JimBranson

8 hours ago, kirispupis said:

In terms of a date range for the coin, the seller listed 350-300 BCE. However, I believe

1 minute ago, El Cazador said:

Certainly, but we need specifics around logistics as to how they ended up at Leu, perhaps there were 5 other owners before the consignor got a hold of it… so it is not totally fair to call out these other 5 owners and Leu

From what I have been told, Leu offered these coins at auction. Involved parties reached out to Leu with evidence of the stolen nature of the coins. Leu, now aware that these coins are stolen, has continued to offer them at auction. 

The path from initial theft to current status is irrelevant once Leu was made aware of the stolen nature of these coins. 

Just now, El Cazador said:

And?

CNG, unlike some auction houses, has a positive industry reputation and a track record of solid business practices. The owner of the firm has a reputation likewise and so is in a position to be trusted. 

5 minutes ago, Limes said:

t does ofcourse. You also mention owner, above. So there is evidence out there? Why not share a but more about it?

Yes, I believe I misunderstood you. If Leu is knowingly selling stolen property, the path it took before arriving to Leu is irrelevant legally speaking in terms of liability and consequences. Obviously having proof matters in the case of whether Leu is guilty in doing this. I have shared all that I can in the hope that no one buys these coins in the likely advent of further legal action against Leu and future troubles associated with the owners of both these lots shared above and previous lots sold at Leu from the same group of suspected stolen coins

Yes. I say allegedly because I am not able to provide proof at this point. The best I can do is share the above Facebook comment by someone in the know as well as the rumors circulating, substantiated by others who are closer placed to this situation than I.

Swiss law states: Art collectors who do not act as professionals pursuant to article 16 of the CPTA may be subject to criminal sanctions should they sell, import, distribute, procure, acquire or export cultural property stolen or otherwise lost against the will of the owner (article 24, CPTA).

In light of the inditement and prosecution against Mr. Beale, it would seem appropriate to include American law as well: If you are found guilty of dealing in stolen property, you face a second-degree felony charge and a prison sentence of up to 15 years. However, if it is decided that you are responsible for organizing the larger operation of thievery, you face a first-degree felony charge punishable by up to 30 years in prison

2 minutes ago, Ryro said:

Where were they sold previously? Knowing that would be damning and not just speculation. I understand we are being told they were stolen off a truck. But from where?

That doesn’t matter. Knowledge of the path the coins took from the initial theft to a Leu auction does not matter when Leu has been alerted that the coins are stolen yet still continue to offer the coins for sale. Stolen goods can not be legally be purchased. The buyer of the illicit contraband does not have legal ownership of the items, regardless of whether they knew those goods were stolen at the time.
 

Leu, by knowingly selling stolen goods, Is needless to say in much more legal hot water than a simple lack of ownership that the buyer of these goods has to deal with.

8 minutes ago, Hesiod said:

Wonder what coins were stolen that already sold in the last sale, might be annoying to be the winner of one of those

considering leu is knowingly selling contraband, I would worried as the winning bidder to receive a refund once police action is taken (which looks to already be underway). Leu will not stop selling this owner’s stolen property so no other avenues are available to the individual 

Lot 733, allegedly: stolen from a FedEx truck, with Leu continuing to offer the coin for sale even AFTER being provided with proof of the stolen nature of coins. Leu has stopped communication with the rightful owner. 
 

Lot 784, allegedly: stolen from a FedEx truck, with Leu continuing to offer the coin for sale even AFTER being provided with proof of the stolen nature of coins. Leu has stopped communication with the rightful owner. 

Lot 1264, allegedly: stolen from a FedEx truck, with Leu continuing to offer the coin for sale even AFTER being provided with proof of the stolen nature of coins. Leu has stopped communication with the rightful owner. 

Lot 1270, allegedly: stolen from a FedEx truck, with Leu continuing to offer the coin for sale even AFTER being provided with proof of the stolen nature of coins. Leu has stopped communication with the rightful owner. 

What matters here is that is Leu is seemingly selling known stolen property even AFTER being alerted to time stamped proof of these coins by the owner and the subsequent recent theft. Even if you would never buy from them, they might sell your next retail purchase that gets snatched at the post office before those coins make it to your home.

Those of you on facebook may have caught wind of this already but I'll share here for those who haven't seen it.

There are some allegations about Leu Numismatik concerning their upcoming Web Auction 27 as well as their previous auctions. Allegedly, Leu have been selling coins in their auctions that were reported to them as stolen by reputable people within the trade. This was surfaced recently in one of the Facebook groups for ancients.

I have since heard that the allegations concern the following lots in Web Auction 27: lot 733, 784, 1264, and 1270. Apparently these coins were stolen from a FedEx package and somehow wound up being consigned to Leu. As far as I know, Leu has stopped trying to resolve the problem privately and have not commented on it publicly.

Of course without proof this may seem like an attempt to prevent people bidding on those lots. My intentions are only to make others aware of the allegations as it seems possible that the eventual winners of these lots won't be the rightful owners and the ownership of the coins could be disputed for sometime.

Until the matter is cleared up, perhaps some caution is warranted but I'm not suggesting that others should or should not bid on these lots.

Beyond the unfortunate erasure of bids for the collector, it really is the consigner who is mist affected. Here, presumably thousands were lost depending on the extent of the issue

30 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

So are you saying that user_1 (id: xx39) won the lot for 900 GBP even though user_2 (id: xx94) supposedly had placed a max bid of 1800 GBP? That does seem very odd if so. I wonder how that could happen?

Yes. There is somesort of problem with carrying prebids over…multiple lots of coins oijs worth thousands of dollars had pre bids placed and accepted….on the day of the auction, prebids were not even used and the coins were sold from the starting price up. 

5 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

The relevant documents analyze the route of ancient objects (mainly coins) from their illegal excavation to their sale, the suspicious role of foreign auction houses in laundering antiquities, as well as techniques for manipulating electronic auctions with virtual 'hits'." [my note: perhaps 'hits' here is a bad translation of 'bids'?]

5 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

• A recorded conversation of one of the defendants claimed that about half of the auction house's 20% fee is used for obtaining false CoAs.
• The investigation also alleges that auction houses encourage their Greek contacts to bid on their own coins to drive up the prices
• If the shill bidder wins, the auction house "awards" them the lot anyway, at no cost, and the shill bidder then can simply re-offer the coin later at another auction house with a more legitimate-looking "collection history"

I was scoping out the Roma Numismatics feature and spotted something hella odd. Was gonna bid on a coin hoping that Beale news would keep the hammers low but I still couldnt keep up. But then when the live auction started and the coin went for even less than the prebid! Was still out (damn) but had never seen anything like this. Roma's website is a dumpster fire and the data is visible in the browser during live so I checked what happened. It turns out thats exactly what went down. Some dude bid 3200 and the actual hammer during live was 3000 by another dude and the bidding even started somewhere under 3000 so neither the original 3000 or 3200 applied (or even anything after starting?). If I was the seller I'd be flipping my lid. Makes me wonder if any other coins went for less than expected? The auction paused several times so did more bids fail to apply or what was that about?

 Well! I investigated and it seems that something similar happened with several coins! Coin mentioned earlier was number 72. Coin 13 had a prebid of 1700 by one dude and sold for 1300 to another. Coin 20 has a prebid of 1800 by one dude and sold for 900 to another. Think some dozen+ prebids mightve been taken over by lower floor bids as well but not sure about that. Wtf?

Attached is info for coin 20 as an example with parts of the ids censored.

This story has made the New York times

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/22/arts/design/rare-coin-returned-greece-eid-mar.html
 

37 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

I assume you're joking, but I think someone at Roma (Richard, is that you?) has to be reading this thread. It's too much of a coincidence otherwise that Roma made the correction. And I also think this suggests that their cataloguers don't always bother actually looking at descriptions in previous auctions, even when they list those auctions. 

AmazingAncient is a brand new user who joins the forum after this specific thread is created. Their very first comment follows the line of “I am not Richard Beale but” … and then they become the most prolific Beale supporter on the forum.

We all suspect and know who AmazingAncient really is. Mr Beale, either defend yourself publicly or do not do so at all. 

Provenance refers to the history of ownership and movement of a coin, including where and from whom it was acquired. This information is crucial for ensuring that the coin was collected ethically and legally.

Without provenance, there is no way to know for certain that a coin was not stolen or illegally excavated from an archaeological site. Acquiring coins without proper provenance not only supports the illicit trade in ancient artifacts, but it also robs us of valuable information about the history and context of the coin.

Furthermore, owning a coin without provenance can put you at risk of losing it if it is discovered to have been illegally obtained. Many governments and organizations have laws and regulations in place to protect ancient artifacts, and without proper provenance, you may not be able to prove your ownership of the coin.

In short, when collecting ancient coins, it is essential to prioritize provenance. Not only is it the ethical thing to do, but it is also in your own best interest as a collector. I urge you to always research the provenance of a coin before acquiring it and to only purchase from reputable sources.

Thank you for considering the importance of provenance in your coin collection.

I understand that your consigned antiquities are up for auction this Wednesday, and while they have already seen some bids, I was hoping that there could be more. As someone who is as passionate about ancient coins as you are, it would make me so happy to see these pieces find the right home before the deadline. I wish you all the best for this upcoming week and hope that these coins will receive even more attention in their final days on the auction block!

.

Jim