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

[Harry G]

Looks like the story finally broke in the mainstream media:

https://observer.com/2023/03/exclusive-uk-auction-house-director-arrested-for-4-1-million-roman-coin-fraud/

It's weird how they didn't even use a picture of ancient coins - just modern graded ones.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Harry G

[John Conduitt]

2 hours ago, NewStyleKing said:

Honestly folks this is most interesting topic  and it's not directly about coins! The back scene shenanigans  are always more interesting. Crime programmes are always fascinating. I confess ( read my past mentions of the Gold Eid mar)  that I always doubted and mocked the "provenance" and this is the same of all the NewStyles I bought,. I always realised the coins were smuggled from the balkans into Germany to be sold by German dealers on ebay  and some found their way to London and then to the USA. If one looks at the Star and 2 crescents sold by CNG a few years ago look also at the Roma and Nike NewStyles also sold at the same time!  Part of the same hoard, ( and I was told this by someone who knew!). C'mon folks-where do you think they come from?  The great gold Bactrian coin now in Paris caused the murder of some of the gang of smugglers ..it all adds to the flavour and adds a gory provenance of it's own! Accidental finds, like the Chieti hoard IGCH 2056 are often of no interest to the professionals  and one day will probably get stolen and end up "on the market, like the museums in eastern europe whose coin collections were plundered by the curators!   And is the Eid mar genuine?  Maybe the bone fides of the coin need to be investigated again......who found it and how?  What a lucky  seemingly individual find?  Where? When, who by? Is it likely to have been solitary?  Another smuggled set of coins was also seized by the US...the DEKADRACHM HOARD!  After passing thro a few hands ( and noted numismatists!), these coins were too obvious and Turkey claimed them  and was eventually "re-patriated "  to a miserable museum in Antalya?  un published I believed after over a decade or 2 or 3!!  That's the way!  Do you know about this, I doubt if any of you do cos no one mentions it!! (except me). Stop being lawyers, its the shenanigans  that's interesting and how  repatriation does nothing to the study of coins.  The Gaziantep hoard where smuggled parts of the same hoard London Beirut, USA + some seized in Turkey were "assembled" from Dealers recollections and a few polaroids  ( Dealers= penultimate smugglers) into a useful understanding of the coin hoards contents.  Only a few CT's have read the paper Gaziantep hoard academia.edu....... I wonder where your coins and antiques truly came from and just because they might have provenance from the 1920's and before, where does the air-brushing of history and smuggling stop!!!  I am an unashamed, eyes wide open cowboy...cast ye the first stone folks!

I wouldn't want to conflate smuggling and faking provenances with all coin collecting.

I think that all hoards and valuable finds should be reported to the authorities. The authorities should record them, publish them, and decide whether to buy them or allow them to be sold. It's crucial that we keep track of finds so that we can learn about our history. But it's a pity so many people (and authorities) don't recognise that there are far more coins than are needed for this, and once recorded, the vast majority can be sold.

Even so, I don't think it is acceptable to smuggle them. Faking provenances to do that is the lowest of the low. Still, it's perfectly possible to collect coins that haven't been smuggled. Neither would I count coins found a long time ago as 'smuggled', since few people considered them heritage anyway.

[Heliodromus]

2 hours ago, NewStyleKing said:

I am an unashamed, eyes wide open cowboy...cast ye the first stone folks!

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.

 

[Dafydd]

16 hours ago, Deinomenid said:

He's a seller

My issue is that the negative publicity will potentially deter some buyers as has been indicated by some of the forum comments. Fortunately I live in the UK so do not need to consider potential difficulties on entry of purchases if the dealer is flagged. Many years ago I was stopped on exit from the USA because I had a WW1 rifle sight in my luggage. It was an iron sight not optical but someone in the TSA decided that his was forbidden and my passport was flagged. Two years later I received a letter from the TSA reprimanding me and giving me a warning but by this time the sight had turned into something else! For several years, every time I entered the USA I would be stopped and asked if " I had anything dangerous in my luggage that could harm the border entry officer". Fortunately the matter seems to be expunged from my passport and I no longer have issues but I did wonder if imports from the dealer might be flagged and this is the reason I mention it.

I have little sympathy for anyone trying to obtain a pecuniary advantage by distorting  or inventing provenance facts as it raises doubts in collectors minds but I do have sympathy if the person is later proved innocent after the  publication of evidence that may have been obtained under duress has damaged a reputation before the matter is proved in law. 

The sadness here is that the case is partly based on one high profile coin that received huge publicity outside of collecting circles and made the main papers over here so this is likely to be picked up again and I cannot see anything positive coming out of this.

I have never had anything but good experiences purchasing from Roma and felt that they were a great choice for me as my first time consigning coins at auction. I suppose if the value of my coins do not reach their full potential, conversely I may be able to replace them at a favourable price in the same auction, assuming that there will be anything I would want to bid on. 

 

 

[Hrefn]

It seems to me that any peril of loss to a consigner who sends his coins to a problematic auctioneer would depend on when the title to the coins passes.  It seems to me that while the title remains with the consigner instead of the auction company, he is not an unsecured creditor.  I would argue that the auctioneer (or the auctioneer’s creditors) have no more right to the coins than they would to the consigner’ s private automobile parked in the auctioneer’s parking lot, even if the auctioneer was bankrupted while the car was sitting there.  The auctioneer and the court cannot assign assets the auctioneer does not legally possess to satisfy a judgement.  

Once the coin is hammered and the auctioneer receives payment, then the consigner gets the hammer price and the auctioneer gets the commission. If the consigner receives his due, title passes from the consigner to the high bidder.  The commission becomes an asset of the auctioneer.  The coin never belonged to the auctioneer at any time, therefore the consigner is not a creditor, still less an unsecured creditor, because the consigner retains title until he is paid.  If he is not paid, he still has title.  (If the auctioneer sends the coin off to the high bidder but doesn’t pay the consigner, that’s stealing.  Which I believe carries more penalty than bankruptcy.)

In which case, it is BIDDERS who are at risk, as unsecured creditors, should they not receive the coins on which they bid.  Or even if they do receive them, but the consigner wasn’t paid and retains title.  

/at least, that’s what I would argue.  

[DonnaML]

56 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

It seems to me that any peril of loss to a consigner who sends his coins to a problematic auctioneer would depend on when the title to the coins passes.  It seems to me that while the title remains with the consigner instead of the auction company, he is not an unsecured creditor.  I would argue that the auctioneer (or the auctioneer’s creditors) have no more right to the coins than they would to the consigner’ s private automobile parked in the auctioneer’s parking lot, even if the auctioneer was bankrupted while the car was sitting there.  The auctioneer and the court cannot assign assets the auctioneer does not legally possess to satisfy a judgement.  

Once the coin is hammered and the auctioneer receives payment, then the consigner gets the hammer price and the auctioneer gets the commission. If the consigner receives his due, title passes from the consigner to the high bidder.  The commission becomes an asset of the auctioneer.  The coin never belonged to the auctioneer at any time, therefore the consigner is not a creditor, still less an unsecured creditor, because the consigner retains title until he is paid.  If he is not paid, he still has title.  (If the auctioneer sends the coin off to the high bidder but doesn’t pay the consigner, that’s stealing.  Which I believe carries more penalty than bankruptcy.)

In which case, it is BIDDERS who are at risk, as unsecured creditors, should they not receive the coins on which they bid.  Or even if they do receive them, but the consigner wasn’t paid and retains title.  

/at least, that’s what I would argue.  

It's more complicated than that, even if we pretend that this hypothetical situation were entirely governed by U.S. bankruptcy law, which of course it wouldn't be if Roma filed for bankruptcy, given that it's a UK company. (I imagine that the law would be similar in the UK, but have no actual knowledge on the subject.) Ultimately, under US law, the consignors of coins to a bankrupt auction house would probably retain superior rights in the goods, and they wouldn't become part of the bankruptcy estate, but it wouldn't happen in five minutes, and would still require a court determination. See, for example, this article -- one of many such articles: https://itsartlaw.org/2019/10/24/the-art-of-bankruptcy-consigned-artworks-and-bankrupt-galleries/ . As the article explains in detail, "if neither [UCC] Article 9 nor § 2-326 apply to the transaction" -- something that turns, among other things, on the issue of whether a consignor can show that the company is “generally known to its creditors to be substantially engaged in selling the goods of others,” in which case the UCC ordinarily does not apply -- "then the consignor's claim will be governed by the common law of bailment. Under bailment law, the consigned goods would not be considered the property of the estate and the consignor has a right to return of the consigned goods upon termination of the bailment agreement. While the bankruptcy trustee has a right to stay immediate collection of the consigned artwork and the estate may be able to claim certain funds do to it under the bailment agreement, the consignor should eventually be able to make a successful claim for return of their goods." (Emphasis added.)

And yes, bidders who made payment but didn't actually receive their coins before a bankruptcy filing would unquestionably be at risk of losing their money, as unsecured creditors who would have to wait in line behind others.

Edited March 11, 2023 by DonnaML

[DonnaML]

2 hours ago, Harry G said:

Looks like the story finally broke in the mainstream media:

https://observer.com/2023/03/exclusive-uk-auction-house-director-arrested-for-4-1-million-roman-coin-fraud/

It's weird how they didn't even use a picture of ancient coins - just modern graded ones.

There's a photo of the gold Eid Mar further down. I'm amused by the statement in the article (described as an "exclusive") that "his arrest has not been previously reported."  Not in the mainstream press, to be sure, but still! 

[Hrefn]

19 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

It's more complicated than that, even if we pretend that this hypothetical situation were entirely governed by U.S. bankruptcy law, which of course it wouldn't be if Roma filed for bankruptcy, given that it's a UK company. (I imagine that the law would be similar in the UK, but have no actual knowledge on the subject.) Ultimately, under US law, the consignors of coins to a bankrupt auction house would probably retain superior rights in the goods, and they wouldn't become part of the bankruptcy estate, but it wouldn't happen in five minutes, and would still require a court determination. See, for example, this article -- one of many such articles: https://itsartlaw.org/2019/10/24/the-art-of-bankruptcy-consigned-artworks-and-bankrupt-galleries/ . As the article explains in detail, "if neither [UCC] Article 9 nor § 2-326 apply to the transaction" -- something that turns, among other things, on the issue of whether a consignor can show that the company is “generally known to its creditors to be substantially engaged in selling the goods of others,” in which case the UCC ordinarily does not apply -- "then the consignor's claim will be governed by the common law of bailment. Under bailment law, the consigned goods would not be considered the property of the estate and the consignor has a right to return of the consigned goods upon termination of the bailment agreement. While the bankruptcy trustee has a right to stay immediate collection of the consigned artwork and the estate may be able to claim certain funds do to it under the bailment agreement, the consignor should eventually be able to make a successful claim for return of their goods." (Emphasis added.)

So the consigner would probably recover his coins, but they might sit in “bankruptcy limbo” for a variable length of time.  That is better than being an unsecured creditor.  And would result in 100% recovery, versus the pennies on the dollar of the unsecured creditor.  Still, an unpleasant prospect, with doubtless considerable legal expenses entailed, to recover one’s own property.  The peril to the bidder/purchaser remains. 

[kirispupis]

Just from reading about the case, I think the losses to Roma are less than what is being speculated.

Granted, I've never consigned an item, but my understanding from reading here and from watching my son consign tens of thousands in sport cards, that the auction house doesn't release funds to the seller until a few months after the sale.

That means that the consignors for both coins hadn't been paid by Roma, nor will they - since Roma can state that their seizure by US Customs wasn't there fault. Certainly, the buyer must have been reimbursed, but Roma should have been able to do that because they didn't pay the seller.

Therefore, I'm not sure if Roma lost anything directly from their seizure. Certainly they lost prestige and they'll be indirectly affected through fewer bidders and future consignments.

If I were Roma, I'd be most concerned about the consignments. I expect they'll continue to receive bidders in the near future due to the products they offer and the currently hot market. However, going forward, sellers may be nervous about listing with them.

[idesofmarch01]

3 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Granted, I've never consigned an item, but my understanding from reading here and from watching my son consign tens of thousands in sport cards, that the auction house doesn't release funds to the seller until a few months after the sale.

It's common practice for very high-end coins and collections to receive an advance against the total hammer price, from the auction houses.  If I had been the consignor of either of these coins I would have required a non-refundable advance of at least 50% of the expected hammer price.

I would expect this to be the case for these two coins even if the coins were "owned" by one or more of Roma's principals.  But if either Vecchi or Beale received an advance from Roma for these coins, the situation likely becomes more complicated legally since any losses that Roma (the entity) suffers from this legal action might be recoverable from the principals who received the advances.

[DonnaML]

29 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

Just from reading about the case, I think the losses to Roma are less than what is being speculated.

Granted, I've never consigned an item, but my understanding from reading here and from watching my son consign tens of thousands in sport cards, that the auction house doesn't release funds to the seller until a few months after the sale.

That means that the consignors for both coins hadn't been paid by Roma, nor will they - since Roma can state that their seizure by US Customs wasn't there fault. Certainly, the buyer must have been reimbursed, but Roma should have been able to do that because they didn't pay the seller.

Therefore, I'm not sure if Roma lost anything directly from their seizure. Certainly they lost prestige and they'll be indirectly affected through fewer bidders and future consignments.

If I were Roma, I'd be most concerned about the consignments. I expect they'll continue to receive bidders in the near future due to the products they offer and the currently hot market. However, going forward, sellers may be nervous about listing with them.

The "consignors" in this case seem to have been Beale and Vecchi themselves. Not independent third parties.

[idesofmarch01]

1 minute ago, DonnaML said:

The "consignors" in this case seem to have been Beale and Vecchi themselves. Not independent third parties.

Yes, that's the way it appears to me too.  So if they paid themselves an advance against the hammer price, it wouldn't necessarily appear to be an arms-length transaction.

[Heliodromus]

I really don't see Roma being in any risk whatsoever of declaring bankruptcy over this. Whether the scandal will have much or any longer-term effect on Roma remains to be seen.

Financial worst case for Roma regarding the Eid Mar would seem to be that they need to refund the buyer their $4M, which seems simple enough assuming it's not already been spent. Beale is owner of Roma as well as MD, and with 20% buyers fees it doesn't seem that cash flow is an issue.

[Heliodromus]

I just came across this Coin World reporting on the Roma Eid Mar sale at the time it happened:

https://www.coinworld.com/news/world-coins/eid-mar-gold-example-sets-record-for-ancient-coin-selling-price

One interesting thing reported there is that apparently Aaron Berk was under-bidder on the Roma coin, so he must have been OK with the provenance/attestation at that point, despite later (when talking up the NAC coin, which he went on to win for a client) saying the NAC coin was to be preferred due to the questionable provenance of the Roma one!

 

[John Conduitt]

It might be that the law requires auction houses to keep buyers' money in a client account. That's how it works if you sell a house, and with such things as employee pension payments, to protect against bankruptcy. It wouldn't be hard to extracate it from creditor claims - in fact, they would have no claim to it, given the money never belonged to the auction house.

What would go are all those guarantees of authenticity we have from Roma.

[El Cazador]

12 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

It might be that the law requires auction houses to keep buyers' money in a client account. That's how it works if you sell a house, and with such things as employee pension payments, to protect against bankruptcy. It wouldn't be hard to extracate it from creditor claims - in fact, they would have no claim to it, given the money never belonged to the auction house.

What would go are all those guarantees of authenticity we have from Roma.

I am sure coins are authentic and I personally care less about provenances… most of the collectors care less about provenances - a lot of it is hype and marketing by the “interested” parties, just like diamonds industry created a myth and a need to have engagement rings or Chiquita 🍌 created a myth of - bananas are great and should be a part of American diet, same with farmers and “got milk campaign”…all pure marketing… so don’t worry about the provenance. As long as coins are authentic and ALL surface issues are disclosed- i am good!

[John Conduitt]

13 minutes ago, El Cazador said:

I am sure coins are authentic and I personally care less about provenances… most of the collectors care less about provenances - a lot of it is hype and marketing by the “interested” parties, just like diamonds industry created a myth and a need to have engagement rings or Chiquita 🍌 created a myth of - bananas are great and should be a part of American diet, same with farmers and “got milk campaign”…all pure marketing… so don’t worry about the provenance. As long as coins are authentic and ALL surface issues are disclosed- i am good!

I doubt 'most' collectors don't care less about provenance. If that was true, that's the root of the problem. A lot of collectors do care about provenance, whether they would pay much to know what it is or not. And it's not hard to verify a good provenance. They're not 'myth'. They would also be pretty useful if the authorities impounded your coins to repatriate them.

And numerous coins sold by Roma have turned out to be fake. Roma were always good enough to admit it and make amends, but that would stop if they ceased trading if Richard Beale is convicted.

Edited March 11, 2023 by John Conduitt

[El Cazador]

3 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I doubt 'most' collectors don't care less about provenance. If that was true, that's the root of the problem. A lot of collectors do care about provenance, whether they would pay much to know what it is or not. And it's not hard to verify a good provenance. They're not 'myth'. They would also be pretty useful if the authorities impounded your coins to repatriate them.

You are talking 10-20% of the population of collectors and I am sure authorities care less about coins sub $50,000… if you own Dekadrachms, then it might be applicable, otherwise- sleep 🛌 tight

Edited March 11, 2023 by El Cazador

[John Conduitt]

Just now, El Cazador said:

You are talking 10-20% of the population of collectors

Did you conduct a survey?

[El Cazador]

1 minute ago, John Conduitt said:

Did you conduct a survey?

Should i ?

[John Conduitt]

Just now, El Cazador said:

Should i ?

If you want to quote percentages.

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

43 minutes ago, El Cazador said:

I am sure coins are authentic and I personally care less about provenances… most of the collectors care less about provenances - a lot of it is hype and marketing by the “interested” parties, just like diamonds industry created a myth and a need to have engagement rings or Chiquita 🍌 created a myth of - bananas are great and should be a part of American diet, same with farmers and “got milk campaign”…all pure marketing… so don’t worry about the provenance. As long as coins are authentic and ALL surface issues are disclosed- i am good!

(Standing ovation from me)

I'm an old school collector; I started in about 1989 and no one worried about where the coins came from, within reason. I probably am somewhere between Wayne Sayles and NewStyleKing in attitude regarding these matters.  And like I mentioned, I can appreciate a really great provenance - something like a Dattari collection, etc.).  I'm a very live and let live guy but I have an Andrey Vyshinsky level of contempt (one has to love his awesome pejoratives - stinking vultures was the best!) for worst of the worst anti-collector types or general institutions (and they don't seem to frequent this forum).

I guess my avoidance of auction houses (albeit for different reasons; I abhor the bidding process, the coins generally go for too much, the buyer's fee, etc., etc.) hasn't turned out to be a bad strategy.

If (and that's an important word here) Mr. Beale falsified a provenance then I certainly don't celebrate that kind of practice.  I'm sure it isn't a widespread practice!

I don't have to belabor the point and I can usually do it quietly with a supportive emoji or the like.  I'm just a very pro-collector guy who is sick of this whole repatriation crap.

*But I'm also going to stand on the sidelines with the percentages side-issue.  I'm grateful to John for his help with my English coin.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Nerosmyfavorite68

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

Furthermore, my general comments should not be taken as an attack against anyone here.

I'm pretty easygoing when it comes to everyone's coins.

[John Conduitt]

40 minutes ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

(Standing ovation from me)

I'm an old school collector; I started in about 1989 and no one worried about where the coins came from, within reason. I probably am somewhere between Wayne Sayles and NewStyleKing in attitude regarding these matters.  And like I mentioned, I can appreciate a really great provenance - something like a Dattari collection, etc.).  I'm a very live and let live guy but I have an Andrey Vyshinsky level of contempt (one has to love his awesome pejoratives - stinking vultures was the best!) for worst of the worst anti-collector types or general institutions (and they don't seem to frequent this forum).

I guess my avoidance of auction houses (albeit for different reasons; I abhor the bidding process, the coins generally go for too much, the buyer's fee, etc., etc.) hasn't turned out to be a bad strategy.

If (and that's an important word here) Mr. Beale falsified a provenance then I certainly don't celebrate that kind of practice.  I'm sure it isn't a widespread practice!

I don't have to belabor the point and I can usually do it quietly with a supportive emoji or the like.  I'm just a very pro-collector guy who is sick of this whole repatriation crap.

*But I'm also going to stand on the sidelines with the percentages side-issue.  I'm grateful to John for his help with my English coin.

That's fair enough, but being pro-provenance isn't pro-repatriation.

Preferring a provenance is pro-collector. I happen to be interested in coins for the history more than the aesthetics. I'd prefer it if we kept track of where they came from - not just whether a rich or famous collector once owned them. I like to know the most has been made of their discovery in terms of research. I want the authorities (or someone) to record and keep a track of finds. What value does it have? It makes all coins more interesting because it tells us about their usage, chronology, mintage etc. But I don't want the authorities to fail to compensate the finder and lock the coins away - that's the cause of smuggling and false provenances. They should allow almost all coins to be sold.

Yes, I think you should want to know if your coins were looted or not. But repatriation is ludicrous both in terms of necessity and the basis on which it's undertaken (where the coin was struck). Just because an Eid Mar is valuable doesn't mean it has any archaeological value, while a hoard of cheap coins can vastly improve our knowledge (such as would happen if someone found a large cache of Saxon sceattas). It would be criminal to lose that knowledge forever just to make a quick buck and fill a hole in someone's collection.

Note it would be impossible to distinguish the coins of Edward I-III if someone hadn't reported the finds and recorded them.

Edited March 11, 2023 by John Conduitt

[JAZ Numismatics]

Well that settles it. No more Eid Mars for me!