Why would Heritage leave this out while describing an auction lot?

SmallEagle · March 9, 2010 4:23AM

Late this month Heritage is holding an auction in Fort Worth. Lot #98 is this very nice chain cent. This is the provenance that they list for the coin:

Ex: Colin Lightbody (Edward Cogan, 12/1866), lot 536; Mortimer Livingston Mackenzie (Edward Cogan, 6/1869), lot 624; L. Bayard Smith; later, Arthur L. Gray; Ted and Carl Brandts (Celina Coin Co.); T. James Clarke (10/1954); R.E. Naftzger, Jr.; Abe Kosoff (4/1956), lot 4, $700; Stack's; Dorothy Nelson (Stack's, 2/1976), lot 3, $8,500; Ed Hipps; Steve Ivy (11/1978), lot 7, $13,250; Robert E. Bender; 1988 ANA (Heritage, 7/1988), lot 43, $22,000; Anthony Terranova; Kevin Lipton; American Numismatic Rarities (7/2003), lot 105, $115,000. The obverse was illustrated on the Levick Plate for variety 2.(Registry values: N10218) (#1341)

What they leave off is that the coin sold last September as lot #5 at Goldberg's sale of the Dan Holmes collection. My question is why would they leave this off of the provenance? Are they unaware it sold 6 months ago? Do they feel this fact makes the coin less "fresh". Some other better reason?

messydesk · March 9, 2010 4:26AM

I agree that it might make it seem more "whored around" than fresh. Also, how much did it bring last September?

OchoReales · March 9, 2010 4:27AM

Maybe an oversight, maybe the consignor didn't want recent auction results to be checked?

SmallEagle · March 9, 2010 4:30AM

<< <i>I agree that it might make it seem more "whored around" than fresh. Also, how much did it bring last September? >>

$253,000 with the vig. A dignified price I think.

RYK · March 9, 2010 4:31AM

I have seen selective disclosure of recent auction information by other sellers, particularly the auction houses. If the additional information would support sale of the coin for a higher price, they will include it. If it might anchor the coin to a price they would otherwise expect to exceed, they often do not include it.

Bottom line: The description of the auctioneer is his/her tool to try to get you to buy the coin at the highest possible price and should not be considered full disclosure.

PerryHall · March 9, 2010 4:34AM

<< <i>I have seen selective disclosure of recent auction information by other sellers, particularly the auction houses. If the additional information would support sale of the coin for a higher price, they will include it. If it might anchor the coin to a price they would otherwise expect to exceed, they often do not include it.

Bottom line: The description of the auctioneer is his/her tool to try to get you to buy the coin at the highest possible price and should not be considered full disclosure. >>

Great answer.

SmallEagle · March 9, 2010 4:41AM

<< <i>I have seen selective disclosure of recent auction information by other sellers, particularly the auction houses. If the additional information would support sale of the coin for a higher price, they will include it. If it might anchor the coin to a price they would otherwise expect to exceed, they often do not include it.

Bottom line: The description of the auctioneer is his/her tool to try to get you to buy the coin at the highest possible price and should not be considered full disclosure. >>

If this is an intentional omission I find it to be very un-Heritage like. This is the company that lists all reserves (if any) and provides a complete (yes complete) history of every lot they have sold. For them to pretend to list the known provenance and leave out a public transaction from six months ago is out of character. And yes I know they are working for the seller and not the buyer. I guess it's just good to be reminded of that from time to time...

illini420 · March 9, 2010 4:48AM

I see this on dealer websites all the time... going on and on about the prior auction history and prices yet they somehow leave off the most recent auction and price that they just paid for the coin

Don't remember seeing Heritage play this game before though.

RWB · March 9, 2010 4:50AM

Could also be a cut-'n'-paste mistake.

firstmint · March 9, 2010 5:34AM

Roger, don't let out too many trade secrets...

It's probably not a cut & paste mistake, but rather an omission since Heritage did not sell the coin last time around, so it wasn't in their database to begin with.

RYK · March 9, 2010 5:49AM

My favorite is when the last example sold of the date and grade is the SAME COIN. They often leave those sales off the list of comps.

Longacre · March 9, 2010 6:14AM

If they went all the way back to 1866, they should have gone forward to 2009.

Billet7 · March 9, 2010 6:37AM

I can think of a few reasons.

1. Heritage doesn't want to advertise a competetor.
2. Protect the client selling the coin. To me it doesn't make much sense, but if the client asked to remain completely out of the public picture, Heritage might remove any information from the listing that might identify the client in question.
3. Make it look like the coin has been off the market for a longer time. It gives the the illusion that the coin is a real treasure. "It came from the estate of a prominent east coast collector." and that sort of thing.

I'm sure there could be more reasons I'm not thinking about. These are just a few.

Billet7 · March 9, 2010 6:40AM

Honestly though...it could just be a mistake. Which is what I am leaning towards.

shorecoll · March 9, 2010 9:36AM

I think Dan Holmes would be a positive to the provenance, so the other possibles would be more likely.

Coinosaurus · March 9, 2010 9:44AM

I find it very difficult to believe that whoever buys will not have already known about the Holmes sale.

Unknown · March 9, 2010 9:51AM

This content has been removed.

joebb21 · March 9, 2010 10:00AM

more importantly to me....

do you plan on making this coin the next addition to your type set?

1TwoBits · March 9, 2010 10:19AM

I've looked at the copper lots. All I need to do is look at the lot prior to this MS63 chain cent (lot 97 PCGS VF30 Chain) and see the MRB VF20 at the end. That means Mark Borckardt is reviewing the large cents (or at least some of them) and assigning EAC type grading. Mark is an EAC member with vast knowledge on the subject of copper. Surely he was at the Holmes sale, so I'm led to believe the omission was requested by the consignor.

Unknown · March 9, 2010 10:31AM

This content has been removed.

SmallEagle · March 9, 2010 11:49AM

I'm pretty sure that Legend bought this coin out of the Holmes sale and had it listed on their website for some time afterward. If they are still the owner they may be the kind of seller that could convince Heritage to leave off the last transaction. (I don't know that they are the current owner.)

I don't buy that Heritage doesn't want to plug their competitors since they often mention A.N.R./Stacks in their pedigree trail.

Oh, and Realone don't worry about someone buying this coin for $130K. Possibly for twice that but only possibly....

lkeigwin · March 9, 2010 12:15PM

I like to think it was an oversight. HA has been pretty thorough in most ways.
Lance.

PerryHall · March 9, 2010 8:29PM

I'm surprised one of the pricipals at Heritage hasn't responded to this thread as they have done in the past on other threads concerning HA.

earlyAurum · March 9, 2010 9:04PM

I have seen other auction houses do the same with coins of equal significance/price. In those cases, omission was deliberate hoping to remove a floor in terms of price. I find it very scummy and I ultimately believe that it hurts no only the seller but the auction house in terms of trust. I really hope that it was an honest oversight because I have been under the impression that Heritage has the highest standards.

earlyAurum

Broadstruck · March 9, 2010 9:07PM

<< <i>Do they feel this fact makes the coin less "fresh" >>

SmallEagle, I feel you hit the nail on the head as there's plenty of Holmes and Naftzger large cents getting stale in dealers inventories that will be reconsigned to auction.

However anyone who's done their homework would recognize the coins full provenance.

SmallEagle · March 11, 2010 12:35AM

I found the following listing on Legend's archives:

1C 1793 CHAIN AMERICA PCGS MS63BN
AN AMAZING SPECIMEN!
Sold on 12/2009 This is the first MS63BN Chain Cent from the recently sold Dan Holmes Collection. It is truly an amazing coin to behold! The Holmes pedigree is on the holder.

Any choice BU Chain Cent ranks as true numismatic royalty. This coin is a REAL MS63.

To start, the coin was struck on a very decent planchet. That means there is little to no porosity. The surfaces are smooth and problem free. Some light luster actually does remain in a glossy fashion. The color is a deeper original chocolate brown. There are NO spots or stains. Miss Liberty is surprisingly well struck and does stand out. The eye appeal is fabulous-keep in mind, this is one of the first coins our US Mint ever made 216 years ago!

PCGS 5, NGC 0, CAC 2. PCGS has only graded 3 coins higher-and they would cost you a heck of a lot more to buy-if they ever came around for sale. We got very lucky and caught a break on buying this coin. There was a second coin (one that we bought with partners) which came out of an NGC MS64 BN holder we bought for $400,000.00. There are NO auction records for any MS63's. However, an MS62BN sold in a Heritage 2008 sale for $253,000.00. We do strongly believe that one day soon, as the market regains real momentum, these will be $500,000.00 plus coins. Opportunity knocks loud for anyone who has ever really desired a CHOICE CHAIN CENT!

Legend Numismatics is pleased to own and offer this grand numismatic treasure to our friends.

SO.... it looks like the coin has sold twice in the last six months. And I can't blame Legend for convincing Heritage to leave out the Holmes sale of the provenance since they apparently sold it in December.

swhuck · March 11, 2010 12:40AM

This was a simple cataloger's oversight. The description has been fixed to include that part of the pedigree, and it should show up on the site in a few hours if it hasn't already.

SmallEagle · March 11, 2010 12:42AM

Stewart,

Would you go so far as to say Heritage never intentionally leaves out a recent transaction to make a coin appear fresher?

Thanks!

swhuck · March 11, 2010 7:03AM

It is Heritage’s policy to include important pedigrees on all coins.

joebb21 · March 11, 2010 8:25AM

im guessing the chain cent didnt CAC

Why would Heritage leave this out while describing an auction lot?

Comments

Leave a Comment