AmazedAncient

18 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Furthermore, your continuing "Gestapo" references seriously annoy me, to put it mildly. They make you sound deranged. Do you know anything about the real Gestapo? Or just the "8th Reichstag looting"? (I'm still waiting for an explanation of that one!) Tell me, do you think that if Beale had been arrested by the real Gestapo, he would have been released on his own recognizance by a judge (Roland Freisler, perhaps? Look him up), and permitted to fly home to Great Britain? I am, as politely as I can, asking you to stop making such references and all other similar references.

3 hours ago, filolif said:

Anything to not trust the big bad government. Speaks to how broken many Americans brains are and the state of our politics/society at the moment. 
 

Thanks to @DonnaML for steadfastly defending what should be common sense in this 

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."

10 hours ago, David Atherton said:

I'm amazed(Ancient) at the gaslighting certain folks are doing to justify criminal behaviour.

And kudos to Donna, you're a beacon of rationality in a very polarised topic!

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."

17 hours ago, DonnaML said:

This has nothing to do with the Roma situation, but dubious -- and truly preposterous -- "from an old collection" provenances are hardly limited to that company. On the Facebook ancient coins group, people have been ridiculing the stated provenance of a group of coins up for sale at the current Leu auction. To quote one member a couple of days ago: "Looks like the Leu auction had some decent bargains today so far. That person who formed the 'European collection formed before 2005' had quite the appetite for coins - among their many holdings were 42 shiny late type Lysimachus tets all from the same mint!. Amazing." 

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."

3 hours ago, kirispupis said:

If I were the buyer and the government showed up to confiscate my $4M coin, I'd be pretty upset.

For the government to come to my house and demand the coin, the false provenance wouldn't be sufficient. I would want hard data proving that the coin in fact was stolen.

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?

3 hours ago, kirispupis said:

If I were the buyer and the government showed up to confiscate my $4M coin, I'd be pretty upset.

For the government to come to my house and demand the coin, the false provenance wouldn't be sufficient. I would want hard data proving that the coin in fact was stolen.

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?

On 3/12/2023 at 10:43 AM, Heliodromus said:

I doubt it, since Roma is infamous for these pseudo-pedigrees, offered for most coins, even for the lowest LRB where no-one would expect or need one.

For example, take look at the most recently posted Roma e-Live 6 auction, and search for "From the collection of a Romanophile".

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.

22 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

Eyes wide open is one thing, but revelling in being a cowboy seems entirely another.

Certainly some museums are not the best custodians of ancients, and most coins don't belong there in the first place. Many/most antiquities laws relating to coins seem poorly thought out, even when well intentioned, and end up encouraging non-reporting and therefore destruction of history.

However, that all said, illegal excavation and disbursal of hoards is a shame. I don't think individual finds have much if anything to tell us, although aggregated find-spots would be useful, but hoards certainly do, and post-disbursal attempted reconstruction really isn't the same. Take the recent Rauceby hoard of late roman bronzes from England... it was at least reported thanks to England's sensible laws, but sadly the coins were removed from the container by the finder rather than in a controlled/recorded way, and now we've completely lost the layering of coins within the pot, which may have helped understand the nature of the hoard and perhaps fine dating of the issues.

I'm not sure why you think there was a NewStyle hoard coming out of the Balkans specifically, although of course easy to guess if coins are part of a hoard or not. During the break up of Yugoslavia the market was flooded with LRBs - appearing to all be individual finds, so no great loss to history, which presumably did originate out of that region. In that case there was nothing one could do to differentiate coins that may have come from there from whatever else was on the market at the time... eyes wide open, one would be foolish not to realize that some of the coins bought during that time period must have come from there, but that's not the same thing as revelling in the break up of an assumed illegally excavated hoard.

I'm a bit surprised to see AmazedAncient like your message. He/she just joined the board to participate in this thread, and I was wondering if it might be Mr. Beale himself given the message content. Odd to see this same person apparently condoning cowboy collecting and suggestions the Eid Mar may be fake.

 

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.

2 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

It's hard to see any of these felony theft charges sticking, so it seems the real impact here will be a huge hit to the reputation of Roma/Beale, at least among those who care. It seems an extraordinarily arrogant and stupid way to shoot oneself in the foot, after the company managed to quickly gain reputation as a top venue.

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. 

2 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

It's hard to see any of these felony theft charges sticking, so it seems the real impact here will be a huge hit to the reputation of Roma/Beale, at least among those who care. It seems an extraordinarily arrogant and stupid way to shoot oneself in the foot, after the company managed to quickly gain reputation as a top venue.

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. 

2 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

I'd recommend reading the affidavit signed by the HSI Special Agent on the first page. It alleges Mr. Beale was made aware of the false provenance by Informant #2 but decided to go ahead anyway and only after he was made aware of the false provenance did he and Mr. Vecchi offer the money to Informant #2.

This is not a matter of paying money for someone to do provenance research.

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.

1 hour ago, Kaleun96 said:

1. That doesn't legally protect you if you paid someone, or attempted to pay someone, 100,000 Swiss francs to attest to a false provenance.

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. 

9 hours ago, DonnaML said:

This is from someone's comment at Coin Talk -- 

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. 

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...