Should I be worried?

[kirispupis]

Some time ago I was perusing listings on VCoins, when I came across an intriguing coin. The type is still uncommon (50 examples on ACSearch), but it used to be quite rare but I've noticed a number of examples from various auctions and sellers lately, leading me to believe there's been a hoard - and thus even though it's a low priority I've been tempted to grab one. However, what I found more intriguing was its attribution as a plate coin.

The price seemed a bit too fair for a plate coin of such an uncommon issue, so I did a bit more research and found that the plate coin mentioned had sold at CNG a few years ago. A comparison of the images suggested they may be double die matches, but they were most definitely not the same coin. The details on the obverse were more worn and the reverse was slightly off center compared to the CNG coin.

I didn't buy it because I felt it dishonest to list something as a plate coin when it wasn't. Someone else bought it soon after.

This is a relatively new VCoins seller and is one of the smaller dealers. I've never transacted with them before, but AFAICT the other coins they list are genuine - though I haven't checked their attributions. They use a variety of different photo styles, which indicates to me that they're just re-listing coins/artifacts from other sellers. Their prices are reasonable, though.

Do you think this is just laziness on the part of the seller, or should I be more worried and avoid them? I can understand a normal mis-attribution, but verifying a plate coin shouldn't be difficult.

(Not posting the coin out of fairness to the seller)

[kevikens]

What is a "plate" coin?

[zadie]

14 minutes ago, kevikens said:

What is a "plate" coin?

A coin that has been published in the "plates" of an academic article or book.

[kirispupis]

10 minutes ago, kevikens said:

What is a "plate" coin?

It's the coin used as a reference for the type in one of the main guides on the type. For example, if you have a John Hyrcanus I coin, and wanted to know the attribution, you'd look in Hendin. You'd search for a photo of your type and the description. If you were to buy that coin in the photo (and a number of Hendin's plate coins are available in a current CNG auction), you'd own a plate coin.

I currently own only one plate coin.

Euboia. Euboean League
304-290 BCE 19.36mm 7.13g
Obverse: Bull left, star above
Reverse: EY-BO, two bunches of grapes on vine, star above
Lindgren II 1529 (this coin)
Ex BCD collection
Ex Henry Clay Lindgren collection and a plate coin in his second reference volume
Ex Marc Breitsprecher

[John Conduitt]

56 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Some time ago I was perusing listings on VCoins, when I came across an intriguing coin. The type is still uncommon (50 examples on ACSearch), but it used to be quite rare but I've noticed a number of examples from various auctions and sellers lately, leading me to believe there's been a hoard - and thus even though it's a low priority I've been tempted to grab one. However, what I found more intriguing was its attribution as a plate coin.

The price seemed a bit too fair for a plate coin of such an uncommon issue, so I did a bit more research and found that the plate coin mentioned had sold at CNG a few years ago. A comparison of the images suggested they may be double die matches, but they were most definitely not the same coin. The details on the obverse were more worn and the reverse was slightly off center compared to the CNG coin.

I didn't buy it because I felt it dishonest to list something as a plate coin when it wasn't. Someone else bought it soon after.

This is a relatively new VCoins seller and is one of the smaller dealers. I've never transacted with them before, but AFAICT the other coins they list are genuine - though I haven't checked their attributions. They use a variety of different photo styles, which indicates to me that they're just re-listing coins/artifacts from other sellers. Their prices are reasonable, though.

Do you think this is just laziness on the part of the seller, or should I be more worried and avoid them? I can understand a normal mis-attribution, but verifying a plate coin shouldn't be difficult.

What was it a plate coin for? I suppose it could be a different issue of the same catalogue.

I would always worry about dealers who don't check their attributions, but if I avoided them all, I would have no-one left to buy from. If it's an isolated incident, I wouldn't worry too much, but I'd check everything extra carefully.

[kapphnwn]

As @kirispupis stated above a plate coin is one illustrated in a book or numismatic article. Its primary function is to illustrate a particular type or issue so that individuals looking at a similar coin can more easily identify which issue or type the coin they are attempting to classify.  I have a number of Plate Coins

Demetrios II Ar Tetradrachm First Reign Sidon 141-140 BC 13,56 grms 26 mm Photo by W. Hansen

This coin was originally plated in Coins of the Seleucid Empire From the Collection of Arthur Houghton No 718

Then it was plated in Handbook of Greek Coinage Vol 9 Syrian Coin 969

Finally it was plated in Seleucid Coins Vol 2 1954 6b 

It should be noted that there is a sub type which is usually described as referenced in or referred to. This is a coin which is noted in a book or numismatic article but not plated. However usually a secondary reference is given eg an Auction or a Fixed Price List.

 As I cannot know what the coin is I would assume that the vendor, unless he was referring to a specific article may be using incorrect terminology. There could be any number of reasons for this. Sometimes language can be the biggest barrier. On more than one occasion I an trying to determine if the vendor means "this coin is from a specific auction or the type is seen in the auction." 

[Kamnaskires]

Like John, I wouldn't let the erroneous reference to it being a plate coin put me off - assuming it was a coin I wanted to add to my collection. Could be an honest mistake if the double die match makes it a lookalike to the actual plate coin. But, as  you suggest, likely amounts to laziness.

 

I am much more concerned about the VCoins seller who has ME (well, a figure number from an article I wrote some years ago) listed - alongside David Sellwood and Michael Mitchiner, no less - among the references for one of the coins in his inventory. What is that guy thinking?! (I experienced serious imposter syndrome when I came across that one.)

[kirispupis]

Without dragging the seller into this, I can clarify a bit more in saying that the coin is a bronze from a relatively uncommon ruler. 

Also, the attribution was copied word for word from CNG's. My guess is that he just copied the listing (he did change the weight), since the types were the same, and just didn't notice the one he copied was for a plate coin.

2 minutes ago, Kamnaskires said:

I am much more concerned about the VCoins seller who has ME (well, a figure number from an article I wrote some years ago) listed - alongside David Sellwood and Michael Mitchiner, no less - among the references for one of the coins in his inventory. What is that guy thinking?! (I experienced serious imposter syndrome when I came across that one.)

Have you tried to contact the seller about the mis-attribution?

FWIW, some time ago I noticed a well-known seller with two mis-attributed coins.

1. The first I cannot honestly remember, but I do recall it was for someone in my Alexander collection, but this wasn't his coin. I provided a reference to the seller and he changed the listing.
2. The other was an infamous Nektanebo II bronze, an attribution that's been pretty much refuted. I didn't mention this one since he wasn't the only seller to do this and just didn't buy the coin.

Where the story takes a turn is that I've since bought many coins from this seller and have a very good relationship.

In terms of original seller I've mentioned above, I've decided to place him in my grey list, meaning that I don't buy anything unless he has something very rare that I can't find somewhere else. I don't believe the mis-attribution was deliberate, but it does show a low attention to detail.

[Ryro]

I think you nailed it in your last comment! It's not a deal breaker for me either... but I then will keep that seller at arms length as either new or lazy the first time it happens. And send them a friendly email about it. If it happens again then they are getting reported. 

[Kamnaskires]

8 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Have you tried to contact the seller about the mis-attribution?

In the case of the coin I mentioned, it wasn't an misattribution. I was being a bit facetious with the "what is he thinking" comment. His reference to a coin in my article was correct - but it nevertheless feels very strange indeed to see me listed among the references.

[John Conduitt]

I think I can say 80% of the dealers and auction houses I've bought from have made an error of substance in the attribution, provenance or fulfilment of at least one coin. The other 20% I just haven't bought much from.

Edited December 28, 2022 by John Conduitt

[AETHER]

How much different was the coin? Regarding wear? Maybe the original photos were much better or vice versa. Or maybe he was told it was a this plate coin and shown two photos that weren't the greatest but were a match?

[kirispupis]

30 minutes ago, AETHER said:

How much different was the coin? Regarding wear? Maybe the original photos were much better or vice versa. Or maybe he was told it was a this plate coin and shown two photos that weren't the greatest but were a match?

On the obverse, the details on the head were far better on the actual plate coin, vs on the seller's coin they were almost entirely worn. On the reverse, the subject was slightly off center on the seller's coin, while perfectly centered on the plate coin.

The seller was certainly aware of the CNG sale of the plate coin because he copied their description word-for-word. I can also assume he knew they weren't the same coin because the CNG copy sold for 650 while the seller's coin was listed at 140. The CNG coin, though, sold before a lot more specimens entered the market and I don't believe it would fetch such a price today.

[robinjojo]

An interesting, but not uncommon dilemma, @kirispupis.  I've seen instances where images from other sources are used to sell coins that are similar.  

I would try to distill the matter down to the merits of the coin being offered, the seller's reputation (VCoins is a good indicator) and whether or not the coin appeals to you.  To be sure usually there is a premium for a plate coin, but sometimes a seller doesn't calculate that into the price, depending on the type and/or the seller's desire to move the coin.

But, since the coin was sold to another collector, I am sure other opportunities will show up in the future.

 

[Edessa]

I tend to "buy the picture" rather than the description. Without naming names, one of the large US auction houses listed a large collection last summer where there were many similar lots. Two or three of the coins I purchased were completely misattributed although they had previously been bought from other major auctions houses and came with flips that had the proper attributions. There were many other obvious cut and paste errors throughout the listings. I don't have any relevant experience in this area, but I would suspect that when a big consignment comes in the time pressure to prepare an auction can become brutal. Not really an excuse because, as has been mentioned before, what are we paying the ever-increasing auction fees for if not for proper photography and cataloging?

[John Conduitt]

5 hours ago, Edessa said:

I tend to "buy the picture" rather than the description.

There are dangers in this. A couple of lots I’m interested in now with a major auction house have the wrong photos to go with the descriptions. Since one of these photos seems to show the same coin as another, it’s the photos that are wrong.

These aren’t the easiest to attribute but given the source of the coins they really should be correct.

[Edessa]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:00 AM, John Conduitt said:

There are dangers in this. A couple of lots I’m interested in now with a major auction house have the wrong photos to go with the descriptions. Since one of these photos seems to show the same coin as another, it’s the photos that are wrong.

These aren’t the easiest to attribute but given the source of the coins they really should be correct.

Absolutely agree, John. I have, however, been refused a return on a coin that was mis-described although with the correct picture. Certainly I should have paid more attention to the photo but at the time I was not well versed in reading Anglo-Saxon mint names. I paid a premium for a common mint attributed as an uncommon mint. The seller. a large European Auction House, said, "Well the picture was correct". That's when I learned to buy the book before buying the coin.