Leu knowingly selling stolen coins?

[Hesiod]

2 minutes ago, Limes said:

does this mean Leu is also faking provenance?

This 2005 provenance shenanigan is such a common practice, and demonstrably false on some coins it's been provided to, such that yes we can assume them and other swiss firms fake these provenances

[Väinämöinen]

1 minute ago, Limes said:

No previous selling venue mentioned and al are “From a European collection, formed before 2005.”  So, does this mean Leu is also faking provenance? Or did they believed the story of a thieve? What else is going on? 

I'll just leave this here.

[idesofmarch01]

1 minute ago, Väinämöinen said:

Not really, no. Assuming the coins are indeed contraband, their path from the moment they were stolen to being put up for sale concerns only the authorities and the parties involved in this chain of events. To the public the relevant information is whether these coins are stolen and if they are then what the auction house is going to do about it.

This is, I believe, exactly correct -- at least in the U.S.  I'll defer to DonnaML's professional opinion should she decide to comment, but while the legal authorities might be interested in the path these coins took to the auction house, that does not affect the person claiming to be the owner as long as he/she can prove legal ownership, and that the coins were stolen or otherwise illegally obtained (by fraudulent transaction, etc.).  That individual still owns the coins legally and Leu is not legally permitted to sell them. It is irrelevant how Leu obtained them. 

[kirispupis]

FWIW I wasn't able to find these coins on ACSearch.

Selling stolen coins is a pretty strong allegation. I personally would like to see proof before I'd believe such a rumor.

[Salomons Cat]

I believe that this is just not how it works... 
If anything gets stolen, then you go to the police and report a crime. At the police, you fill out a theft report. The police takes your evidence and creates the theft report. Then you can go to Leu and show them the theft report. I would be very surprised if they still wanted to sell the coins.

My assumption is that Leu trusts the consignor more than the purported owner. I just refuse to believe that there is any big conspiracy and that everyone at Leu is a criminal and that they have nothing better to do than selling stolen goods. 

On the contrary - Leu could also be a victim here, because accusations without any proof could damage their reputation.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, Väinämöinen said:

I'll just leave this here.

This just shows auction houses resort to standard wording when the consignor won't let them mention who they are. They know buyers want provenance, but they can't provide it, so they try to fashion a statement that at least covers certain legal requirements. Why so many consignors want to hide is a different question.

[Kaleun96]

3 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Why so many consignors want to hide is a different question.

Probably because they have no actual proof the coins were in Europe prior to 2005 or they do have proof but it would only make things worse (e.g. 1980s/90s hoard illegally removed from country of origin, imported into Europe, and stored).

I don't think anyone can seriously believe they have consignors providing thousands and thousands of coins with proof of pre-2005 provenance that none of them want to use.

[Hesiod]

19 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

This just shows auction houses resort to standard wording when the consignor won't let them mention who they are.

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=11229912

 

An example of a coin where they list a 2005 provenance which is clearly false

[John Conduitt]

3 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

Probably because they have no actual proof the coins were in Europe prior to 2005 or they do have proof but it would only make things worse (e.g. 1980s/90s hoard illegally removed from country of origin, imported into Europe, and stored).

I don't think anyone can seriously believe they have consignors providing thousands and thousands of coins with proof of pre-2005 provenance that none of them want to use.

There are definitely thousands and thousands of consignors who will not allow the buyers to know who they are. Whether they have proof is irrelevant if you can't know of whose ownership it is proof.

[Kaleun96]

16 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

There are definitely thousands and thousands of consignors who will not allow the buyers to know who they are. Whether they have proof is irrelevant if you can't know of whose ownership it is proof.

The consignor doesn't need to identify themselves. They can provide sales history like everyone else. If no sales history they can use a vague procenance if they don't wish to be identified by name. This is all quite common.

Think of all the vague provenances we usually see, e.g. from a German dealer or the collection of a gentleman etc. Now think how many of those also include the claim that the consignor had the coin prior to 2005. If auction houses are going to the trouble of adding vague provenances, I bet they would also include the fact that the coin had been in that collection for over 20 years if that was the case, yet few do at the rates Leu does. 

Maybe it's a difference in standards and other auction houses won't give a date if not verifiable, or the abundance of pre-2005 provenances at Leu relative to virtually every other auction house is indicative of something else going on.

So if you believe all of these coins from Leu are pre-2005, then either Leu is somehow attracting very different consignors to everyone else or every other auction house is also getting this many pre-2005 coins and just decide not to include that part for whatever reason.

A third option is one I mentioned earlier, where the coins are pre-2005 but of unethical or illegal origin. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Kaleun96

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

30 minutes ago, Hesiod said:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=11229912

 

An example of a coin where they list a 2005 provenance which is clearly false

Lol that is particularly egregious 

[sand]

Can someone provide a link to the Facebook discussion? I've searched Google and Facebook, but I haven't found it, yet.

Also, are there any other relevant links, which provide proof, that the coins were stolen?

EDIT : P.S. : I am not a member of any Facebook groups, which discuss coins. I don't intend to join any. Therefore, perhaps I cannot view the relevant Facebook discussion. Therefore, maybe someone could tell me the information, if I cannot view the Facebook discussion.

Edited August 27, 2023 by sand

[John Conduitt]

22 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

The consignor doesn't need to identify themselves. They can provide sales history like everyone else. If no sales history they can use a vague procenance if they don't wish to be identified by name. This is all quite common.

Think of all the vague provenances we usually see, e.g. from a German dealer or the collection of a gentleman etc. Now think how many of those also include the claim that the consignor had the coin prior to 2005. If auction houses are going to the trouble of adding vague provenances, I bet they would also include the fact that the coin had been in that collection for over 20 years if that was the case, yet few do at the rates Leu does. 

Maybe it's a difference in standards and other auction houses won't give a date if not verifiable, or the abundance of pre-2005 provenances at Leu relative to virtually every other auction house is indicative of something else going on.

So if you believe all of these coins from Leu are pre-2005, then either Leu is somehow attracting very different consignors to everyone else or every other auction house is also getting this many pre-2005 coins and just decide not to include that part for whatever reason.

A third option is one I mentioned earlier, where the coins are pre-2005 but of unethical or illegal origin. 

I'm not saying Leu is or isn't making them up, but in itself, it doesn't show anything. It's just their chosen stock phrase which they copy and paste onto listings, possibly without trying too hard to verify the claim, or perhaps they do and make mistakes. TimeLine refer to 'the property of a gentleman' and Roma 'the collection of a Romanophile' or 'the collection of the Baron Dominique de Chambrier'. Which are true or false is not down to the wording.

[Hesiod]

15 minutes ago, sand said:

Can someone provide a link to the Facebook discussion? I've searched Google and Facebook, but I haven't found it, yet.

It's in "Ancient & Medieval Coins" on facebook, which is private. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ancientnumis/posts/6599156340170620/

[Hesiod]

16 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

. It's just their chosen stock phrase which they copy and paste onto listings,

They have listings with no provenance claimed whatsoever (just empty on the section), and 2005 is a claim specific which is unlike "the property of a gentlemen" or "the collection of a Romanophile". The problem with the baron dominique claim was that is also specific and (apparently?) verifiable

[Kaleun96]

24 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

I'm not saying Leu is or isn't making them up, but in itself, it doesn't show anything. It's just their chosen stock phrase which they copy and paste onto listings, possibly without trying too hard to verify the claim, or perhaps they do and make mistakes. TimeLine refer to 'the property of a gentleman' and Roma 'the collection of a Romanophile' or 'the collection of the Baron Dominique de Chambrier'. Which are true or false is not down to the wording.

I'm also not saying whether their provenances are true or not, only that it is very suspicious and I don't think anyone should take these provenances at face value. I think it would be naive to believe they have so many consignors who wish to make less money by not declaring their pre-2005 sales history for absolutely no reason.

In my opinion, either the majority of the 7,000 coins have no verifiable pre-2005 provenance or the actual provenance is worse than no provenance. 

What makes the Leu "stock phrase", as you put it, more laughable than Roma's or others is the scale of it. Roma isn't selling 7,000 coins with "from the collection of a gentleman". Often they name the country and don't include a date, and I don't doubt the country is accurate. If Roma included "from the collection of a Gentleman formed in Europe prior to 2005" and had that for half the coins in their auction, then yeah I'd likewise be saying it'd be naive to put any faith in that provenance date. 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Kaleun96

[sand]

Just now, Hesiod said:

It's in "Ancient & Medieval Coins" on facebook, which is private. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ancientnumis/posts/6599156340170620/

Thanks @Hesiod. However, I can't view the Facebook discussion, because I'm not a member of the "Ancient & Medieval Coins" Facebook group. I'm not a member of any Facebook groups, which discuss coins. I don't intend to join any. Perhaps someone could tell me the information, especially any proof, that the coins were stolen.

[Salomons Cat]

To be exact, in 2005 Switzerland put into effect the "Kulturgütergesetz", a new law that applies to cultural goods.

Leu probably ask a few extra questions to the consignors and I assume that many conignors usually respond something like "Well, my grandfather collected coins and he started in the 1980s... But I don't know when or where exactly he acquired this one".
That is probably how they found their standard phrase "From a European collection, formed before 2005."
 
Leu has absolutely no obligation to do any investigations. As long as the circumstanced are not suspicious (this would be, for example, a new Eid Mar aureus), I believe that they wouldn't even be obliged to ask anything about provenance at all.

It doesn't seem fair to me that people try using this phrase against them.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[velarfricative]

1 minute ago, Salomons Cat said:

It doesn't seem fair to me that people try using this phrase against them.

Auction houses should not be held responsible for the way they themselves describe their coins?

[Hesiod]

3 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

Leu has absolutely no obligation to do any investigations. As long as the circumstanced are not suspicious (this would be, for example, a new Eid Mar aureus), I believe that they wouldn't even be obliged to ask anything about provenance at all.

When I consigned with them they certainly went out of their way to find any and all sales history for the coins I provided

[Salomons Cat]

1 minute ago, velarfricative said:

Auction houses should not be held responsible for the way they themselves describe their coins?

They should not be held responsible for believing what the consignors told them - as long as the circumstances are not suspicious. I meant exactly what I wrote.

[Hesiod]

6 minutes ago, sand said:

Perhaps someone could tell me the information, especially any proof, that the coins were stolen.

No proof was provided, merely the allegation from Ken (in the second post). Not sure where the specific coin list is from

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

1 minute ago, Salomons Cat said:

They should not be held responsible for believing what the consignors told them - as long as the circumstances are not suspicious. I meant exactly what I wrote.

Auction houses have a responsibility to both the consigner and buyer. 

[kirispupis]

1 hour ago, Hesiod said:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=11229912

 

An example of a coin where they list a 2005 provenance which is clearly false

I must be missing something obvious, but how is the provenance clearly false? I see the attribution is from 2012, but the collector could have had the coin before that. 

I do see that what I swear is the same coin, but with a slightly different weight, sold at Bucephalus two months later for more.

[Kaleun96]

1 minute ago, Salomons Cat said:

To be exact, in 2005 Switzerland put into effect the "Kulturgütergesetz", a new law that applies to cultural goods.

Leu probably ask a few extra questions to the consignors and I assume that many conignors usually respond something like "Well, my grandfather collected coins and he started in the 1980s... But I don't know when or where exactly he acquired this one".
That is probably found their standard phrase "From a European collection, formed before 2005."
 
Leu has absolutely no obligation to do any investigations. As long as the circumstanced are not suspicious (this would be, for example, a new Eid Mar aureus), I believe that they wouldn't even be obliged to ask anything about provenance at all.

It doesn't seem fair to me that people try using this phrase against them.

I do think this is plausible, though I know consignors who have not had this stock provenance added to their lots.

However, it is the scale in which they use this phrase that makes this hard to believe. Leu is likely not getting this many more consignors with pre-2005 provenances than other European auction houses. We also know other European auction houses don't shy away from adding provenances like "from a collection formed between 1960 and 1990". If the consignor said "these came from.my grandfather's collection, the auction house would likely use it if they believe it to be likely.

Also, other countries like Austria have similar laws yet you don't see auction houses there slapping that phrase onto all of their lots. Even when the consignment contract requires the consignor to state their coins meet the requirements of the law you don't see this.

Plus, how many of these do you think have been sitting in someone's grandfather's collection for 20+ years?