Wearing my lawyer hat causes me to ponder about the discussion that took place at our host when it was asked to grade this 1933 DE.
Since it appears the coin was assigned a grade but was not placed into a holder, I wonder whether or not this coin is covered by the PCGS grade guaranty.
If it is covered by the grade guaranty and a year from now the coin turns bad, how would the grade guaranty come into play and operate.
All of the above and more were the likely topics of discussion.
@SanctionII said:
Wearing my lawyer hat causes me to ponder about the discussion that took place at our host when it was asked to grade this 1933 DE.
Since it appears the coin was assigned a grade but was not placed into a holder, I wonder whether or not this coin is covered by the PCGS grade guaranty.
If it is covered by the grade guaranty and a year from now the coin turns bad, how would the grade guaranty come into play and operate.
All of the above and more were the likely topic of discussion.
It’s hard to imagine that the coin could turn bad on its own. And harder, still, to imagine that it would fall under the grade guarantee, absent conditions that would make such a guarantee basically worthless. Why would PCGS subject itself to such downside?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I simply imagine what the topics of discussion were at our host when a request to grade the coin was made. I would think the grade guaranty would be a topic of discussion.
I simply imagine what the topics of discussion was at our host when a request to grade the coin was made. I would think the grade guaranty was a topic of discussion.
If you feel like going through the exercise, if retained to do so, how would you advise them on that subject?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I am generally familiar with guarantees, mostly in the context of personal guarantees of loans.
If I was part of a discussion about a grade guaranty of this coin, I would want to:
first, read the paperwork on the PCGS grade guaranty,
second, review prior instances where a claim was made under a grade guaranty to see how they are reviewed and resolved,
third, determine possible future scenarios that involve the 1933 DE that could give rise to a claim being made under the grade guaranty, including the how one would determine the dollar amount of the loss PCGS would incur by honoring the guaranty,
fourth, discuss with PCGS the benefits it would obtain by grading the 1933 DE and compare those benefits with the possible detriments it would face by taking on the grading guaranty, and
fifth, after #1-4 above wait for PCGS make whatever business decision it wants to make in response to the request to grade the coin.
I am generally familiar with guarantees, mostly in the context of personal guarantees of loans.
If I was part of a discussion about a grade guaranty of this coin, I would want to:
first, read the paperwork on the PCGS grade guaranty,
second, review prior instances where a claim was made under a grade guaranty to see how they are reviewed and resolved,
third, determine possible future scenarios that involve the 1933 DE that could give rise to a claim being made under the grade guaranty, including the how one would determine the dollar amount of the loss PCGS would incur by honoring the guaranty,
fourth, discuss with PCGS the benefits it would obtain by grading the 1933 DE and compare those benefits with the possible detriments it would face by taking on the grading guaranty, and
fifth, after #1-4 above wait for PCGS make whatever business decision it wants to make in response to the request to grade the coin.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I am generally familiar with guarantees, mostly in the context of personal guarantees of loans.
If I was part of a discussion about a grade guaranty of this coin, I would want to:
first, read the paperwork on the PCGS grade guaranty,
second, review prior instances where a claim was made under a grade guaranty to see how they are reviewed and resolved,
third, determine possible future scenarios that involve the 1933 DE that could give rise to a claim being made under the grade guaranty, including the how one would determine the dollar amount of the loss PCGS would incur by honoring the guaranty,
fourth, discuss with PCGS the benefits it would obtain by grading the 1933 DE and compare those benefits with the possible detriments it would face by taking on the grading guaranty, and
fifth, after #1-4 above wait for PCGS make whatever business decision it wants to make in response to the request to grade the coin.
The grading guarantee has such a large loophole that you could drive a dump truck through it. PCGS decides whether a mistake was made. PCGS decides the value of the coin. The coin could turn “bad”, but given its unique legal status, still be worth just as much as a cull at basal value making any putative liability de minimis. And if the coin isn’t in the holder, there is always the environmental damage card that could be played to deny a claim. In short, there is no real liability to PCGS nor do I see any real advantage to the guarantee. It’s all marketing by both by the auction house and the grading service.
Fenton owned the coin for at least six years from 1995 until it was auctioned in 2001 when he received half of the sale proceeds.
There should probably be at least one or more other names recognized on the coin's pedigree. For the 45 years after the Farouk auction someone(s) or some governmental entity had possession of it.
(And for completeness, if one accepts the U.S. Government's contentions as to the ownership chain, McCann and Switt should be the first named along with perhaps the Texas dealer who saw it leave the country, assuming he had ownership.)
@1northcoin said:
Fenton owned the coin for at least six years from 1995 until it was auctioned in 2001 when he received half of the sale proceeds.
There should probably be at least one or more other names recognized on the coin's pedigree. For the 45 years after the Farouk auction someone(s) or some governmental entity had possession of it.
(And for completeness, if one accepts the U.S. Government's contentions as to the ownership chain, McCann and Switt should be the first named along with perhaps the Texas dealer who saw it leave the country, assuming he had ownership.)
How could it be shown that McCann ever owned it? That was a rhetorical question.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1northcoin said:
Fenton owned the coin for at least six years from 1995 until it was auctioned in 2001 when he received half of the sale proceeds.
There should probably be at least one or more other names recognized on the coin's pedigree. For the 45 years after the Farouk auction someone(s) or some governmental entity had possession of it.
(And for completeness, if one accepts the U.S. Government's contentions as to the ownership chain, McCann and Switt should be the first named along with perhaps the Texas dealer who saw it leave the country, assuming he had ownership.)
How could it be shown that McCann ever owned it? That was a rhetorical question.😉
If there were to be an answer to the rhetorical question, it might start out with, "Possession is nine tenths of the law."
There has been some suggestion that the Farouk ownership of the Fenton coin is itself subject to question. I assume that is a consequence of not knowing for certain where the Farouk coin was for the 45 years after the Farouk auction. Anyone have added insights?
@1northcoin said:
There has been some suggestion that the Farouk ownership of the Fenton coin is itself subject to question. I assume that is a consequence of not knowing for certain where the Farouk coin was for the 45 years after the Farouk auction. Anyone have added insights?
I posted the below in another thread in response to a similar question:
I might have read a more detailed and convincing article at one time, but if so, can’t locate it. However, the one containing John Dannreuther‘s comments, linked at the bottom of this post, contains a bit of information regarding the background of the Farouk example being discussed. I’d been skeptical before reading it, but no longer am. Here’s the relevant portion:
“Also, John Kraljevich and I became totally convinced in Steve's London shop that the coin sold at the 2002 auction was the Farouk coin. Steve showed us other coins that came with the 1933 and they were from the Farouk sale. We both left his shop totally convinced that the 1933 double eagle was the Farouk coin.
The story Fenton was told by the seller (a Cairo jeweler) was that an Egyptian Colonel had obtained them in the Farouk sale. Another story the author heard (not in the Tripp book) was that Farouk's physician was given these coins in payment for his services, as the new government would not pay him. Neither of these may be accurate, but the coins sold to Fenton all matched the 1954 catalog, including at least one unique pattern that could have come from no other source! Several other patterns were plated in the catalog and the coins bought matched the photographs.”
Love that the provenance is "Farouk-Weitzman" which is how I've been referring to this.
Should also have Fenton.
Just to add to the point. Per the reporting, Fenton was an owner of the coin, not merely a dealer through whose hands it passed.
"After the Farouk auction, the coin is believed to have remained in Egypt until it was purchased by London coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1995."
Was Fenton a collector and, if so, was it part of his collection?
My understanding is that it was always part of his inventory while he was working out how to sell it.
It’s not uncommon for coins to be in a dealer’s inventory for years.
While I agree with that, regardless of how few (or many) people care, dealers are still part of a coin’s provenance.
They are, and I’m all for including them, going as far as putting a “(d)” note for dealers on my provenance lists, but I don’t see PCGS add dealers on cert verification (what this discussion is about) or slab inserts.
Love that the provenance is "Farouk-Weitzman" which is how I've been referring to this.
Should also have Fenton.
Just to add to the point. Per the reporting, Fenton was an owner of the coin, not merely a dealer through whose hands it passed.
"After the Farouk auction, the coin is believed to have remained in Egypt until it was purchased by London coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1995."
Was Fenton a collector and, if so, was it part of his collection?
My understanding is that it was always part of his inventory while he was working out how to sell it.
It’s not uncommon for coins to be in a dealer’s inventory for years.
I have actually seen Fenton referred to as a collector, but I don't know the basis for that statement. As an aside, I suspect we both have dealt with "dealers" who have to be "collectors" since the prices they were asking for some of their coins were obviously not for an intended sale.
I would add, that without Fenton you do not have Farouk. His ownership is the link that validates the pedigree, at least based upon MFeld's post above as repeated below:
“Also, John Kraljevich and I became totally convinced in Steve's London shop that the coin sold at the 2002 auction was the Farouk coin. Steve showed us other coins that came with the 1933 and they were from the Farouk sale. We both left his shop totally convinced that the 1933 double eagle was the Farouk coin.
The story Fenton was told by the seller (a Cairo jeweler) was that an Egyptian Colonel had obtained them in the Farouk sale. Another story the author heard (not in the Tripp book) was that Farouk's physician was given these coins in payment for his services, as the new government would not pay him. Neither of these may be accurate, but the coins sold to Fenton all matched the 1954 catalog, including at least one unique pattern that could have come from no other source! Several other patterns were plated in the catalog and the coins bought matched the photographs.”
From a legal semantic standpoint, one could well say that "More likely than not" the Fenton 1933 DE was the Farouk coin based upon the above stated circumstantial evidence. The jury could still be out though on whether it is so "Beyond a reasonable doubt."
Given the prospect of this scintilla of doubt, the coin merits Fenton included in the pedigree as there is no question "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" that it was once owned by Fenton and that is its unchallenged legacy. (Of course whether it belonged to Farouk or not is now beside the point since it was "monetized" under the terms of a subsequent settlement that makes it for the time being the only one so recognized.)
Love that the provenance is "Farouk-Weitzman" which is how I've been referring to this.
Should also have Fenton.
Just to add to the point. Per the reporting, Fenton was an owner of the coin, not merely a dealer through whose hands it passed.
"After the Farouk auction, the coin is believed to have remained in Egypt until it was purchased by London coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1995."
Was Fenton a collector and, if so, was it part of his collection?
My understanding is that it was always part of his inventory while he was working out how to sell it.
It’s not uncommon for coins to be in a dealer’s inventory for years.
I have actually seen Fenton referred to as a collector, but I don't know the basis for that statement. As an aside, I suspect we both have dealt with "dealers" who have to be "collectors" since the prices they were asking for some of their coins were obviously not for an intended sale.
I'm not sure we can make a dependable judgment on that last point. Some dealers are well known for having high prices, inventory that sits, and yet pieces sell.
Comments
Seems implausible that a President would use political capital on an executive order to overturn a consistent court ruling.
On a bunch of gold coins.
However the last few years teach us we live in a crazy world.
Wearing my lawyer hat causes me to ponder about the discussion that took place at our host when it was asked to grade this 1933 DE.
Since it appears the coin was assigned a grade but was not placed into a holder, I wonder whether or not this coin is covered by the PCGS grade guaranty.
If it is covered by the grade guaranty and a year from now the coin turns bad, how would the grade guaranty come into play and operate.
All of the above and more were the likely topics of discussion.
It’s hard to imagine that the coin could turn bad on its own. And harder, still, to imagine that it would fall under the grade guarantee, absent conditions that would make such a guarantee basically worthless. Why would PCGS subject itself to such downside?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark.
I have no idea.
I simply imagine what the topics of discussion were at our host when a request to grade the coin was made. I would think the grade guaranty would be a topic of discussion.
If you feel like going through the exercise, if retained to do so, how would you advise them on that subject?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
How soon one forgets.
A coin collector president.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
From a pure coin perspective, it was pretty nice to be into these and have left a coin related legacy.
Hopefully, our current President will have interest in coins as well.
Mark.
I am generally familiar with guarantees, mostly in the context of personal guarantees of loans.
If I was part of a discussion about a grade guaranty of this coin, I would want to:
first, read the paperwork on the PCGS grade guaranty,
second, review prior instances where a claim was made under a grade guaranty to see how they are reviewed and resolved,
third, determine possible future scenarios that involve the 1933 DE that could give rise to a claim being made under the grade guaranty, including the how one would determine the dollar amount of the loss PCGS would incur by honoring the guaranty,
fourth, discuss with PCGS the benefits it would obtain by grading the 1933 DE and compare those benefits with the possible detriments it would face by taking on the grading guaranty, and
fifth, after #1-4 above wait for PCGS make whatever business decision it wants to make in response to the request to grade the coin.
Thank you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The grading guarantee has such a large loophole that you could drive a dump truck through it. PCGS decides whether a mistake was made. PCGS decides the value of the coin. The coin could turn “bad”, but given its unique legal status, still be worth just as much as a cull at basal value making any putative liability de minimis. And if the coin isn’t in the holder, there is always the environmental damage card that could be played to deny a claim. In short, there is no real liability to PCGS nor do I see any real advantage to the guarantee. It’s all marketing by both by the auction house and the grading service.
Really?
Look at all the challenge coins behind him.
Maybe not sexy, but perhaps 42095232 is a subtle ploy to get Elon "Funding Secured" Musk's attention?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Should also have Fenton.
Just to add to the point. Per the reporting, Fenton was an owner of the coin, not merely a dealer through whose hands it passed.
"After the Farouk auction, the coin is believed to have remained in Egypt until it was purchased by London coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1995."
Fenton owned the coin for at least six years from 1995 until it was auctioned in 2001 when he received half of the sale proceeds.
There should probably be at least one or more other names recognized on the coin's pedigree. For the 45 years after the Farouk auction someone(s) or some governmental entity had possession of it.
(And for completeness, if one accepts the U.S. Government's contentions as to the ownership chain, McCann and Switt should be the first named along with perhaps the Texas dealer who saw it leave the country, assuming he had ownership.)
How could it be shown that McCann ever owned it? That was a rhetorical question.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If there were to be an answer to the rhetorical question, it might start out with, "Possession is nine tenths of the law."
There has been some suggestion that the Farouk ownership of the Fenton coin is itself subject to question. I assume that is a consequence of not knowing for certain where the Farouk coin was for the 45 years after the Farouk auction. Anyone have added insights?
I posted the below in another thread in response to a similar question:
I might have read a more detailed and convincing article at one time, but if so, can’t locate it. However, the one containing John Dannreuther‘s comments, linked at the bottom of this post, contains a bit of information regarding the background of the Farouk example being discussed. I’d been skeptical before reading it, but no longer am. Here’s the relevant portion:
“Also, John Kraljevich and I became totally convinced in Steve's London shop that the coin sold at the 2002 auction was the Farouk coin. Steve showed us other coins that came with the 1933 and they were from the Farouk sale. We both left his shop totally convinced that the 1933 double eagle was the Farouk coin.
The story Fenton was told by the seller (a Cairo jeweler) was that an Egyptian Colonel had obtained them in the Farouk sale. Another story the author heard (not in the Tripp book) was that Farouk's physician was given these coins in payment for his services, as the new government would not pay him. Neither of these may be accurate, but the coins sold to Fenton all matched the 1954 catalog, including at least one unique pattern that could have come from no other source! Several other patterns were plated in the catalog and the coins bought matched the photographs.”
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/periodical/17183
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Was Fenton a collector and, if so, was it part of his collection?
My understanding is that it was always part of his inventory while he was working out how to sell it.
It’s not uncommon for coins to be in a dealer’s inventory for years.
While I agree with that, regardless of how few (or many) people care, dealers are still part of a coin’s provenance.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
They are, and I’m all for including them, going as far as putting a “(d)” note for dealers on my provenance lists, but I don’t see PCGS add dealers on cert verification (what this discussion is about) or slab inserts.
I have actually seen Fenton referred to as a collector, but I don't know the basis for that statement. As an aside, I suspect we both have dealt with "dealers" who have to be "collectors" since the prices they were asking for some of their coins were obviously not for an intended sale.
I would add, that without Fenton you do not have Farouk. His ownership is the link that validates the pedigree, at least based upon MFeld's post above as repeated below:
“Also, John Kraljevich and I became totally convinced in Steve's London shop that the coin sold at the 2002 auction was the Farouk coin. Steve showed us other coins that came with the 1933 and they were from the Farouk sale. We both left his shop totally convinced that the 1933 double eagle was the Farouk coin.
The story Fenton was told by the seller (a Cairo jeweler) was that an Egyptian Colonel had obtained them in the Farouk sale. Another story the author heard (not in the Tripp book) was that Farouk's physician was given these coins in payment for his services, as the new government would not pay him. Neither of these may be accurate, but the coins sold to Fenton all matched the 1954 catalog, including at least one unique pattern that could have come from no other source! Several other patterns were plated in the catalog and the coins bought matched the photographs.”
From a legal semantic standpoint, one could well say that "More likely than not" the Fenton 1933 DE was the Farouk coin based upon the above stated circumstantial evidence. The jury could still be out though on whether it is so "Beyond a reasonable doubt."
Given the prospect of this scintilla of doubt, the coin merits Fenton included in the pedigree as there is no question "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" that it was once owned by Fenton and that is its unchallenged legacy. (Of course whether it belonged to Farouk or not is now beside the point since it was "monetized" under the terms of a subsequent settlement that makes it for the time being the only one so recognized.)
I'm not sure we can make a dependable judgment on that last point. Some dealers are well known for having high prices, inventory that sits, and yet pieces sell.