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

[AmazedAncient]

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. 

 

Just offering a word of caution to alert everyone...

[kirispupis]

10 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Note also that Paul Barford -- no friend of the collecting community, to put it mildly! -- has apparently been reading this thread:  see  http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2023/03/beware-ides-of-march.html .

I find it interesting that Barford states that the Eid Mar was also confiscated by customs. Has anyone else seen documentation stating that as a fact? So far I've only seen that the Naxos coin was repatriated.

If true, then IMHO it's curious that it hasn't been repatriated - likely due to the confusion involving where it should go. Perhaps there may be some other legal issues that haven't been disclosed, or perhaps his statement is incorrect and the Eid Mar is already in possession of the buyer.

[DonnaML]

5 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

Yes, you just need a translation guide to understand what that means. I've seen couple of times coins sold on eBay appear 6 months later on Roma "From a private English collection". Not too long ago they sold a gold coin, sold on Violity 6 months prior, (now on Roma with extensive undisclosed "repair" work done to it) as "From a private North European collection", and so it goes ... I guess if you apply Bill Clnton's "I did not have sex with that woman" parsing of the english language then it's not technically untrue ... 🙄

For anyone interested, this was your thread on the Violity specimen: https://www.numisforums.com/topic/1236-holed-patched-suspended-and-repaired-marti-propvgnatori-festaureus/#comment-21689

Most people who commented, including me, assumed that Roma was unaware of the coin's origin on Violity and the fact that it had been substantially "repaired." Now one has to wonder. Especially given the fact that as I pointed out in that thread, although Roma did revise its original description to mention the repair, "it still says it's from a private North European collection. I don't think Ukraine is even arguably in North Europe, so it can't have been in that collection for more than two years. There's no disclosure of the fact that the coin was previously sold from Ukraine on the Violity site in 2020!"

 

[Phil Davis]

12 hours ago, DonnaML said:

Note also that Paul Barford -- no friend of the collecting community, to put it mildly! -- has apparently been reading this thread:  see  http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2023/03/beware-ides-of-march.html .

Once upon a time, I engaged fairly intensely with Barford over a period of months; I think I made his blog by name: "noted coin-fondler Phil Davis..." Something like that. I wrote him off completely and forever when he trashed a group of teenage American Jewish girls on a "heritage" trip to Poland, who encountered an antique Torah scroll gathering dust in a Polish junk store. Understandably appalled, they pooled their funds, purchased the scroll and brought it home for display in their temple. A bittersweet feel-good story for most of us, but unbelievably, Barford went on and on about this "crime" against the Polish national heritage. A new low, even for him. He truly is one of the worst people in the world.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Phil Davis

[DonnaML]

44 minutes ago, Phil Davis said:

Once upon a time, I engaged fairly intensely with Barford over a period of months; I think I made his blog by name: "noted coin-fondler Phil Davis..." Something like that. I wrote him off completely and forever when he trashed a group of teenage American Jewish girls on a "heritage" trip to Poland, who encountered an antique Torah scroll gathering dust in a Polish junk store. Understandably appalled, they pooled their funds, purchased the scroll and brought it home for display in their temple. A bittersweet feel-good story for most of us, but unbelievably, Barford went on and on about this "crime" against the Polish national heritage. A new low, even for him. He truly is one of the worst people in the world.

How repulsive. What a moron. Polish national heritage my Jewish foot. Suddenly Jewish Poles were just "Poles" after everything that happened, and their stolen possessions have to remain in Poland? He actually lives in Warsaw; maybe he should pull his head out of his rear end and learn some real history, not propaganda from the unfortunate current Polish government. He probably collects those ubiquitous "lucky Jew" dolls so popular there.

[Phil Davis]

3 hours ago, DonnaML said:

 He probably collects those ubiquitous "lucky Jew" dolls so popular there.

I think of them as Jewish action figures. But hey, Cracow has a festival...

Edited March 9, 2023 by Phil Davis

[NewStyleKing]

I was once "praised" by Mr Barford  when a dealer or two was outed for selling coins of dubious origins! I publicly stated, "oh no!  That's where most of my Athens New Style tetradrachms came from!" Yep Paul wasn't amused.

My other favourite dealer was Numismatik Lanz's e bay sales of c 10 years back  where obvious smuggled Balken hoards where put up for sale.( to be fare he wasn't the only one and some major auction houses sold me their booty too!) luckily I could afford them then! But NewStyle hoards from the balkans have gone thin...all dug out?

Thank you Mr Lanz.  And thank you Roma's Mr Beale . And a big, big thank you to Mr NewStyleKing who purchased them, noted the seller, wrote about the coins and published the coins. Yah boo sucks to the professionals at the Museo Archaeolgica Chieti for doing nothing after 70 years....it's a pity all the coins weren't sold into trade instead of just lying there ignored!

Below some of Mr Lanz's booty from the "good ol' days!"

Except for the last two, can you see the tell-tale marks that show they are from the same hoard!

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by NewStyleKing

[Kaleun96]

On 3/8/2023 at 5:59 PM, AmazedAncient said:

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...

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. Otherwise auction houses could put anything they like in their lot descriptions and get away with it. A company's terms and conditions do not nullify the law. You can't knowingly make material misrepresentations of an item, from which you profit or the buyer suffers, and hide behind "but my terms and conditions say it's only an opinion".

2. I suspect that is for civil matters, i.e. the buyer couldn't sue Roma in NY when their Eid Mar gets seized by the authorities - unless Roma was a registered company there. For criminal matters, Roma does not get to decide the jurisdiction. If they break the law in New York, then New York has the right to bring criminal charges in NY courts. That doesn't mean Beale is compelled to go to NY, which is perhaps why they arrested him after arriving in NY rather than going through UK police. If he doesn't return to NY, it's possible the US will petition the UK to extradite him, but if he was in a country without extradition agreement with the US, then NY could be out of luck.

I'm not a lawyer either and may be wrong on a few nuances but I'm reasonably confident your two points here don't help Mr. Beale in his legal defense.

[velarfricative]

https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=sale&sid=6613

New Roma E-Live!!!!! 6 sales in the span of like 2 weeks, very interesting strategy on Roma's part.

[Kaleun96]

4 minutes ago, velarfricative said:

https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=sale&sid=6613

New Roma E-Live!!!!! 6 sales in the span of like 2 weeks, very interesting strategy on Roma's part.

Good luck to their Dispatch Administrator!

[AmazedAncient]

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. 

 

[Hesiod]

24 minutes ago, AmazedAncient said:

Paying large sums for provenance research is common.

This isn't what Beale was doing based on the complaint. He was offering 100k to the informant #2 (some party related to the baron? in some way) to sign provenance documents (with the implication that this was doing so falsely). Not spending 100k on manpower for people to go through documents, or some such.

[Kaleun96]

24 minutes ago, AmazedAncient said:

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.

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.

[Heliodromus]

1 hour ago, AmazedAncient said:

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.

Well, we do know that after your hypothetical research process was concluded, with Baron Munchausen identified as the prior owner to be cited, that Beale's reaction to this being challenged was to offer a 100,000 CHF payment to the challenger ... I suppose you might regard this as a 100,000 CHF "research fee" (researching into whether informant #2 was willing to sign a false statement).

[AmazedAncient]

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.

[idesofmarch01]

15 minutes ago, AmazedAncient said:

1. Mr. Beale paid for provenance research.

I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of the ADA's complaint is incorrect.  Here's the actual language:

The ADA is being precise in using the word "provenance" rather than the phrase "provenance research," which are two very different things.  Paying for a provenance to be created is what constitutes the fraud being alleged, and the fraud to which Mr. Beale admitted.  Beale paid for the creation of a false provenance.  

[Kaleun96]

42 minutes ago, AmazedAncient said:

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. 

If you believe this to be the case, you also must believe the following:

1. This is the only time Mr. Beale has paid for provenance research ("this was the first and only time that the defendant had ever paid for provenance").

2. Even though it was the only time he ever needed to pay for provenance research, he was offering 100,000 Swiss francs for such research

3. The person he paid for the research said it was false!

4. Mr. Beale decided to go ahead and use the provenance that their research guy said was false anyway.

Does that really seem likely to you? Why would you pay someone so much money for a provenance that is not only false, but that your provenance researcher refuses to attest to? And why would you use the provenance? If you knew the provenance was real, you wouldn't need the researcher.

You are forgetting that in your hypothetical situation where "paid provenance" = "paid provenance research", that informant #2 and the researcher are the same person.

[DonnaML]

On 3/9/2023 at 9:54 AM, AmazedAncient said:

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...

Your suspicions, I'm afraid, are unfounded. I have corresponded quite a bit outside Coin Talk with the person I quoted, and can assure you that he's indeed a French person living in Paris, who is a serious collector of ancient coins himself. Not a fanatic anti-collection Brit[?] who lives in Warsaw!

Edited March 10, 2023 by DonnaML

[DonnaML]

On 3/8/2023 at 11:59 AM, AmazedAncient said:

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...

Wow, I don't know how I missed this. But please, nobody should take any of it seriously. It has no basis in any understanding of applicable legal principles. A dealer's "opinion" on provenance is very different from a cataloger's simple description or identification of a coin. It's supposed to be based on FACTS regarding the coin's previous ownership, and carries with it a representation that it's held in good faith and that the facts stated regarding provenance are true to the best of the person's knowledge. When the dealer conveying the so-called "opinion" through his company's catalog knows that the underlying facts concerning the coin's prior ownership are false, and indeed actually paid for the provenance to be fabricated, it's a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact on which the buyer can reasonably rely, giving rise to civil and possibly criminal liability no matter what disclaimers the dealer puts in the catalog.

Similarly, choice-of-forum clauses like Roma's apply only to contractual disputes, and have no bearing whatsoever on fraud claims. Completely irrelevant. And I'm afraid that you'll be disappointed to learn that even apart from Mr. Beale's physical presence in the USA at the time of arrest, the assertion of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Beale for the fraud and other claims  is clearly justified, and would exist if he had similar contacts anywhere else in the USA. There's nothing unusual about it, and nothing unique to New York law.  Roma (controlled by Beale) does way more than just send catalogs into the USA; it does business regularly here, and Beale's alleged crimes have direct effects in the USA. Don't forget that the stated purpose of Beale's visit to NYINC was to announce the opening of Roma's US office, I believe here in New York City. I guess that went by the wayside!

As far as informants supposedly crawling around the bourse at NYINC are concerned, I suggest that you avoid that sort of thinking. This was all in motion and prepared long before Mr. Beale's arrest, which took place before the public portion of the show ever began. 

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by DonnaML

[sand]

1 hour ago, idesofmarch01 said:

I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of the ADA's complaint is incorrect.  Here's the actual language:

The ADA is being precise in using the word "provenance" rather than the phrase "provenance research," which are two very different things.  Paying for a provenance to be created is what constitutes the fraud being alleged, and the fraud to which Mr. Beale admitted.  Beale paid for the creation of a false provenance.  

Perhaps Mr. Beale paid for the provenance, rather than paying for provenance research. However, theoretically this could be legitimate. Theoretically, perhaps someone (call him/her "Provenance Person 1") knows that a coin was owned by someone (call him/her "Owner 1") in the past. Perhaps Provenance Person 1 even owns an original document, which says that Owner 1 owned the coin in the past. A dealer could offer to pay Provenance Person 1, to tell the dealer, who was the past owner of the coin. Or, the dealer could offer to pay Provenance Person 1, for the original document, which says that Owner 1 owned the coin in the past. This would not be paying for provenance research. This would be paying for the provenance.

[idesofmarch01]

5 minutes ago, sand said:

Perhaps Mr. Beale paid for the provenance, rather than paying for provenance research. However, theoretically this could be legitimate.

My post did not state that paying for a provenance can't be legitimate -- it obviously can be.  Rather, I was noting that there's a distinct difference between paying for provenance research vs. paying for the provenance itself, and Beale has already admitted to knowingly paying for a fraudulent provenance.  I hope that clarifies my post sufficiently.

[sand]

1 hour ago, idesofmarch01 said:

 

3 minutes ago, idesofmarch01 said:

My post did not state that paying for a provenance can't be legitimate -- it obviously can be.  Rather, I was noting that there's a distinct difference between paying for provenance research vs. paying for the provenance itself, and Beale has already admitted to knowingly paying for a fraudulent provenance.  I hope that clarifies my post sufficiently.

I haven't noticed any text, which says that Mr. Beale knew that the provenance was fraudulent. Perhaps I've missed it. The only text, that I've seen, says that Mr. Beale paid for provenance. I see that Informant #2 said to Mr. Beale, that the provenance was false. However, perhaps Mr. Beale did not believe Informant #2. Perhaps Mr. Beale believed that the provenance was correct.

[Kaleun96]

17 minutes ago, sand said:

Perhaps Mr. Beale paid for the provenance, rather than paying for provenance research. However, theoretically this could be legitimate. Theoretically, perhaps someone (call him/her "Provenance Person 1") knows that a coin was owned by someone (call him/her "Owner 1") in the past. Perhaps Provenance Person 1 even owns an original document, which says that Owner 1 owned the coin in the past. A dealer could offer to pay Provenance Person 1, to tell the dealer, who was the past owner of the coin. Or, the dealer could offer to pay Provenance Person 1, for the original document, which says that Owner 1 owned the coin in the past. This would not be paying for provenance research. This would be paying for the provenance.

Ok let's run with that theory according to the facts as stated in the affidavit.

Informant #2 is Provenance Person 1 in your example, and Owner 1 is Baron Dominique de Chambrier.

• Mr Beale and Roma Numismatics publish the auction catalogue with the provenance of Owner 1
• Provenance Person 1, aka Informant #2, emails Roma/Beale and says that the provenance is false.
• Mr Beale and Mr Vecchi then offer Provenance Person 1 a sum of 100,000 Swiss francs to sign a document attesting to the provenance that Provenance Person 1 has already said is false

Why would Beale only offer to pay for this supposed proof of provenance, which Provenance Person 1 supposedly has, after publishing the auction catalogue stating such provenance?

After Provenance Person 1 tells Beale and Vecchi that the provenance is false, why would Beale/Vecchi then pay for some proof or original document from Provenance Person 1 that actually says the provenance is not false. If Provenance Person 1 has already said it is false, they of course don't have a document they're trying to sell that says something to the contrary. 

Both you and AmazedAncient are bending over backwards to create hypothetical situations that are not compatible with the facts as attested to by the HSI Special Agent. I think the key thing you're both forgetting is that the person who was offered the money for the provenance is also the informant. It is of course nonsensical to think the Beale/Vecchi were trying to pay Informant #2 for legitimate proof of a provenance that the informant has already said is false.

[Kaleun96]

3 minutes ago, sand said:

Perhaps Mr. Beale believed that the provenance was correct.

Then why did he try to pay Informant #2 to attest to the provenance after the informant had told Beale that the provenance was incorrect?

Edited March 10, 2023 by Kaleun96

[velarfricative]

13 minutes ago, sand said:

 

I haven't noticed any text, which says that Mr. Beale knew that the provenance was fraudulent. Perhaps I've missed it. The only text, that I've seen, says that Mr. Beale paid for provenance. I see that Informant #2 said to Mr. Beale, that the provenance was false. However, perhaps Mr. Beale did not believe Informant #2. Perhaps Mr. Beale believed that the provenance was correct.

Ultimately, it hardly matters; because he admitted to faking provenances in a separate instance, anyway. It literally says "According to the defendant, this provenance is false." in regards to the Gaza hoard coins. It doesn't matter what mental gymnastics you do, he's pretty openly admitted to lying about provenance here.

Edited March 10, 2023 by velarfricative