AmazedAncient

I share your disgust for the word, more than you could imagine. "The Hunted Children" Dr. D. A. Lowrie Back to this thread. The metaphor was used to compare many decades of known & documented abusive activities, exceeding what is necessary or reasonable to carry out lawful duties by enforcement agencies in the United States. This country's enforcement powers & actions are an example that has far reaching implications. New restrictive laws, seizures, etc, on certain Americans or individuals or institutions increases the likelihood of future abuses. There are many concerns & implications regarding this case, extending far beyond coins, collecting and museum artifacts. One of my earliest concerns was the possibility of Mr. Beale speaking to NY law enforcement without an Attorney present. From an Attorney: "One should never talk to the police without first consulting an Attorney. Enforcement Authorities & Police Officers are highly trained to obtain confessions, coerce admissions and probe for inconsistencies. If you are innocent, they will use any and all inconsistencies in your statements as evidence of possible guilt, potential fraud or anything else."

ANS Cultural Property Statement: "It is unreasonable to assume that a coin is stolen, illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source. Taken together, such considerations argue that within the world of artifacts, coins as a class do, in fact, stand apart."

ANS Cultural Property Statement: "It is unreasonable to assume that a coin is stolen, illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source. Taken together, such considerations argue that within the world of artifacts, coins as a class do, in fact, stand apart."

I view the Leu sale of a series of ancient coins as not unlike Stacks selling a roll of Washington quarters. Yes, if an honest U.S. citizen tries to acquire a Leu coin, it might get seized by CBP and their collaborating informants. For the most part, the rest of the world does not have this Gestapo-like attack on coin collectors. Most disturbing is to watch Americans lose the right to collect ancient coins. This becomes evident when intelligent & conscientious American collectors buy into and adopt the radically antithetical beliefs and hypocrisy of a small AIA group using their systematic anti-collecting arguments to forcibly pressure their draconian restrictions. Virtually all of the AIA moral arguments about coin collecting are unfounded and totally hyperbolic. I think we all need to step back from the moral judgments about coins and take a minute to read the ANS Cultural Property Statement: "It is unreasonable to assume that a coin is stolen, illegally exported, or illegally imported merely because the holder cannot establish a chain of custody beyond receipt from a reputable source. Taken together, such considerations argue that within the world of artifacts, coins as a class do, in fact, stand apart."

Not sure about anyone else, but this is sounding (no exaggeration) an awful lot like U.S. "looting" of American property, similar to the horrible 8th Reichstag looting that began in 1933 Germany, i.e. newly inacted federal laws, secretive classified seizures, no concrete evidence, gung-ho agents, many covert collaborators and proud displays of seized objects. By 1936, newly inacted German laws passed by the government gave Gestapo agents carte blanche to seize any and all artifacts with minimal judicial review - in effect, putting its enforcing agents above the law. However, unlike the growing & recent U.S. artifact seizure cases, Germany was not acting on behalf of FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. This incident may discourage or affect a few U.S. customers, but Roma has a very, very large (zero restrictions) clientele in Europe, Asia, Australia, Middle East and South America. I wonder what they all think of this NYC/USA fiasco?

Not sure about anyone else, but this is sounding (no exaggeration) an awful lot like U.S. "looting" of American property, similar to the horrible 8th Reichstag looting that began in 1933 Germany, i.e. newly inacted federal laws, secretive classified seizures, no concrete evidence, gung-ho agents, many covert collaborators and proud displays of seized objects. By 1936, newly inacted German laws passed by the government gave Gestapo agents carte blanche to seize any and all artifacts with minimal judicial review - in effect, putting its enforcing agents above the law. However, unlike the growing & recent U.S. artifact seizure cases, Germany was not acting on behalf of FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. This incident may discourage or affect a few U.S. customers, but Roma has a very, very large (zero restrictions) clientele in Europe, Asia, Australia, Middle East and South America. I wonder what they all think of this NYC/USA fiasco?

In my opinion, these are not pseudo statements. Nor do I take these statements as nefarious, spurious or a sham. I do not believe the maligning of Roma Numismatics is in anyones best interest. There are at least two parallel operations going on with these auction or catalog statements. Foremost is to maintain Seller anonymity. Second, is to inform potential bidders the coins are from an already existing collection. Thirdly, collectors should do not view these statements as suggesting some kind of assurance a coin complies with U.S. import restriction rules. Top tier auction firms are obligated to maintain the anonymity of a Seller, Dealer or Institution, if so desired. Thus catalogs typically reveal little more than a specimen from a “private collection" or as the note you referenced. For example, a renowned London firm did this when a very famous Archeologist sold an amazing Etruscan collection. There is at least one top tier firm that still rarely mentions any pedigree or provenance. Most catalogs, back in the day, never bothered with assigning each and every coin with recorded "purebred" status, or a so-and-so upper-class ancestry. This type of info was gossip and conversation discussed at club meetings or privately at pre-sale viewing. However, their are attorneys that want to delete Seller anonymity, especially in NY. Unfortunately, we must now choose a favorable Seller venue carefully. It is important to know that millions and millions of ancient coins are orphans. These coins will never attain a purebred or "pedigree" status. This is the reality of most ancient coinage, a small metallic object that was produced to circulate freely in commerce, anonymously.

NewStyleKing hit on many pertinent points related to this matter & the state of current operational affairs. Yes, I'm new to this forum and thanks for allowing me to comment. No, I'm not Mr. Beale, but I give the benefit of the doubt to him. I have been collecting coins for 5 decades. My 1st ancient coin was from CNA #1. Way back in a much earlier comment I clearly stated I do not condone "misrepresentations, theft and illicit activities." As far as "cowboy collecting" goes, not sure what it means. My numismatic approach would be considered "old school collecting" (whatever that means) to the younger generation.... Back to the NewStyleKing comments: There are some great sociological essay explanations of how and why wayward government restrictions, bans, etc, create "alternative market operations" especially when new rules arise. The topic actually belongs in the Young Sociology Forum, but relates here & I'll just say this: For centuries, the very noble, intellectual and legitimate ancient coin collecting endeavor was never a U.S. government concern, nor a N.Y. law enforcement preoccupation. When the U.S. government started listening & acting on the anti-coin collecting lobbyists, moving then to legislate restrictive import laws on coin collecting and started ramping up the use of tax dollars to obtain questionable coin lists, fund covert seizures, secret enforcement training, undisclosed informants, etc, etc, the operations of this noble, intellectual and legitimate coin collecting endeavor was essentially forced into the (never before) legal quest for permits, licenses, ancestry, lineage, grey area loopholes, declarations, pedigrees, territorial boundaries, exhibits, find spot maps & debatable origins (long sentence required). Did I miss something? All for a coin! Suddenly 'orphan' ancient coins needed to have a family. I truly believe Mr. Beale's is a product of this daunting challenge. His quest for a detailed pedigree may have been motivated by an urgency to abide and comply with these rules & restrictions on coin collecting. Yes, motivation was also to make money (virtuous too), but the urgency to comply came first. Strictly an opinion. Roma Numismatics will get past this questionable enforcement crusade. In fact, the quest for a legitimate "pedigree" sideshow & the legitimate questions (in this case) have already added an unparalleled narrative to these already historical coins, unknowingly. Just hope Mr. Beale has great support and perseverance. BTW, I do not believe NGC has guaranteed the EID MAR authenticity.

I tend to agree. Again, we are not privileged to know exactly what transpired during the entire conversations between Mr. Beale and "Informant 2" other than the word "false" as noted. I believe Mr. Beale may only need to prove he had a reasonable basis for the publication of the provenance. That's all. If Mr. Beale might be able to show he had a reasonable basis for his original provenance, only contradicted by the informants belief the provenance was not authentic, it seems this case is more about possible mutual mistakes, perhaps making a claim of outright fraud much, much more difficult.

I tend to agree. Again, we are not privileged to know exactly what transpired during the entire conversations between Mr. Beale and "Informant 2" other than the word "false" as noted. I believe Mr. Beale may only need to prove he had a reasonable basis for the publication of the provenance. That's all. If Mr. Beale might be able to show he had a reasonable basis for his original provenance, only contradicted by the informants belief the provenance was not authentic, it seems this case is more about possible mutual mistakes, perhaps making a claim of outright fraud much, much more difficult.

I did and read this affidavit differently, but could be wrong. Remember, the DA has bias in writing the affidavit to favor his case. Much is being left out and abbreviated. The way I read this is as follows: 1. Mr. Beale paid for provenance research. 2. Mr. Beale states this fact. 3. Mr. Beale has a 3rd party (informant) verify the provenance. 4. DA states the "informant" said it was false. (What EXACTLY did he say to Mr. Beale? DA omitted the full conversations.) 5. "Informant" does not accept 100k payment to sign. Questions: Did the "informant" accept to be paid prior to reviewing the provenance? How did the "informant" review the provenance? Did the "informant" prove it was false? State it's "possibly false" or "might be false" or "likely false"? What exactly was the "informants" proof and conversation with Mr. Beale? If the "informant" simply express doubts, then Mr. Beale might be justified in requesting a signature for the provenance. Simply expressing a doubt by one individual, might be why Roma catalogers went ahead to cite the provenance as "their opinion," and clearly noted this in the conditions of the sale.

Perhaps, but we do not know the precise provenance process Mr. Beale used, the researchers he engaged & if the coins previous ownership was known to be false after the research process was completed. Paying large sums for provenance research is common. I have spent a pretty penny on coin provenance research. I find most provenance to be a trust in third party statements, old catalog statements, and/or old salesman/dealers attestations as to who actually owned a coin. In the end, these are just best known opinions, rarely fact. Wish I had a photo of Baron von so-and-so actually holding my coin, rather than a salesmans statement. But back to the point. Museums consume thousands of hours on provenance research and pay millions to researchers yearly. Often only to unexpectedly find out that a provenance was false....and after the research was completed. I will give Mr. Beale the benefit of the doubt since, to my knowledge, Roma is one of the top tier firms. His initial provenance research may or may not have been absolutely genuine. Also, we should acknowledge that there are many individuals actively seeking an end to ancient coin collecting and the free trade of ancient coins. Would not surprise me if one of these individual "informants" egged Mr. Beale on to get him to say something negative, but this is just an assumption.

My strong suspicion is that you are quoting the "no friend of the collecting community, to put it mildly..." likely working incognito to twist the threads toward the radical agenda against ancient coin collecting. This quote is directly linked from the anti-collecting bloggers website. The not-so-supportive quote content is very similar to the blog content. Also, notice the eye of horus coin avatar, which is very similar to the bloggers twitter avatar. Just offering a word of caution to alert everyone...

I'm just a humble coin collector, not an attorney, but there seems to be several weaknesses in the New York State DA "Authorities" written charges against Mr. Beale. This comment is not intended to imply I condone misrepresentations, theft or illicit activities. First, the Roma catalog clearly states that the coin descriptions "are the opinions of the catalogers" which would include the provenance notes. The last I checked, opinions, unlike facts, are neither true nor false. This is why they say, "always buy the coin itself, NOT the descriptions." Second, is a jurisdictional question. Roma clearly states that any disputes resulting from a coin in an auction shall be resolved in the "England and Wales" Courts. Just because a United Kingdom sales catalog ends up in a New York mailbox does not mean suddenly catalog "opinions" or Mr. Beale's stated comments or "opinions" are now subject to the NY State jurisdictional system. But I could be wrong... We get catalogers from several foreign countries. If we disagree with a foreign catalog statement(s), can we simply take it up in our local US Courthouse? Perhaps if we had unlimited funds, like the NYC DA? I refrain from mentioning the multiple DA weaknesses in fact & evidence related to the coins themselves. There are many. Bottom line: New York City and NY State "Authorities" ("academics" too) are suspicious & unfriendly to ancient coin Collectors, for over a decade and getting worse. Suggest another more friendly State for the annual International Numismatic Convention that does not have "informants" secretly crawling around the entire bourse vicinity, inside and out. Doubt we'll buy or sell anything in NYS again...