Interesting thread on reddit about Roma Numismatics and the apparent arrest of Richard Beale

[Roerbakmix]

I realise the discussion progressed since my last post, but this is the print screen of the first sale. Note the provenance details. 
 

Now if you search the sale record online, they have changed it to ‘from an English collection’ probably to accommodate the current ‘from a romanophile’ collection: super weird?!

[Dwarf]

Coin Archives Pro right now

 

Quote

From a private English collection.

https://www.coinarchives.com/a/openlink.php?l=1954987|4611|963|6b1fd995246f99a397eda74b3498e661

Fishy at least

Regards Klaus

Edited March 14, 2023 by Dwarf

[Kaleun96]

3 hours ago, Roerbakmix said:

I realise the discussion progressed since my last post, but this is the print screen of the first sale. Note the provenance details. 
 

Now if you search the sale record online, they have changed it to ‘from an English collection’ probably to accommodate the current ‘from a romanophile’ collection: super weird?!

Interesting that it would have a different provenance on acsearch and coinarchives/numisbids but not on Roma's website, surely that's the first place that they would change it? I wonder if originally the lot only had "from an English collection" and acsearch + coinarchives/numisbids scraped the data at that time, then later on Roma updated it on their site to the correct provenance.

[Limes]

There's enough mentioned regarding the specific case which I wont repeat here. I'm interested to see the outcome, and since many things are uncertain, there's little added value to go into that.

But I do want to add a thought, that has been in my head since this issue emerged, and it regards the 'anonymous provenances'. 

If I look at it from my own legal perspective (I'm a legal practitioner, but Dutch law is not US law!), what I find most interesting is the question what the buyer should know and what he should have done to investigate the (legal) origin of the coin and whether it was correctly obtained and brought into commerce previously. Especially since this case also shows that anonymous provenances can be used to add a legitimate origin to a coin (I'm not talking about the issue of buying a fake provenance!). This question is very important to protect a buyer from confiscating his coin (maybe this is different with US law): if the buyer has done the research one could reasonably expect of him, it may exonerate him from legal consequences. Is it sufficient for a buyer to believe a seller, when he provides the anonymous provenance? I think this case may lead to the conclusion that it is not sufficient. In this sense, the example mentioned by @Roerbakmixabove regarding one of his previous coins, is very curious...! 

I wonder what other members think of this. 

 

[Väinämöinen]

Quote

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 case that there is a surprising amount of people defending Beale's practices. Some of the comments in this thread have been downright unhinged.

Regardless of what you think about the legislation regarding antiquities, Beale has admitted to acts that are hurtful to his clients and place the whole industry in questionable light. Skirting the laws regarding antiquities may be widespread, both intentionally and unintentionally, but rarely have I seen such disregard for one's own clientele. All of us are being indirectly hurt by this.

It's not just the case of the forged provenances, risking the little public goodwill there is for collecting, and willingness to mislead his paying customers. Having witnessed some of Beale's outburts online as well as reading and hearing about other people's experiences dealing with him (when they have issues) has really left a sour taste in my mouth.

Unfortunately it's a hobby where you can't always take your business elsewhere if you want to acquire some specific rare coins. Just hope that you don't have any issues and it comes down to a coin flip and the mood for the day whether you're banned from the platform. It'll be curious to see if the case will have any effect on the hammers in the upcoming Roma auctions, of which there is a barrage.

[John Conduitt]

29 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Interesting that it would have a different provenance on acsearch and coinarchives/numisbids but not on Roma's website, surely that's the first place that they would change it? I wonder if originally the lot only had "from an English collection" and acsearch + coinarchives/numisbids scraped the data at that time, then later on Roma updated it on their site to the correct provenance.

This is what happened. Numisbids takes the first draft, errors and omissions and all, and doesn’t update. That’s a danger of using the bidding sites rather than the main site.

[Kaleun96]

On 3/14/2023 at 10:02 AM, Limes said:

There's enough mentioned regarding the specific case which I wont repeat here. I'm interested to see the outcome, and since many things are uncertain, there's little added value to go into that.

But I do want to add a thought, that has been in my head since this issue emerged, and it regards the 'anonymous provenances'. 

If I look at it from my own legal perspective (I'm a legal practitioner, but Dutch law is not US law!), what I find most interesting is the question what the buyer should know and what he should have done to investigate the (legal) origin of the coin and whether it was correctly obtained and brought into commerce previously. Especially since this case also shows that anonymous provenances can be used to add a legitimate origin to a coin (I'm not talking about the issue of buying a fake provenance!). This question is very important to protect a buyer from confiscating his coin (maybe this is different with US law): if the buyer has done the research one could reasonably expect of him, it may exonerate him from legal consequences. Is it sufficient for a buyer to believe a seller, when he provides the anonymous provenance? I think this case may lead to the conclusion that it is not sufficient. In this sense, the example mentioned by @Roerbakmixabove regarding one of his previous coins, is very curious...! 

I wonder what other members think of this. 

 

I've wondered about this too. There's only so much due diligence you can do as a buyer when the provenance is simply "form a European collection formed prior to 2005" or similar. Does that mean we should not buy a coin when the provenance is such? Or does it mean we need to use our further judgement as to whether we think it's likely the coin came from an old collection or was recently put on the market?

Interestingly, if it meant we shouldn't be buying those coins, perhaps it would force auction houses to be more specific in their provenances, or more robust in their guarantees of sufficient provenance for most countries' import laws. Though I don't see this happening unless there was massive heavy-handed enforcement of consistent standards across multiple countries, which would ultimately be terrible for collectors.  

  

edit: any fans or otherwise of Paul's blog should read this post detailing his dishonesty. He's not a trustworthy guy and has little in the way of journalistic standards so keep that in mind when reading what dribble he puts online.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Kaleun96

[filolif]

6 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!

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 thread. 

[akeady]

1 hour ago, Kaleun96 said:

Interesting that it would have a different provenance on acsearch and coinarchives/numisbids but not on Roma's website, surely that's the first place that they would change it? I wonder if originally the lot only had "from an English collection" and acsearch + coinarchives/numisbids scraped the data at that time, then later on Roma updated it on their site to the correct provenance.

And now it's got the correct provenance for both the current auction and the Jan. 2022 listing!

https://www.romanumismatics.com/310-lot-176-domitian-as-caesar-a-sestertius?arr=0&auction_id=0&box_filter=0&cat_id=&department_id=&exclude_keyword=&export_issue=0&gridtype=listview&high_estimate=0&image_filter=0&keyword=Domitian sestertius RIC 295&list_type=list_view&lots_per_page=100&low_estimate=0&month=&page_no=1&paper_filter=0&search_type=&sort_by=lot_number&view=lot_detail&year=

Yesterday, it was the private English collection for the Jan 2022 listing as well as the March 2023 listing.

The acsearch listing for Jan 2022 is still showing the "private English collection".

Maybe they don't remember which provenances are real and which are made-up, so just went with the "private English collection" until noticing this thread 😄

ATB,
Aidan.

Edited March 14, 2023 by akeady

[Rand]

Re: Provenance perspectives

Historical academic (a top priority for me): I am really only interested in find spots/circumstances and support laws that facilitate transparency for this.

Authenticity: I appreciate provenances to pre-50th photographs or die-links with old museum collections (not without limitations).

Legal/trade: evidence that it is not a recent find from an unknown location or looted. I do respect the law. Still, inconsiderate/unfair laws cause huge ongoing harm to the historical academic provenances, straining even honest dealers/collectors and stimulating illicit trade. Regarding public access, a coin ending up in most museums is not unlike being lost again. As a European collector, I find American restrictions working in my favour and do not complain 🙂 

[NewStyleKing]

I wonder when Rich Beale will be a sought after provenance?

[AmazedAncient]

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."

[AmazedAncient]

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."

[AmazedAncient]

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."

[Troyden]

Has Roma made any official statement regarding the situation?

[Kaleun96]

33 minutes ago, AmazedAncient said:

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 assume you're posting this as a supposed response to people who think that coins simply lacking provenance deserved to be seized and repatriated, but you are mistaken in your premise. I don't believe anyone here is saying that is what should happen, rather we are questioning whether that is what HSI is doing in regards to the announced seizures.

We are attempting to understand whether these seizures and the grand larceny/CPSP charges were legally predicated merely on the lack of provenance. We do not know if this is really the case and several people have mentioned this a few times, particularly our resident law expert Donna. Donna, and others, have cautioned against assuming the affidavit and warrant documents contains all the evidence that the State has against the defendants. Again, we do not know whether they have actual proof the coins were stolen or not.

Instead, you and a few others are basing your comments on an assumption that this is the case - that the coins were seized merely because they lacked provenance. From this you suggest that the government is over-reaching in their authority and restricting the "rights" of US people to collect ancient coins. That can only be speculation as no one here knows what evidence HSI and the DA have that the coins were stolen. So posting the ANS cultural property statement is meaningless.

Regardless of the evidence they may or may not have, I don't think anyone here would support coins being seized and declared stolen only because they lack provenance. Most of us here would support that if there is evidence of theft, however.

[Deinomenid]

16 minutes ago, Troyden said:

Has Roma made any official statement regarding the situation?

No.

I imagine they will do anything they can to minimize attention to this, especially given their  imminent auction.

[Troyden]

5 minutes ago, Deinomenid said:

No.

I imagine they will do anything they can to minimize attention to this, especially given their  imminent auction.

Weird, considering both how explosive the story is in the collector circles and that it even made it way into the mainstream press.

[Deinomenid]

Some  on this thread think it's a smallish  minority of collectors that follow  the various  forums  discussing it. From  what I can see  most newspapers haven't picked it up yet, which is strange as it  has definitely  passed over into the general interest category with *Caesar* and *gold!* and reported *thefts* etc. 

 

[Troyden]

9 minutes ago, Deinomenid said:

Some  on this thread think it's a smallish  minority of collectors that follow  the various  forums  discussing it. From  what I can see  most newspapers haven't picked it up yet, which is strange as it  has definitely  passed over into the general interest category with *Caesar* and *gold!* and reported *thefts* etc. 

 

It's making its way into the mainstream.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/one-world-most-expensive-coins-220000467.html

[Kaleun96]

13 minutes ago, Troyden said:

It's making its way into the mainstream.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/one-world-most-expensive-coins-220000467.html

Looks like they republished the story they had on RobbReport. Amazingly, they fluffed the headline completely by saying the Eid Mar is a fake, when that is not part of what either Beale or HSI/DA are saying (as far as we know).

[Ryro]

Talk about "click bait".. The headline is BS:

I could come up with something better than if we're just going to mix lies in with the truth 

"Sleazy European steals millions from American to fund sex dungeon. The price of admission, one ancient gold coin of the mother lover/ killer of Julius Caesar"

[Ryro]

5 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Looks like they republished the story they had on RobbReport. Amazingly, they fluffed the headline completely by saying the Eid Mar is a fake, when that is not part of what either Beale or HSI/DA are saying (as far as we know).

Oops, you beat me to it. 

[Limes]

4 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

I've wondered about this too. There's only so much due diligence you can do as a buyer when the provenance is simply "form a European collection formed prior to 2005" or similar. Does that mean we should not buy a coin when the provenance is such? Or does it mean we need to use our further judgement as to whether we think it's likely the coin came from an old collection or was recently put on the market?

Interestingly, if it meant we shouldn't be buying those coins, perhaps it would force auction houses to be more specific in their provenances, or more robust in their guarantees of sufficient provenance for most countries' import laws. Though I don't see this happening unless there was massive heavy-handed enforcement of consistent standards across multiple countries, which would ultimately be terrible for collectors.

Thanks. Indeed, how much effort is to be expected from the buyer. I think this, together with the question posed by @idesofmarch01 above regarding the question under what condition a coin can be assumed stolen and what is the burden of proof, are most interesting questions, the answers to which may have serious consequences for collectors and sellers...!

Another thing I have been wondering about is the role of sellers. The statement posted by @AmazedAncientabove made me wonder about this. 
It's not uncommon (in my country at least) that when issues arise have serious (legal) implications, the market is called upon (or forced by the government) to impose their own regulation with adequate oversight. In many of these regulations, transparency is an important topic. I think that issues regarding the source of coins and questions about their legality are linked with being transparent as a seller. While I do believe it may be very difficult, or even impossible, to do this for all ancient coins, the lack of transparency in the market is apparent, and a lack of transparency may invite abuse. Various topics could be subject to a set of rules established by the market itself, under the auspices of e.g. the ANS or some other body (oversight): import, export, origin (if possibe), previous selling venues, etc. and to what extent and when sellers ought to 1) register these aspects and 2) provide information about them (on their own initiative, or when a buyer asks about it). It would also require making various definities (e.g. what is a reputable source) and one what have to think about limitations (is it necessary to register everything for a very common, simple follis; what about coins already in trade, etc). This is nothing new and a very useful instrument, it has been done before in many markets.

I couldn't find any existing regulations about this. But perhaps my brief search is inadequate. I do think it would be wise for experts in the market to address this issue. The value of (coins in) the market (and for me personally, the enjoyment of collecting) is also based on trust and honesty. When trust and honesty are broken due to cases like these, it has a negative effect on all coins and all sellers and all collectors. 

[kirispupis]

On the positive side for Richard Beale, however much he loses from this ordeal, he'll make back again by selling the movie rights. 🙂