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

[Kaleun96]

3 minutes ago, Tetradogma said:

All very difficult to prove but given we are in a boom period of over inflated prices this story is really pertinent as it underpins how those mega prices we've been seeing have (and sorry to use this Reganite term) trickled down across all fields of the market. ie have we all been massively over paying for coins for the last ten years?! Ok, I'll take my tin foil hat off now, but still, this all has a very bad whiff coming of it

On the whole, I don't think we've been overpaying for coins even if the alleged practices of bidding-up of coins and "washing" them through auction houses is true and widespread. I say that because the number of coins coming to auction from illegal finds is probably so substantial, it's keeping down the prices more than the dodgy bidding practices might be increasing them.

The hoard of Owl tets is probably the best example of this. While prices haven't bottomed out as much as you might expect for a type with hundreds being sold every week, they're still much cheaper now than they were a decade or so ago. If auction houses only sold coins that were 100% legitimate according to all applicable laws (hypothetically let's pretend this is possible for them to know), I imagine the number of coins coming up for auction each week would be drastically reduced and the current levels of demand for them would send prices even higher than they are currently.

So in that sense I think we probably benefit from lower prices even if these looters/middle-men are bidding up their own coins. Just guessing about this all of course, but that's my impression.

[Prieure de Sion]

Oh yes... I have heard that collecting stamps is also a nice hobby. I think I should read up on it.

[Kaleun96]

On 3/9/2023 at 8:30 AM, Kaleun96 said:

I find it funny that he copied part of one of my comments nearly word-for-word without attributing it to me and seems to be refusing to publish my comment on his blog pointing that out.

edit: my comment on the left, his on the right:

I didn't exactly want to bring this up again but Paul Barford is more dishonest than I originally thought and has called me out on his blog and misrepresented my comments to him while also trying to hide from his laziness by covering up his plagiarism of my post. So I want to briefly document what he's trying to cover up by editing and censoring his blog and my comments on his blog to change the context in which I called out his blatant plagiarism. I want to post this here as he is addressing one of my comments from this thread but I don't aim to derail this thread with this topic, just saving it so people understand just how lazy and shifty of an "academic" Paul really is.

I posted a comment on his post on March 8th drawing his attention to the plagiarism of my comment (see above quoted post). Today he finally approved the comment and we had the following exchange:

Paul:

Quote

Hmm, as far as I can see, there is no comment by any Mr or Ms "Flipperwaldt" in that thread or that forum... but if any Flipperwaldt thoughts are embodied in my account please accept our thanks for helping us to follow this complex case, where much is still unclear. Using real names would help see who is behind what.

Me:

Quote

 

Paul, I have a different username (kaleun96) on the NF forum as to here. To make it easier for you, I had linked you directly to the comment I placed in NF in my previous comment.

It looks like you have edited your post so as to no longer plagiarise my comment on NF, so thank you for that but there's no need to know my real name for you to know that plagiarism is lazy journalism. It also doesn't matter if "flipperwaldt" here is the same user as "kaleun96" on NumisForums, that makes no difference as to plagiarism. You're just trying to deflect blame for your own sloppiness.

People have very good reasons to not want to use their real names online and it has nothing to do with the numismatic hobby.

 

Paul then edited the blog post to remove the plagiarised content and invited readers of his blog to go find the plagiarism - which of course would be missing now that he edited it out. He then edited his comment above to the following: 

Paul:

Quote

https://www.numisforums.com/topic/3703-interesting-thread-on-reddit-about-roma-numismatics-and-the-apparent-arrest-of-richard-beale/
The whole thread is visible here and the reader can check what I may or may not have taken from it, and what comes from other sources. as far as I can see, there is no comment by any Mr or Ms "Flipperwaldt" in that thread or that forum... but if any Flipperwaldt thoughts are embodied in my account please accept our thanks for helping us to follow this complex case, where much is still unclear. Of course, using real names rather than pseudonyms would help see who is behind what.

Paul leaves another comment

Paul:

Quote

 

Really? I use my own name, so that what I can write here can be linked with my published work elsewhere (or my other online writing elsewhere), they go together, so that is the reason I put my real name under my words - and yes, my own words. Possibly yes, sloppy in places, always room for improvement. But I write things that I am willing to stand by and put my real name under - what about you, changing your identity all over the place?

You twice, above, addressed me personally by my real Christian name (though we've not been introduced). For some reason it seems important to you to know who you were addressing. You would not have been able to do that were I hiding between some assumed and flexible identity like many metal detectorists and coin collectors.

PS "here" you created an account under an assumed name specifically to send a comment about something related to an alter-identity "Kaleum96".. one really wonders why anyone'd feel the need to do that.

 

I left a comment, which hasn't been saved in my emails as it was never approved, basically saying people have a right to anonymity online and this hobby is no different from thousands of other hobbies online where people retain such anonymity. I also asked how he would like to be addressed if he'd prefer I not use the name he writes under. I suggested this is a good opportunity for a username if he prefers people who do not know him not call him by his Christian name.

I also pointed out the irony of him saying "I write things that I am willing to stand by and put my real name under" considering my problem is that he has been putting his name under things that he hasn't written himself (i.e. my post).

At this point, Paul (or perhaps he'd prefer to be called xXPaulieB_420Xx), deleted the entire comment chain except for my first comment pointing out the plagiarism and asking for credit. He then changed the blog post to focus on one of my other comments in this thread and proceeds to make arguments against what I wrote. Now my comment below the post is entirely out of context and is pointing out plagiarism that he has since removed from his blog post. He then posted a new comment, playing dumb as if this was his first response to my comment:

Paul:

Quote

What? I think it's pretty clear what I am quoting from where (it is called a 'hyperlink') Anyway, as far as I can see, there is no comment in that thread or that forum by any Mr or Ms "Flipperwaldt" ("the Funniest Joke in the World", eh? You are joking?). Instead of self-obsessed nonsense comments under a droll pseudonym, perhaps you could focus on why we have cultural property legislation and what your role a a collector is in stopping the trade in illicit artefacts.

Paul thought he was being sneaky by changing the blog post title but unfortunately he forgot to change the URL, which is still under the 2023/03/beware-ides-of-march.html URL slug. He also forgot to update the post date, as it shows the post was supposedly made on March 15th yet my comment was left on March 8th. Woops, guess you forgot to fix that one Paul.

The original "Beware the Ides of March" post got moved to an entirely new post, perhaps the 7th iteration judging by the URL suffix: 2023/03/beware-ides-of-march_7.html. Undoing plagiarism is hard I guess, but he got there eventually. This is how that blog post now looks, posted under the new URL, which has been edited to better paraphrase my original comment and avoid plagiarism.

And for record keeping purposes, here's a link to the archive of the original blog post that contained the plagiarism. Paul, I'm afraid you can't escape your lack of integrity or writing ability by changing a few URLs and censoring or misrepresenting my comments. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Kaleun96

[Väinämöinen]

15 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

...

Paul Barford has over the years proven himself to never be arguing in good faith, especially when it comes to anything coin related. His holier-than-thou above criticism approach is nothing short of disgusting. This is yet another proof of that. Lovely summary you have made.

[Sol_Invictus]

In light of these various reports, I’m curious as to which auction houses, if any, people consider to be most likely to actually be trustworthy? To me trustworthy means not intentionally misrepresenting coins, such as faking provenances, selling modern fakes, or knowingly selling coins that they don’t have a clear title to (stolen or looted material that they know is illegal for them to sell in whatever country they’re selling from; or failing to make a good faith effort to do whatever due diligence may be required in their country to verify title/provenance). I personally consider shill bidding to be a secondary issue, even if it’s deceptive, since there is nothing forcing me to bid more than I’m willing to pay for the coin.

[Rand]

NAC for me (they happened to list fakes but acted promptly after noticing them). They recently founded NAC USA with Shanna Schmidt Numismatics Inc. Whatever might have been said about SSN stock prices, their description is honest.

[Null]

1 hour ago, Sol_Invictus said:

In light of these various reports, I’m curious as to which auction houses, if any, people consider to be most likely to actually be trustworthy? To me trustworthy means not intentionally misrepresenting coins, such as faking provenances, selling modern fakes, or knowingly selling coins that they don’t have a clear title to (stolen or looted material that they know is illegal for them to sell in whatever country they’re selling from; or failing to make a good faith effort to do whatever due diligence may be required in their country to verify title/provenance). I personally consider shill bidding to be a secondary issue, even if it’s deceptive, since there is nothing forcing me to bid more than I’m willing to pay for the coin.

As bad as it sounds, so long as the coin is genuine and has not been stolen (IE on a stolen property database), I couldn't care less about the provenance.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Null
typo

[John Conduitt]

It’s come to something when Shanna Schmidt is placed on the positive side of the morality balance.

I don’t think trustworthy can be limited to not misrepresenting coins or faking provenance. Those are minimum requirements, but so is providing a fair platform for bidding. Yes, I’m not forced to bid my maximum on every coin, but it’s outrageous that a company could cheat me into paying it under the pretext of an auction. That’s as dishonest as getting me to pay more for a misleading provenance.

We’re not forced to believe a provenance either. There were coins in Roma’s auction today with externally verifiable provenances. It doesn’t matter what Roma say if you can check external sources. If you buy a coin with an unverifiable provenance, you’re taking a risk with any auction house that it isn’t true, and should bid accordingly.

Edited March 26, 2023 by John Conduitt

[Sol_Invictus]

1 hour ago, John Conduitt said:
I don’t think trustworthy can be limited to not misrepresenting coins or faking provenance. Those are minimum requirements, but so is providing a fair platform for bidding. Yes, I’m not forced to bid my maximum on every coin, but it’s outrageous that a company could cheat me into paying it under the pretext of an auction. That’s as dishonest as getting me to pay more for a misleading provenance.
 

These are excellent points.

[Rand]

8 hours ago, John Conduitt said:

It’s come to something when Shanna Schmidt is placed on the positive side of the morality balance.

If you buy a coin with an unverifiable provenance, you’re taking a risk with any auction house that it isn’t true, and should bid accordingly.

This does resonate with my feelings. I lost coins to Shanna Schmidt and won some overpaying dearly (I cannot be 100% sure of underbidder, of course).

When we talk about dealer reputation-integrity-honesty, we keep in mind:
(i) Legality of the coins (e.g., not looted, not stolen from other collectors or museums, not subject to financial restrictions, etc.)
(ii) Fair price
(iii) Fair description of the condition

(i) I do not care if Madame de Pompadour played with the coin or in whose cupboards (or bank cells) they were stored. The only provenance that matters is linking them to their historical use (place and circumstances of find). I would pay for this information alone if offered by auction.
(ii) I cannot blame dealers for trying to sell their material well as soon as they do this within rules. This is not hobby specific, but after centuries of coin trade, one expects the numismatic industry to develop rules.
(iii) With increasingly remote bidding, accurate condition description is crucial. I trust, without reservation, NAC and CNG on this as it stands. Shanna Schmidt's descriptions seem fair, so I will keep my trust in NAC unless I burn my fingers. I will be mindful of i-ii.

I disagree that collectors should be left alone in the making provenance assessments and taking risks of buying looted/illegal coins. This must be the responsibility of the seller.

The numismatic trade organisations (FENA, BNTA, FENAP, etc) seem jolly happy about the state of trade, selling practices, and the number of fakes on the market. This is where I see the main problem and potential solution for knowing from whom I can buy enjoying the hobby.

[JeandAcre]

On 3/6/2023 at 9:51 AM, velarfricative said:

"The defendant admitted to me that he paid for the provenance". Well, that doesn't sound very good at all.

Shades of, "All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes...."

[DonnaML]

10 hours ago, Rand said:

(i) I do not care if Madame de Pompadour played with the coin or in whose cupboards (or bank cells) they were stored. The only provenance that matters is linking them to their historical use (place and circumstances of find).

Photographic and other documentary proof that an ancient coin was sold in trade prior to 1970 (or even before any relevant MOU was entered into) may be irrelevant to you, but it's undeniably the case that it materially affects the fair market value of such a coin. It not only provides assurance to a U.S. buyer that the purchase of the coin (and its import into this country) are legal, and that it wasn't dug up last month, but serves as evidence that others besides the current seller have opined that the coin is authentic.

Edited March 26, 2023 by DonnaML

[Rand]

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Photographic and other documentary proof that an ancient coin was sold in trade prior to 1970 (or even before any relevant MOU was entered into) may be irrelevant to you, but it's undeniably the case that it materially affects the fair market value of such a coin. It not only provides assurance to a U.S. buyer that the purchase of the coin (and its import into this country) are legal, and that it wasn't dug up last month, but serves as evidence that others besides the current seller have opined that the coin is authentic.

Well. I suppose, that is why the dealers charge 25% fees - I am a collector.

Since my suggestion of possible collection deposition to a museum has been ridiculed on this thread (no offence taken :)), I will have to consider selling at some point (we never know what waits for us tomorrow).

I do care about collectors, and I feel for those in America and will keep provenance records, I find (I am not sarcastic). Still…

Suppose law enforcement tells me the coin I bought has evidence of being looted/stolen and produces sound evidence. In that case, the provenances become irrelevant - I will return the coin and be after the dealer.

Looking at old catalogues and tickets, I see how almost all of them can be challenged. For example, are the two photos below of the same coin (naturally, Ratto's coin was made using a cast)? The seller did not know the provenances.

PS. I may not care if it was Ratto's coin, but I need to know if to count it as one to two to estimate the number of dies.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Rand

[DonnaML]

30 minutes ago, Rand said:

Well. I suppose, that is why the dealers charge 25% fees - I am a collector.

Since my suggestion of possible collection deposition to a museum has been ridiculed on this thread (no offence taken :)), I will have to consider selling at some point (we never know what waits for us tomorrow).

I do care about collectors, and I feel for those in America and will keep provenance records, I find (I am not sarcastic). Still…

Suppose law enforcement tells me the coin I bought has evidence of being looted/stolen and produces sound evidence. In that case, the provenances become irrelevant - I will return the coin and be after the dealer.

Looking at old catalogues and tickets, I see how almost all of them can be challenged. For example, are the two photos below of the same coin (naturally, Ratto's coin was made using a cast)? The seller did not know the provenances.

PS. I may not care if it was Ratto's coin, but I need to know if to count it as one to two to estimate the number of dies.

The question of whether evidence of provenance is relevant and something to care about is quite different from the question you now raise of whether such evidence is conclusive. Especially in the hypothetical situation you now posit, in which there is "sound" evidence disputing the supposed provenance. So you've loaded the dice in creating your hypothetical.

PS  My guess is that the two photos are not of the same coin. The reverses look different. And so do the rims, although  that could be the result of cropping.

Edited March 26, 2023 by DonnaML

[Sol_Invictus]

12 hours ago, Rand said:

 

(i) I do not care if Madame de Pompadour played with the coin or in whose cupboards (or bank cells) they were stored. The only provenance that matters is linking them to their historical use (place and circumstances of find). I would pay for this information alone if offered by auction.
 

I personally don’t generally care about the identity of the person who previously owned a coin, but I do care that I can prove to customs that I’m allowed to import the coin if challenged.
 

I also care that the party that I am interacting with directly, i.e. the auction house, is not lying to me. If the consignor tells the auction house that they acquired a coin privately in 1980, and that provenance is included in the listing, but the consignor actually dug up the coin in Turkey last month, I don’t blame the auction house, it’s the consignor who was lying. If, however, the auction house is required by local laws, or the code of ethics that it purports to subscribe to, to look into this further, but didn’t, or if the coin is one of thirty similar coins all covered in dirt, then I do fault the auction house for listing the false provenance.  If the auction house pays someone to produce a false document claiming the coin was in a 19th century collection, then I certainly blame the auction house.

If the auction house is knowingly lying about provenances, how can I trust them about other aspects of the trade?

If the auction house is lying they risk legal action against themselves, like we have seen, which may taint all of the coins they have sold, potentially affecting their resale value. This also risks the possibility that legal action could be brought against you, the buyer, for possessing stolen goods. Even if you didn’t know that the coins were looted, there is a risk, however slight, that law enforcement could argue that you should have known they were looted because you bought from an auction house known to deal in looted material. As much as I love this hobby, the only risk I’m willing to take to participate in it is the risk of losing money.

[Rand]

38 minutes ago, Sol_Invictus said:

I personally don’t generally care about the identity of the person who previously owned a coin, but I do care that I can prove to customs that I’m allowed to import the coin if challenged.
 

I also care that the party that I am interacting with directly, i.e. the auction house, is not lying to me. If the consignor tells the auction house that they acquired a coin privately in 1980, and that provenance is included in the listing, but the consignor actually dug up the coin in Turkey last month, I don’t blame the auction house, it’s the consignor who was lying. If, however, the auction house is required by local laws, or the code of ethics that it purports to subscribe to, to look into this further, but didn’t, or if the coin is one of thirty similar coins all covered in dirt, then I do fault the auction house for listing the false provenance.  If the auction house pays someone to produce a false document claiming the coin was in a 19th century collection, then I certainly blame the auction house.

If the auction house is knowingly lying about provenances, how can I trust them about other aspects of the trade?

If the auction house is lying they risk legal action against themselves, like we have seen, which may taint all of the coins they have sold, potentially affecting their resale value. This also risks the possibility that legal action could be brought against you, the buyer, for possessing stolen goods. Even if you didn’t know that the coins were looted, there is a risk, however slight, that law enforcement could argue that you should have known they were looted because you bought from an auction house known to deal in looted material. As much as I love this hobby, the only risk I’m willing to take to participate in it is the risk of losing money.

This is all true. However, I am a little man, and I accept that often there is no way I can know if people lie to me, and if I do, there is little I can do about it (including things more important than a hobby). Regarding coins, at least I decide whether to bid or not to bid.

I collect coins from preschool, and almost every coin book told me to collect them for fun, not money. This is what I do, skipping sales of most coins I like and making up by learning about them, including from this forum. It would be hypocritic to say I do not care about their market value. I do, but not to a degree to destroy the joy of the hobby itself.

After 20 pages of grilling Captain Beale on this thread, it reads like most still decided to take a risk and participate in Roma auctions.

[El Cazador]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

This is all true. However, I am a little man, and I accept that often there is no way I can know if people lie to me, and if I do, there is little I can do about it (including things more important than a hobby). Regarding coins, at least I decide whether to bid or not to bid.

I collect coins from preschool, and almost every coin book told me to collect them for fun, not money. This is what I do, skipping sales of most coins I like and making up by learning about them, including from this forum. It would be hypocritic to say I do not care about their market value. I do, but not to a degree to destroy the joy of the hobby itself.

After 20 pages of grilling Captain Beale on this thread, it reads like most still decided to take a risk and participate in Roma auctions.

Last paragraph summarized this perfectly…

20 pages, and yet Roma had another wonderful sale!!

[Roman Collector]

58 minutes ago, El Cazador said:

Last paragraph summarized this perfectly…

20 pages, and yet Roma had another wonderful sale!!

The sale took place 10 days after this thread started. The sale was posted weeks online before this thread and some of us had already placed pre-bids. I think the better assessment of any sort of "boycott" will be what happens in the next Roma sale.

[El Cazador]

1 hour ago, Roman Collector said:

The sale took place 10 days after this thread started. The sale was posted weeks online before this thread and some of us had already placed pre-bids. I think the better assessment of any sort of "boycott" will be what happens in the next Roma sale.

Fair, we should see..

but my honest opinion: we will see regular high prices for quality product 

[Kaleun96]

Aaron and Mike of HJB discuss the events in their latest podcast episode:

 

[John Conduitt]

2 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

Aaron and Mike of HJB discuss the events in their latest podcast episode:

Interesting Aaron says he doesn't care about pedigree and implies a pedigree is only something people who don't collect coins want. But at the same time, says he was the underbidder and is glad he didn't win...maybe paying a little bit more attention to the pedigree would've saved that embarrassment.

[Roman Collector]

59 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Interesting Aaron says he doesn't care about pedigree and implies a pedigree is only something people who don't collect coins want. But at the same time, says he was the underbidder and is glad he didn't win...maybe paying a little bit more attention to the pedigree would've saved that embarrassment.

Makes me wonder if Aaron considers pedigree and provenance to be two separate things.

[Heliodromus]

Yeah, I was a bit surprised by Aaron's comments about that too. At the very least you'd think that in representing a client he'd at least be concerned about the legitimacy of the coin even if the client wasn't, and he appears well aware of the history the coin being offered around, sans provenance, at NYINC in 2015 and what that implied. He even added an extra piece of info that the asking price at NYINC had been $2M.

Aaron seems a genuinely nice guy, but most of his podcast seems to be positioning himself to look good!

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Heliodromus

[Deinomenid]

 

47 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

pedigree and provenance to be two separate things.

Sounds very much like this. Proof of past crucial. Whether it was owned by the aforementioned Madame de Pompadour specifically, is less relevant than broader provenance.

I hope that's the case too!

 

 

 

 

[El Cazador]

1 hour ago, Deinomenid said:

 

Sounds very much like this. Proof of past crucial. Whether it was owned by the aforementioned Madame de Pompadour specifically, is less relevant than broader provenance.

I hope that's the case too!

 

 

 

 

Marketing ploy, unfortunately