. Look for it in the upcoming issue
As some others have said, some people want their coins to have links to dealers with good eyes and feel better if they hear it was "part of that dealer's personal collection" but some don't care.
I'm in the "I don't care if a dealer said he had it is his/her personal collection or not". I look at the coin and I look at the price. If both are suitable to me, then I want it. I actually purchased a coin that had a certain dealer's "provenance" listed on it. The pics weren't that good, and I took a chance. I should have returned it.
The only redeeming factor was that it was early on for me, it wasn't a huge amount of money, and it quickly made me understand that some dealer's have great eyes for great coins but there is usually $$$$ involved somewhere, to their benefit, so don't just trade on their name, which they may be doing.
As for provenance I would like, it would have to be document provenance of ownership by historical figures. For instance, I have an everyman's collection of 1/2 cents. The "everyman's" part means they are considered circulated. Being circulated, I do wonder if my 1793 was ever handled by one of our founding fathers??? No way to tell, but, if there were....if a 1793 half cent were able to be traced to a Ben Franklin, or George Washington, etc.....then, THAT would be cool!!!!!
A dealer provenance though? Or even an admired collector's provenance? Nope. Not for me to pay anything "extra" to get one of those. And, I know people do. More power to them. I will still go by the coin itself.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
My interest in provenance is pretty coin-centric. To the extent possible, I enjoy being able to follow the journey of the coin, from where it started to where it is today. In that context, the amount of time the dealer (or other owner) has held the coin is more important to me than whether it was considered inventory or part of a collection.
Say the dealer held the coin for 50 years. That covers a major chunk of the history of the coin, whether the coin was in inventory or a collection - either way, I would want to know about it. Knowing that link in the chain tells me much more about the history of the coin than knowing about dealer #2 that held it for only 2 weeks (unless something particularly important happened within those 2 weeks). Similarly, having the name of the relative unknown who owned the coin for 50 years tells me more than the big name who owned it for 2 weeks (although ideally, I'd like to have both).
The history of the coin may also point to key names I would want to have, regardless of the length of ownership. Say it is a major coin that was lost and then rediscovered. Who was the last person to own the coin before it was lost? Who was the first person to find it again? Who owned it in the interim not knowing what it was?