@Nap said:
The overwhelming majority of my coins are raw. I am happy to find a provenance to a coin because apart from adding to the history, it’s an extra endorsement of authenticity.
One of my favorite provenances, and one of the oldest provenances obtainable. Archbishop Sharp collected in the late 1600s. The coins remained in his family for hundreds of years. Some coins were sold in the 1970s, but the main portion of his English hammered collection was sold in 2017. I have a few coins from this collection, and if I was not buying a house at the time, I would have bought more at the sale. His provenance seems to add value to coins.
This same coin sold in that auction in a lot of 2 for 500gbp. Though it certainly was the nicer of the two so perhaps I mis judged the value it had in the lot.
I am of mixed opinion on "provenance" as all else being equal, sentimentally I would lean toward the coin with such. But as a litmus test type question, I really want the better coin over provenance if the choice must be made....
I have some coins with little documented provenance but must have passed through distinguished hands with the records lost as I am sure has been the case with many others.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
I'm going to comment in the context of my focus - chopmarks. There are a lot of combinations, and new hosts are being discovered all the time. But the marks don't have die indicators or many decades of plated examples in references to lean back on, so examples on rare hosts with solid provenances attract pretty substantial premiums, especially if they can be tied to big names within the small space, like F.M. Rose or Hal Walls, who had their collections published in part pre-2000. But even if the collector was not a chopmark collector, if a rare type has a particularly early provenance I would still pay substantially more for it over a fresh coin, both for the added historical context and the increased likelihood of authenticity; I remember a nice chopmarked Argentinian Sunface 8R with a c. 1940-50 provenance that I was much more confident in thanks to the name attached.
These days it's not that hard to get your name on a slab. So, IMO, the name on the slab matters, but I would (and have) paid up for a recognizable name from the past who was known for their selection of choice material. For example, Eliasberg or Reiver are well-known names and did have some high quality pieces but they weren't necessarily known for it like a Gardner.
@Nap said:
The overwhelming majority of my coins are raw. I am happy to find a provenance to a coin because apart from adding to the history, it’s an extra endorsement of authenticity.
One of my favorite provenances, and one of the oldest provenances obtainable. Archbishop Sharp collected in the late 1600s. The coins remained in his family for hundreds of years. Some coins were sold in the 1970s, but the main portion of his English hammered collection was sold in 2017. I have a few coins from this collection, and if I was not buying a house at the time, I would have bought more at the sale. His provenance seems to add value to coins.
This same coin sold in that auction in a lot of 2 for 500gbp. Though it certainly was the nicer of the two so perhaps I mis judged the value it had in the lot.
The sale of the Sharp collection was conducted by Morton and Eden, a smaller auction house, and prices were subdued. Many pieces have resold for substantially more, especially with the buoyant market in the last 2 years.
Provenance is like toning. There's money it. It's a call for the market graders. They're in touch with the markets. ANA gives them license to bump up the market grade for it. Personally, I can take it or let it alone.
A few times was mentioned already about graders being more favorable to coins from named connections. Is this a US thing? Other than a number of pieces from the Millenia Collection, I have not seen examples of this elsewhere that would be outside of the usual grading variability.
@TwoKopeiki said:
A few times was mentioned already about graders being more favorable to coins from named connections. Is this a US thing? Other than a number of pieces from the Millenia Collection, I have not seen examples of this elsewhere that would be outside of the usual grading variability.
Any particular examples that you recall from the Millenia Collection auction that you believed to get a bump in grade ( s )?
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@TwoKopeiki said:
A few times was mentioned already about graders being more favorable to coins from named connections. Is this a US thing? Other than a number of pieces from the Millenia Collection, I have not seen examples of this elsewhere that would be outside of the usual grading variability.
Any particular examples that you recall from the Millenia Collection auction that you believed to get a bump in grade ( s )?
Based on a few lower MS 8 Reales I've seen from that sale, NGC was pretty lenient with hairlines specifically on the Proof / PL pieces. Especially compared to the PCGS standard of 2008. Don't get me wrong, there's still the 1791 Mexico 8 Reales in NGC PL65 from that sale that I will eventually own. Just have to track it down first.
@TwoKopeiki said:
A few times was mentioned already about graders being more favorable to coins from named connections. Is this a US thing? Other than a number of pieces from the Millenia Collection, I have not seen examples of this elsewhere that would be outside of the usual grading variability.
Any particular examples that you recall from the Millenia Collection auction that you believed to get a bump in grade ( s )?
Based on a few lower MS 8 Reales I've seen from that sale, NGC was pretty lenient with hairlines specifically on the Proof / PL pieces. Especially compared to the PCGS standard of 2008. Don't get me wrong, there's still the 1791 Mexico 8 Reales in NGC PL65 from that sale that I will eventually own. Just have to track it down first.
@TwoKopeiki said:
A few times was mentioned already about graders being more favorable to coins from named connections. Is this a US thing? Other than a number of pieces from the Millenia Collection, I have not seen examples of this elsewhere that would be outside of the usual grading variability.
Any particular examples that you recall from the Millenia Collection auction that you believed to get a bump in grade ( s )?
Based on a few lower MS 8 Reales I've seen from that sale, NGC was pretty lenient with hairlines specifically on the Proof / PL pieces. Especially compared to the PCGS standard of 2008. Don't get me wrong, there's still the 1791 Mexico 8 Reales in NGC PL65 from that sale that I will eventually own. Just have to track it down first.
That's the one. And in terms of what happened? Likely the same thing that happened to the 1791 PCGS MS64 you linked above - cracked out of its plastic.
The value of a pedigree:
Last night I was able to buy the 1893 PF 66 CAM British florin pedigreed to the Dr. Terner sale (Goldberg 2004 auction). I still remembered that coin and always regretted not buying it at that time. I could not have been able to stretch so much without the pedigree on the slab as I did not go to NYC this year to see it in hand. The pedigree probably gave the consignor $1500-2000 more than he would have gotten without the dog fight that ensued.
RSP
Is a coin important because it has an impressive provenance, or does it gain an impressive provenance by being worthy of inclusion in prominent collections?
@messydesk said:
Is a coin important because it has an impressive provenance, or does it gain an impressive provenance by being worthy of inclusion in prominent collections?
On a slightly related note, I discovered a bit of provenance for a coin I already own by chance recently. This 1805-NG 8R is a difficult type with chopmarks and is in nice shape, I picked it up from Spink this past October with no provenance attached. In a bound collection of auction catalogues I ran across this same coin, previously sold as Lot 264, Freeman Craig & Co. Mail Bid Auction 12 (November 14, 1984), with the following description: "Guatemala Eight Reales 1805M, E62, C47. Rare date. Four large and interesting chopmarks on each side. Nice fields complemented by prooflike peripheries. Very Fine-Extra Fine."
The coin doesn't have a big name attached to it or anything, but having a period auction listing associated with a chopmarked piece, especially plated, isn't too common, just given that the interest hasn't been there for too long. As a result, there may be more value added to a piece with any prior history like this (not just a substantial collector, but any auction appearance) just because chops are easier to forge than counterstamps or whole coins, and any provenance is a boost.
The question of provenance value is moot. Coins with a provenance going back one or two hundred years were generally either the finest available or somewhere up there with the best known. Accordingly they had a higher price tag to fit their status throughout much of that period. That label tends to stick.
In the case of modern provenances the current tendency to throw as much money as required at the problem by a much greater number of wealthy individuals who mostly then sell up in a short time frame devalues this. Buyers at auction much prefer to see a collection that was assembled a generation ago, or better still several generations ago.
If a coin was illustrated over 100 years ago, you can rest assured it was either rare or a particularly good specimen, because the cost of illustrating lots was not inconsiderable. Thus, a coin that was illustrated in the Montagu sales (1895-7) was a pretty good indicator that it was a top coin from the best collection assembled at the time. And yes, that does add value. The ability to match coin to illustration also provides reassurance in today's markets. It is much easier to establish provenance for a hammered coin than a milled one due to the variation in shape of the former. Slabbing of milled coins frequently screws up a longer term provenance if any corroborative evidence such as tickets are lost. I can think of quite a few instances of this.
Personally, I like a provenance, and the further back it goes, the better.
I have only one coin with a pedigree. Although it's from a legendary collection the pedigree was incidental to getting such a beautiful coin. The provenance of this piece I know about is, it was bought from Spink in March 1951 for $8.05.
So that's where the MS-66 Ecuadorian 1846 8R got to. I thought the Milennia MS-64 specimen was the best known till I heard of your coin.
I also have an undamaged Unitarian or Rebel Peso, Argentina: LaRioja, 1840. But only in EXF-40 I think. I saw that Milennia piece sell. You don't have a spare Cudinamarca 8R perchance?
I collect Ancients and early Independence Era Latin American.
Agree provenance is a mixed bag. On the plus side, the provenance can validate the coin was purchased and owned to be part of a collection and was selected with care and a concerning eye. Good example, Stendebach Collection, was happy to pay premium knowing coin had good eye appeal above the specified grade. On the other hand, if it is part of a huge collection or hoard, then provenance is more event related and not necessarily because the coin is special.
@dizzlecc said:
Agree provenance is a mixed bag. On the plus side, the provenance can validate the coin was purchased and owned to be part of a collection and was selected with care and a concerning eye. Good example, Stendebach Collection, was happy to pay premium knowing coin had good eye appeal above the specified grade. On the other hand, if it is part of a huge collection or hoard, then provenance is more event related and not necessarily because the coin is special.
All due respect to Stendebach, I think the details of the collection from which the pedigree derives is what gives the pedigree importance. Many great coins only come up for sale every 50+ years. How could a collection formed over a short time have those great coins? The collector never had the opportunity to buy them.
In the days before TPG Pop Reports, how would you even know they were out there?
Even the great Rudman collection of Spanish colonial coins had some “duds” (relatively speaking, of course).
I think a better example might be Norweb. She had the means and desire, along with a network of top dealers feeding her the best coins over 50 years. You can be darned sure that a Norweb coin will be among the best, if not the absolute best, available just due to her buying longevity. (And yes, I’m sure Norweb had a few “duds” as well. Just fewer of them.)
I’m not saying research isn’t required, as new finds are always coming up, but the pedigree saves time and provides a reference point.
IMHO only a top pedigree adds value. How much value it adds is probably dependent on the individual buying the coin as much as the specifics of the pedigree. And many of us probably define “top pedigree” differently.
Personally, I’d take a Rudman or Norweb “dud” coin anytime! Why? Pedigree!
This is the sort of provenance I like. A Philip and Mary portrait penny. I know where it's been for the past 170 years. If I can establish what dealers Cuff used, it is possible I could push this back further. It has been illustrated in catalogues since the start of the 20th century, but wasn't pictured in Clark due to the plethora of quality in the collection.
J D Cuff 1041, Sotheby 8/6/1854
E Wigan, collection bought Rollin & Feuardent 1872
H Webb 309, Sotheby 9/7/1894
H Clark 155, Sotheby 23/5/1898
A A Banes 57, Sotheby 30/10/1922
E H Wheeler 342, Sotheby 12/3/1930
C Corbally Browne 409, Sotheby 25/3/1935
W L Raynes 473, Glendining 15/2/1950
Spink 6, lot 589, 10/10/1979
R D Shuttlewood 301, Spink 15/3/2001
C Comber 2015
Comments
This same coin sold in that auction in a lot of 2 for 500gbp. Though it certainly was the nicer of the two so perhaps I mis judged the value it had in the lot.
https://numismaticmuse.com/ My Web Gallery
The best collecting goals lie right on the border between the possible and the impossible. - Andy Lustig, "MrEureka"
I am of mixed opinion on "provenance" as all else being equal, sentimentally I would lean toward the coin with such. But as a litmus test type question, I really want the better coin over provenance if the choice must be made....
I have some coins with little documented provenance but must have passed through distinguished hands with the records lost as I am sure has been the case with many others.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I'm going to comment in the context of my focus - chopmarks. There are a lot of combinations, and new hosts are being discovered all the time. But the marks don't have die indicators or many decades of plated examples in references to lean back on, so examples on rare hosts with solid provenances attract pretty substantial premiums, especially if they can be tied to big names within the small space, like F.M. Rose or Hal Walls, who had their collections published in part pre-2000. But even if the collector was not a chopmark collector, if a rare type has a particularly early provenance I would still pay substantially more for it over a fresh coin, both for the added historical context and the increased likelihood of authenticity; I remember a nice chopmarked Argentinian Sunface 8R with a c. 1940-50 provenance that I was much more confident in thanks to the name attached.
These days it's not that hard to get your name on a slab. So, IMO, the name on the slab matters, but I would (and have) paid up for a recognizable name from the past who was known for their selection of choice material. For example, Eliasberg or Reiver are well-known names and did have some high quality pieces but they weren't necessarily known for it like a Gardner.
The sale of the Sharp collection was conducted by Morton and Eden, a smaller auction house, and prices were subdued. Many pieces have resold for substantially more, especially with the buoyant market in the last 2 years.
Provenance is like toning. There's money it. It's a call for the market graders. They're in touch with the markets. ANA gives them license to bump up the market grade for it. Personally, I can take it or let it alone.
A few times was mentioned already about graders being more favorable to coins from named connections. Is this a US thing? Other than a number of pieces from the Millenia Collection, I have not seen examples of this elsewhere that would be outside of the usual grading variability.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Any particular examples that you recall from the Millenia Collection auction that you believed to get a bump in grade ( s )?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I think the coins from the Pat Johnson collection favored a bit of a bump in grade.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
Based on a few lower MS 8 Reales I've seen from that sale, NGC was pretty lenient with hairlines specifically on the Proof / PL pieces. Especially compared to the PCGS standard of 2008. Don't get me wrong, there's still the 1791 Mexico 8 Reales in NGC PL65 from that sale that I will eventually own. Just have to track it down first.
8 Reales Madness Collection
@TwoKopeiki is this the 1791 8R to which you are referring? http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=46&lot=1102&lang=1
I greatly dislike that Goldberg doesn't provide certification numbers in their listings. Makes it more difficult to track down their lots. At present, the highest graded coin reported by NGC is 62 and PCGS a 64 that sold at Stacks 2021 (https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-S4YEQ/mexico-8-reales-1791-mo-fm-mexico-city-mint-charles-iv-pcgs-ms-64-gold-shield) which doesn't match the Goldberg coin.
So then, what happened to your mystery coin?
That's the one. And in terms of what happened? Likely the same thing that happened to the 1791 PCGS MS64 you linked above - cracked out of its plastic.
8 Reales Madness Collection
The value of a pedigree:
Last night I was able to buy the 1893 PF 66 CAM British florin pedigreed to the Dr. Terner sale (Goldberg 2004 auction). I still remembered that coin and always regretted not buying it at that time. I could not have been able to stretch so much without the pedigree on the slab as I did not go to NYC this year to see it in hand. The pedigree probably gave the consignor $1500-2000 more than he would have gotten without the dog fight that ensued.
RSP
Is a coin important because it has an impressive provenance, or does it gain an impressive provenance by being worthy of inclusion in prominent collections?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Exactly
Latin American Collection
On a slightly related note, I discovered a bit of provenance for a coin I already own by chance recently. This 1805-NG 8R is a difficult type with chopmarks and is in nice shape, I picked it up from Spink this past October with no provenance attached. In a bound collection of auction catalogues I ran across this same coin, previously sold as Lot 264, Freeman Craig & Co. Mail Bid Auction 12 (November 14, 1984), with the following description: "Guatemala Eight Reales 1805M, E62, C47. Rare date. Four large and interesting chopmarks on each side. Nice fields complemented by prooflike peripheries. Very Fine-Extra Fine."
The coin doesn't have a big name attached to it or anything, but having a period auction listing associated with a chopmarked piece, especially plated, isn't too common, just given that the interest hasn't been there for too long. As a result, there may be more value added to a piece with any prior history like this (not just a substantial collector, but any auction appearance) just because chops are easier to forge than counterstamps or whole coins, and any provenance is a boost.
….and resolved the whole embarrassing “Calbeto” thing that @pruebas flagged.
Latin American Collection
The question of provenance value is moot. Coins with a provenance going back one or two hundred years were generally either the finest available or somewhere up there with the best known. Accordingly they had a higher price tag to fit their status throughout much of that period. That label tends to stick.
In the case of modern provenances the current tendency to throw as much money as required at the problem by a much greater number of wealthy individuals who mostly then sell up in a short time frame devalues this. Buyers at auction much prefer to see a collection that was assembled a generation ago, or better still several generations ago.
If a coin was illustrated over 100 years ago, you can rest assured it was either rare or a particularly good specimen, because the cost of illustrating lots was not inconsiderable. Thus, a coin that was illustrated in the Montagu sales (1895-7) was a pretty good indicator that it was a top coin from the best collection assembled at the time. And yes, that does add value. The ability to match coin to illustration also provides reassurance in today's markets. It is much easier to establish provenance for a hammered coin than a milled one due to the variation in shape of the former. Slabbing of milled coins frequently screws up a longer term provenance if any corroborative evidence such as tickets are lost. I can think of quite a few instances of this.
Personally, I like a provenance, and the further back it goes, the better.
No provenance ever harmed a coin's value.
I have only one coin with a pedigree. Although it's from a legendary collection the pedigree was incidental to getting such a beautiful coin. The provenance of this piece I know about is, it was bought from Spink in March 1951 for $8.05.
I think it's for coin's value maybe +5...10%.
Peace.
Latin American Collection
So that's where the MS-66 Ecuadorian 1846 8R got to. I thought the Milennia MS-64 specimen was the best known till I heard of your coin.
I also have an undamaged Unitarian or Rebel Peso, Argentina: LaRioja, 1840. But only in EXF-40 I think. I saw that Milennia piece sell. You don't have a spare Cudinamarca 8R perchance?
Agree provenance is a mixed bag. On the plus side, the provenance can validate the coin was purchased and owned to be part of a collection and was selected with care and a concerning eye. Good example, Stendebach Collection, was happy to pay premium knowing coin had good eye appeal above the specified grade. On the other hand, if it is part of a huge collection or hoard, then provenance is more event related and not necessarily because the coin is special.
All due respect to Stendebach, I think the details of the collection from which the pedigree derives is what gives the pedigree importance. Many great coins only come up for sale every 50+ years. How could a collection formed over a short time have those great coins? The collector never had the opportunity to buy them.
In the days before TPG Pop Reports, how would you even know they were out there?
Even the great Rudman collection of Spanish colonial coins had some “duds” (relatively speaking, of course).
I think a better example might be Norweb. She had the means and desire, along with a network of top dealers feeding her the best coins over 50 years. You can be darned sure that a Norweb coin will be among the best, if not the absolute best, available just due to her buying longevity. (And yes, I’m sure Norweb had a few “duds” as well. Just fewer of them.)
I’m not saying research isn’t required, as new finds are always coming up, but the pedigree saves time and provides a reference point.
IMHO only a top pedigree adds value. How much value it adds is probably dependent on the individual buying the coin as much as the specifics of the pedigree. And many of us probably define “top pedigree” differently.
Personally, I’d take a Rudman or Norweb “dud” coin anytime! Why? Pedigree!
How about a Norweb/Rudman dud
Latin American Collection
This is the sort of provenance I like. A Philip and Mary portrait penny. I know where it's been for the past 170 years. If I can establish what dealers Cuff used, it is possible I could push this back further. It has been illustrated in catalogues since the start of the 20th century, but wasn't pictured in Clark due to the plethora of quality in the collection.
J D Cuff 1041, Sotheby 8/6/1854
E Wigan, collection bought Rollin & Feuardent 1872
H Webb 309, Sotheby 9/7/1894
H Clark 155, Sotheby 23/5/1898
A A Banes 57, Sotheby 30/10/1922
E H Wheeler 342, Sotheby 12/3/1930
C Corbally Browne 409, Sotheby 25/3/1935
W L Raynes 473, Glendining 15/2/1950
Spink 6, lot 589, 10/10/1979
R D Shuttlewood 301, Spink 15/3/2001
C Comber 2015
Definitely not one of the “duds!”