What information/proof/considerations should be involved when placing a pedigree on a grading label?
coinguy1
Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭
Some recent threads about correct (or incorrect) grading label pedigrees have resurrected some old dilemmas I experienced while working as a grader at NGC from 1991-1998.
At that time, if I recall correctly, the general policy at NGC was that we would note a pedigree on a grading label if either 1) The coin was submitted in a sealed auction house flip with some proof of purchase or 2) The coin could be matched to an auction catalog photo. Again, that was the general policy and a number of situations arose that muddied the waters.
Here are a few of them:
One thing that I debated, was whether a coin which had been dipped after an auction, but, which still could be matched in some way to an auction catalog photo, should receive the pedigree.
And, what if a submitter offered "proof of purchase" from the sale but the coin no longer matched the auction catalog photo?
What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?
What if the coin looked like the one in the catalog but there was a very minor degree of uncertainty?
What if a roll of coins was sold as one lot - should each individual coin receive its own pedigree, if submitted individually?
Should a grading company automatically remove the pedigree (think, for a moment of the possible long term ramifications) if a submitter requests it?
The purpose of this thread is NOT to flame the grading companies for their pedigree errors, but rather, to note some of the considerations and difficulties involved in the pedigree process.
So, for those who care to reply, if you were responsible for decisions about grading label pedigrees, under what circumstances would you be willing to include the pedigree? What information or proof would you require? Would you allow any exceptions to your policy and if so, what would they be?
At that time, if I recall correctly, the general policy at NGC was that we would note a pedigree on a grading label if either 1) The coin was submitted in a sealed auction house flip with some proof of purchase or 2) The coin could be matched to an auction catalog photo. Again, that was the general policy and a number of situations arose that muddied the waters.
Here are a few of them:
One thing that I debated, was whether a coin which had been dipped after an auction, but, which still could be matched in some way to an auction catalog photo, should receive the pedigree.
And, what if a submitter offered "proof of purchase" from the sale but the coin no longer matched the auction catalog photo?
What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?
What if the coin looked like the one in the catalog but there was a very minor degree of uncertainty?
What if a roll of coins was sold as one lot - should each individual coin receive its own pedigree, if submitted individually?
Should a grading company automatically remove the pedigree (think, for a moment of the possible long term ramifications) if a submitter requests it?
The purpose of this thread is NOT to flame the grading companies for their pedigree errors, but rather, to note some of the considerations and difficulties involved in the pedigree process.
So, for those who care to reply, if you were responsible for decisions about grading label pedigrees, under what circumstances would you be willing to include the pedigree? What information or proof would you require? Would you allow any exceptions to your policy and if so, what would they be?
0
Comments
I have never bought a pedigree, nor had the desire to buy one.
I suppose there are instances where the pedigree can add value, but wonder which pedigrees will stand the test of time.
I always look at the coin for a value assessment. I could not care less who owned it except for a close relative. Eye appeal, at a fair price, will always rule out all other factors, in my book.
That might not answer your question, but that's all my grey matter would produce at this time.
I'm just reflecting on dealers who have fairly high prices on Proof Cameo and DCams because of the Pedigree on the label. I own some of the same graded coins and people start throwing price guides in my face if I try to sell them, not the true market value that auctions and dealers are posting.
My 10 cents worth of rant!
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
<< <i>One thing that I debated, was whether a coin which had been dipped after an auction, but, which still could be matched in some way to an auction catalog photo, should receive the pedigree. >>
And that seems like a topic that could be debated over and over again in a very long thread on this forum. That's a real tough question.
I am not sure that altering the coin's appearance has any bearing on it's history. A dipped out coin that Eliasberg once owned, is still a coin that Eliasberg once owned.
You can't change history. .... or can you?
Clankeye
Yes, but the slab needs to indicate that the coin was conserved by the new owner.
And, what if a submitter offered "proof of purchase" from the sale but the coin no longer matched the auction catalog photo?
Nada. Might be the same coin, but too risky.
What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?
Definitely no. The TPG's need to just make that a policy. After all it could be any Joe Shmoe's coin.
What if the coin looked like the one in the catalog but there was a very minor degree of uncertainty?
Contact auction house for clarification. Could just be a bad pic.
What if a roll of coins was sold as one lot - should each individual coin receive its own pedigree, if submitted individually?
Yes. After all, why not? All the coins were in that collection.
Should a grading company automatically remove the pedigree (think, for a moment of the possible long term ramifications) if a submitter requests it?
No. Who cares about a little extra ink on the slab. It's still the same coin. Let the owner just look at the coin.
JMHO
We ARE watching you.
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
<< <i>What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?
Definitely no. The TPG's need to just make that a policy. After all it could be any Joe Shmoe's coin.
What if a roll of coins was sold as one lot - should each individual coin receive its own pedigree, if submitted individually?
Yes. After all, why not? All the coins were in that collection. >>
Since they don't usually image each coin in a roll it would seem that these two opinions are mutually exclusive.
<< <i>What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?
Definitely no. The TPG's need to just make that a policy. After all it could be any Joe Shmoe's coin. >>
With early US pieces, especially copper, the coins can often be definitivey identified from the auction descriptions even without pictures.
the submitter would need to enclose the page from the original auction catalogue and the photo from the cat. that shows the coin as a no brainer from the auction and also the receipt from the auction and of course the coin
if not a photo in the auction cat or a good photo where you can tell positively that it is the coin
then the receipt and a signed statement from the officers of the auction company saying this coin is from the specific auction
when it was
the lot number
who bought it etc
and a high quality photo of the coin where it could be told from the photo with the auction company officers verifiing the photo taken of the coin as from the auction as it will appear on the holder
if you cant do the above to within a moral certaintude then no pedigree on the holder
michael
I imagine if someone was trying to recreate someones collection by buying all the coins once in it that could make it tough
<< <i>For purposes of this discussion - I was not commenting on or asking about values of pedigrees, only their accuracy and how the grading services should go about ensuring that. >>
Oh! Well I can see that waiting for my wife to deliver has had it's effect on my comprehension.
I don't know that the grading services can maintain any accuracy in the big picture. I'm sure that some coins, maybe quite a bit, will remain in the original slabs, but a nice percentage are going to have to be "improved" by virtue of human nature.
Maybe NGC's conservation arm can help in that area. Recording the data as they get "slabbed only" coins in for whatever process they require. Only thing that seems fool proof would be a high tech fingerprint, which at this time, I'll guess, is to pretty costly. Then all the logistics to verify. I just don't see it for most of the pieces that would be financially attainable for the average collector.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
A pedigree should only be added to a slab label if it can be 100% assured that it was actually a part of an important collection. The determination of a coin's pedigree should not be decided by a grader at a TPG service, but rather by a consensus decision by a group of unbiased, 4th party experts. As such, verifying a pedigree will be costly and it will cost the submitter more money and it will take much longer to have coins authenticated and graded. That's okay though, since it is usually only important to have a pedigree on rare coins and it will be worth the wait. Let's face it, a pedigree on an MS-63 1930 SLQ that came out of an Eliasberg roll is not going to demand a large premium. Generic, modern coins that are not plated will not likely qualify for a pedigree inclusion on the slab label, imo.
In the course of investigating our Norweb pedigree fiasco, we found several other major TPG pedigree attribution errors on the market. A couple are major. We also learned that some of these errors were NOT honest mistakes. I will leave it at that..... The bottom line is that the TPG services need to stop thinking about how quickly they can turn coins around for the big submitters and start being more professional and earning their fees. The TGP's think that they are giving good service to their best customers (i.e. Heritage), but they are giving very poor service to the masses (us collectors who purchase slabbed coins that are overgraded and incorrectly attributed). The TGP's need to understand that their customers are everyone who purchases slabbed coins and not just the submitters who write the checks for grading services. That's a topic for a different thread.
We believe that the value a pedigree adds to a coin is dependent upon the owners personal tastes. For example, if you are a distant cousin to John J. Ford, Jr, then perhaps having a coin from his fabled collection would have significant value. In our opinion, the value of a pedigree varies from coin to coin. Regardless of the value, however, it is our strong opinion that a pedigree of a coin should not be lost. As coin collectors, we have an unwritten obligation to preserve the coins of our nation's past, including preserving the history inherent to each coin. We, as collectors and dealers, are numismatic custodians.
Summary:
1) use 4th party, outside experts for pedigree attributions
2) raise the fee for pedigree attribution to assure quality control and accuracy
3) TPG services must be held responsible for pedigree and attribution errors (just had to throw that one in...sorry)
1. Coins must arrive in the original sealed flip indicating the pedigree/lot number.
2. If the submitter wants research done to prove the coins provenance, it will be done at $300/hr. The TPG will be the final arbiter regarding authenticity.
3. If the submitter doesn't like the above, they can send it somewhere else.
4. It's the owners coin - they can choose whatever label they want, pedigree or no.
There - aren't you glad I'm not in charge!
Just because a coin is submitted in a "sealed" auction flip, does not mean that it is the coin from the auction.
Also, it is a known fact that some of the TPG services will accept a coin from a major submitter (good customer) without an auction flip or any supporting documentation whatsoever. All these guys need to do is simply say that a coin has a certain pedigree and, viola, it's on the slab insert. Sad, isn't it??
Dheath, that's a very good point. It has been our observation that real collectors (true numismatists at heart) crave peripheral information about their coins. I remember that we sold a very lovely R.6 Fugio a few years ago. The collector kept coming back to look at the coin, but he couldn't bring himself to pay the $500 we were asking. Once we engaged each other in conversation, I informed him that the Fugio was from the Charles Ruby sale and I had a folder in my briefcase which contained a wealth of information regarding the coin and the Ruby auction. He was delighted and happily purchased the coin (which included the folder of historical information).
Another example was when we recently sold a bust half dime from the Logan sale. It also happened to be a plate coin from the Logan/McCloskey book on Federal Half Dimes. We had the Logan auction flip and a copy of the page from the Logan catalog. The customer who bought the coin collects Bust Halves, but he purchased our coin just because of the history that accompanied it. This is his first and only bust half dime.
To your point, I think that we as collectors are custodians of our nation's coins and we must preserve not only the coins themselves, but also any pertinent history of each coin. Collectors and dealers have an obligation, imho, to maintain records of important coins and to transfer that information each time a coin is sold. I am sure that I will get flamed for saying that!
<< <i>I am not sure that altering the coin's appearance has any bearing on it's history. A dipped out coin that Eliasberg once owned, is still a coin that Eliasberg once owned. >>
gotta disagree w/ my buddy clankeye on this 1. when you dip a coin, imo you have a new, altogether coin, especially w/ respect to pedigree. why? because in your example, mr. eliasberg chose the certain coin for it's appearance, etc, for his collection. now, the coin looks different, it IS different, it's a different coin! yet another reason i feel the need to violently throw up when certain parties insist that theres a "right way" to dip a coin.
the point is, the pedigreed coin got into mr. eliasberg's collection because of how it looked. now (after dipped) it looks different. so there's a good chance the different look is not what he may have sought out for his collection, so it might never have been collected by him in the 1st place.
K S
No... Mr Eliasberg bought almost all of his coins en mass from the Clapp collection. Appearance had very little to do with the coin ultimately receiving the Eliasberg pedigree.
Clapp bought most of his coins directly from the mint. I would imagine that when he chose to put them in his collection that they were untoned. Therefore, I would assert that a dipped coin would look much more like the appearance of the coin when it was originally chosen for the collection than the look of the coin after 90 years of incidental toning.
Not saying that I agree or disagree with the assertion you were trying to support - I just think your supporting evidence doesn't actually do much for your case.
K S
Karl, before I saw TDN's reply to you, I was about to ask you, partly in jest and partly in earnest, "But, what if Eliasberg bought some of his coins sight-unseen?"
You two have an intriguing debate going - please don't stop. Not yet, at least.
Hey, I don't look like I did at 18--but I'm still Clankeye.
Clankeye
The grade, any variety the coin is, the implied guaranty of genuineness, the coin stands on it's own in a slab and speaks for itself, to the experienced eye and proper magnification tools and reference works.
But prior ownership is a social or financial or historical aspect of the piece (and here let's assume we're talking about a higher end piece and a decent pedigree; the issue is less of a matter if it's a worn, common coin from some Joe Blow collection no one's ever heard of).
As such, I don't know if it should even be on the cert tag, yet I know the reality is that it (pedigrees on slabs, from famous collectors' achievements, to famous kooks' hoards and government vaults, to murdered casino owners and WTC "slabs o' death") is here to stay and carries a premium proportional to the interest of collectors markets.
Some other collectibles are valuable because of who once owned them, things like Elvis' guitar or blue suede shoes, Madonna's bustier, whatever, we rely on "authentication companies" to guarantee.
So in my opinion, the company better be willing to guarantee the authenticity of what they write on the slab, and therefore be damned sure it's true, and if it turns out NOT, then to buy the item or pay the difference.
But what if someone paid an exhorbitant premium for the "name"? tough call but I'd have to compare to the market as best they can and come to a compromise.
Anyway not to get too far off the subject, but realize that pedigree can be faked for certain coins, especially the mid-ordinary coins out of a great collection, of course not for the great coins that are photographed and sales and ownership are closely tracked, but more "ordinary" coins carry a risk that a switch or conservation occurred. If it is proven it has made a mistake, a company should make good.
so for all the reasons Mark mentions, I'm surprised the companies do it without direct, reproducible proof that the coin is directly from a collection or assemblage, meaning the slabbing company gets the collection intact from the estate or bank vaults under fallen buildings or whatever. I sure wouldn't accept, "yeah, it's from Soandso collection, see on the little flip? ... and I have this receipt..."
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
i hope legend reads this, since that is just 1 of the parties who has claimed that a dipped coin is not doctored. i just don't see how the he11 anyone could make such a claim. "doctoring" coins is to change it's appearance w/ the intent to deceive. a doctor deceives by "hiding" part of a coin's history (the allegedly "bad" part). all dipping does is to hide part of a coin's history as well, by removing it.
sorry, but coinguy1 got me started on this rampage - it's not my fault!
K S
of course, i also vote for no "grades" on slabs to......
K S
Sorry, this doesn't make sense at all. What if when a collector purchased a coin it was white, but it toned over time. Since he made his choice to buy a white coin, should we only pedigree the white ones? If a toned coin is then dipped white so it resembles the coin the collector chose, would it then be more eligible for pedigree than its original toned self? I don't think so. Or how about the Farouk pedigree? Farouk liked to clean his coins, so how the heck could dipping alter the coin any more than he already did with his little brillo pad?
BTW - the more I think about it, the more ludicrous I think it is that if, for some reason, I were to have a grading service dip the Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar that it would be no longer considered for the Eliasberg pedigree. That's just a bit foolish - after all, it is the same coin and it has an iron clad pedigree and chain of custody. If you look at any of the major classic rarities and go back thru their history you will find many that have been cleaned or dipped and they still pedigree back to the owner.
<< <i>Well how about a coin from say... the Binion hoard. If my understanding is correct, he wasn't much of a coin collector--more a coin accumulator. If a Binion dollar is dipped, does that make it any less a representative of that hoard? Should it not be pedigreed? >>
well, that falls under my blanket statement of: NO PEDIGREES. that's just my worthless opinion. honestly, there are only a COUPLE of pedigrees that i MIGHT pay a SLIGHT premium for, & eliasberg, norweb, & binion are definitely not candidates.
<< <i>Hey, I don't look like I did at 18--but I'm still Clankeye. >>
at 66 years of age, are you still the exact same person you were at 18? i think you would admit your not. (oops, ok, your only 56, right? ....)
<< <i>therefore, if you change the appearance of the coin, you've altered a parameter which was used to make the choice ... Sorry, this doesn't make sense at all. What if when a collector purchased a coin it was white, but it toned over time >>
but you see, i think it does make perfect sense. think about it, if you bought a blast white coin because you LOVE blast-white, & the coin toned over the next 2 months, would the coin remain in your collection? i think not! you would obviously get rid of it & replace it w/ a blast white coin! so i guess it's possible that a couple of coins here & there in eliasberg's collection may have been in a mutable chemical state, but likely, considering how long eliasberg spent on his collection, chances are coins were selected for their appearance. after all, 1 of the claims for slabs is that they help maintain a coin's current appearance, right? so your argument, though valid, has only a miniscule chance of being applicable (unless pcgs is lying).
Farouk is a perfect example of someone who MADE his coins look like what he wanted. it was AFTER the coins had the just-scrubbed look that he was happy w/ them, so again, you see that my argument makes sense, that if you now took a farouk-scrubbed coin & , uh, artificially circulated it to make it appear more original, then the resulting coin is no longer the same coin as the original state.
<< <i>the more I think about it, the more ludicrous I think it is that if, for some reason, I were to have a grading service dip the Eliasberg 1885 trade dollar that it would be no longer considered for the Eliasberg pedigree. That's just a bit foolish - after all, it is the same coin and it has an iron clad pedigree and chain of custody >>
i obviously disagree. eliasberg chose the 1885 trade dollar because in his opinion, the appearance of it is what made it suitable for his collection. do you KNOW FOR A FACT that he would have chosen a dipped 1885 trade dollar for his collection? no, you haven't a clue. it's impossible to know. your assuming that pedigree is inherent to a coin, which is absurd a notion as there could ever be in numismatics. pedigree is inhererent to the COLLECTING of a coin. & destroying a coin's appearance indisputably violates 1 of the reasons it was ever collected in the first place.
K S
Don't worry, Karl - I know I'll never change your mind no matter how fringe your opinions are...but you are welcome to them. As for me, I'll be happy researching the history of each and every one of my coins, creating my own "pedigree" chain, whether they've been dipped, toned or stayed the same.
as for me, i don't generally collect that way - just to complete sets. i like coins w/ history still clinging to them, not matter "unattractive" that history may seem to be
K S
BTW Karl, I actually share your dislike of dipping. The pedigree thing is a whole different shootin' match. And if it comes down to it, pedigree doesn't matter a heck of a lot to me either. I watched with astonishment lately while some ordinary examples of Washington Carver Commems were bid up to three times over what I value them at on the Bay of Eee. Their big selling point--Eliasberg pedigrees.
Clankeye
You put new siding on your house and it's still your house!
<< <i>I officially declare TDN the winner over dorkkarl >>
In the spirit of ancient Rome, I shall sacrifice 100 bulls in TDN's honor.
Metallus Poobius Clankus
<< <i>In an interesting and not surprisingly, lengthy debate, I officially declare TDN the winner over dorkkarl, who is obviously free to "disagree". >>
unfortuantely, tradedollarnut's still wrong!
K S
<< <i>I applaud your "true collector" attitude. >>
And I say there is no such thing as a "true collector." Just personal preferences to how you go about things.
Clankeye
BTW--It's my way or the highway.
......just my opinion. The definition of "true collector" will surely vary from person to person. I say that a "true collector" collects coins and appreciates their historical significance (i.e. ex-Logan). The rush experienced by a "true collector" is influenced by their imagination; who spent this 1794 cent back in 1795 and how long did it circulate? How did this 1833 quarter stay in mint state condition for all these years? What was Russ Logan's reaction when he discovered the edge error on this bust half?
Others may say that a "true collector" is someone persistent enough to send the same coin into PCGS 10 times in order to get a 3rd party opinion that benefits the submitter financially.
So, there is a such thing as a "true collector", however the definition varies from person to person. Now, where's the ramp to that highway you were talking about?
Dennis
It's just the word. Makes me nervous.
Sorry for the totally unnecessary diversion from the thread.
Clankeye
<< <i>And I say there is no such thing as a "true collector." Just personal preferences to how you go about things. >>
I think you are right - in a sense! To me, a "true collector" is someone who honors his personal preferences, and does not fall victim to following someone else's personal preferences. If your personal preferences are so flimsy that you can't abide by them, how can you be a true collector - true to your collecting passion?
James