Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
azda

How much extra would you pay for provenance coins?

Recommended Posts

Just curious as too how much extra people would be prepared to pay over and above for a coin with a pedigree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, grade and/or rarity are the key attributes. Provenance adds interest but not value in my eyes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define provenance/pedigree? For example, I'm about to buy an 1806 halfpenny from Michael Gouby. I asked him about provenance and he said all he could remember was that he bought it from Spink at a coin fair. So there's no evidence that it was ever in an 'important collection', but frankly the two names of Spink and Michael Gouby gives me confidence in the coin. Would I have paid extra? Perhaps just a little bit, but it's not that important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Define provenance/pedigree? For example, I'm about to buy an 1806 halfpenny from Michael Gouby. I asked him about provenance and he said all he could remember was that he bought it from Spink at a coin fair. So there's no evidence that it was ever in an 'important collection', but frankly the two names of Spink and Michael Gouby gives me confidence in the coin. Would I have paid extra? Perhaps just a little bit, but it's not that important.

King Farouk collection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Define provenance/pedigree? For example, I'm about to buy an 1806 halfpenny from Michael Gouby. I asked him about provenance and he said all he could remember was that he bought it from Spink at a coin fair. So there's no evidence that it was ever in an 'important collection', but frankly the two names of Spink and Michael Gouby gives me confidence in the coin. Would I have paid extra? Perhaps just a little bit, but it's not that important.

It's worth checking on provenances (ie comparing photo from the original source if available) sometimes because even the most reputable sellers can get it wrong.

I bought an 1806 proof penny at auction a few years ago, couldn't tell whether it was bronzed or not so I sold it on. I had traced it previously through a couple of earlier sales (as it had distinctive marks so was easy to identify), but never was any provenance given. Anyway, it then turned up at LCA a few months later which said "vendor states ex Boulton" then later it was in the Copthorne collection where this had turned into a definitive "ex Boulton". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

It's worth checking on provenances (ie comparing photo from the original source if available) sometimes because even the most reputable sellers can get it wrong.

I bought an 1806 proof penny at auction a few years ago, couldn't tell whether it was bronzed or not so I sold it on. I had traced it previously through a couple of earlier sales (as it had distinctive marks so was easy to identify), but never was any provenance given. Anyway, it then turned up at LCA a few months later which said "vendor states ex Boulton" then later it was in the Copthorne collection where this had turned into a definitive "ex Boulton". 

Perhaps the distinctive marks enabled a subsequent owner to trace it back to pictures from the Boulton sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Perhaps the distinctive marks enabled a subsequent owner to trace it back to pictures from the Boulton sale?

Possibly, but the Boulton family coins were privately sold, usually immaculate restrikes, and usually slabbed with "ex Boulton family" on the slab. This coin was sold HA June 2006 (Lot 13032) unslabbed and unprovenanced, which I would be surprised by if it had been ex-Boulton. It was subsequently sold DNW 2009 Coinex Auction Lot 3079 (Dave Wallis collection) before I picked it up in a Baldwin's sale late 2012. The two tiny green spots below bust and in exergue are good identifiers. 

I don't know of any photographic archive of the Boulton family collection and would be interested to know of one.

Edited by oldcopper
wrong date
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, azda said:

Just curious as too how much extra people would be prepared to pay over and above for a coin with a pedigree?

For me, it is variable depending on who it belonged to and how far back in time it goes. I do consider it when buying certain coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no interest in provenance for my own purchases. I'm only interested in the coin. However, I always note provenance in my database because I know it is important for some and could add value the day the coin is sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provenance is pretty important to me as I collect the unofficial farthing series. In particular, I'm prepared to pay a lot more for examples in the Scottish series if its a plate coin in D&H, and in the English series happy to pay a premium for pieces from the Cokayne, Allen, Brodie collections etc. With very common tokens it can be more fun to own a mediocre piece with provenance going back to 1905 than an overpriced minty one.  

Many of the rare tokens in the series only exist in poor grade, think VG or Fine at best, so when selecting an example for a collection often there's little choice with respect to condition, and therefore an example with good provenance is preferable to me. 

I like buying 18th century tokens with inked in collector's numbers, because I don't really consider this "damage" even the provenance is untraceable at the moment. They may hold interesting provenance information accessible in the future, if only to future generations of collectors.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A premium depending on the name(s) involved, but not necessarily the deciding factor when buying a coin. There's something very satisfying when you need multiple tickets to record the details plus provenance. It's also worth noting that a provenance going back a century where it was illustrated in the catalogue is also a very good indicator of how good it is relative to its peers or how rare the coin is, as only the best examples for whatever reason got imaged, even in Montagu, Murdoch etc. Certain collectors were also renowned for only collecting the best available, so the provenance helps a little here too. Quality and certain names frequently go hand in hand.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Important, but not paramount. Although I would be happy to pay a modest premium to secure provenance.

What I would especially value is very old provenance relating to the coin. For example a couple of pennies were sold on LCA a year or so back, which were accompanied by old Spink collector's tickets, with 1895 on the back - linkAlthough no idea how genuine they are.  I bought an ex Michael Freeman penny which came with his ticket from the 1984 sale, but anybody could have cut out the circular piece of card and written on it.  

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ticket can tell a lot.

I bought this coin in Stewartby and didn't recognise the significance of the ticket when cataloguing at the time. However, on reflection the characteristic H in 'not in Hawkins' screamed Webb, and the Sotheby 21/5/74 didn't make sense until I realised it was 1874, at which point the not in Hawkins made sense because Hugh Howard was an Irish collector who died in 1738 but the collection was sold 136 years later at Sotheby's 20-22nd May 1874, which is why Hawkins didn't know about it. Suddenly, an unquestionably rare but not particularly appealing halfgroat had a load of history added, so I bought it instead of ignoring it as I would have done knowing there is a better one out there. The Lockett provenance didn't do any harm either.

I like provenances.

Edited to add. What is better? A 60 year old provenance going back to Lockett in 1956, or the knowledge of where it has been for the past 281 years, even if I am unable to account for the first 267 years of its existence.

 

c2091 Edward IV 2d im. annulet.jpg

ed4 2d.jpg

Edited by Rob
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it really depends just how good the provenance is.

Largely I'd say about 5% for "good" provenance, but if it was e.g. ex-Freddie Mercury and documented, possibly up to 30% (as long as there was also enough meat left for a margin :) :) )

 

Edited by Unwilling Numismatist
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rob said:

It's also worth noting that a provenance going back a century where it was illustrated in the catalogue is also a very good indicator of how good it is relative to its peers or how rare the coin is, as only the best examples for whatever reason got imaged, even in Montagu, Murdoch etc. Certain collectors were also renowned for only collecting the best available, so the provenance helps a little here too. Quality and certain names frequently go hand in hand.

This is very useful with certain tokens in D&H - often when the plate coin is in terrible condition, there are few if any better to be found. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been collecting for 12 years or so now, and finding that provenance is increasingly important to me. The premium I would pay totally depends on the coin. but I'm not interested in acquiring coins from a particular collection (Brooker excepted, a focus at the moment), rather as an assurance of their authenticity. Some coins I would not buy at all without some provenance (Northumberland shillings, Charles I siege issues, wreath crowns, to name a few), and would pay a decent premium for cast-iron provenance (25%?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Just been collecting for 12 years or so now, and finding that provenance is increasingly important to me. The premium I would pay totally depends on the coin. but I'm not interested in acquiring coins from a particular collection (Brooker excepted, a focus at the moment), rather as an assurance of their authenticity. Some coins I would not buy at all without some provenance (Northumberland shillings, Charles I siege issues, wreath crowns, to name a few), and would pay a decent premium for cast-iron provenance (25%?)

 

I understand your position perfectly. I'm glad that my own collection was purchased (mostly) before 2000, and has no gold - buying now I would only trust reputable dealers for high value items and would insist on a full and itemised invoice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an end-all appreciation for provenance, but appreciate coins that were, say, ex-Norweb and have a few. I don't necessarily value them above other similar coins with no provenance - or at least one preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. A famous name is not a cast -iron guarantee of the best coin, and even if it is at the time of writing, can be superseded by a new find. A few collections are unquestionably outstanding in both quality and depth, but a constant rate of attrition to the corpus of available coins due to museum purchases and bequests means that the remaining quality coins with a long and distinguished provenance are gradually reducing, and increasingly sought after.

A good example of changing fortunes is that of Montagu's Petition Crown, now in Blackburn Museum as a result of the Hart bequest in 1946. At the time of the Montagu sale in 1896 it was considered the best available example and had a provenance going back to the mid-18th century, but having viewed it last week, I can definitely say it is now a clear second to the Slaney coin, which was an unknown example during the 19th century having been out of sight since 1789 when a previous owner died. GC did some work on his family tree about 5 years ago, and in a short space of time showed a direct line of descent from the 1st Earl of Clarendon - Charles II's Lord Chancellor at the time the Petition Crowns were struck. Can the continuous family ownership be proven? Sadly not, but I'd have a fiver on it being the case because if anyone was going to receive an example, it had to be the top brass in government or other royals and it notably was not known to other collectors in the early 18th century.

I think one factor that is often overlooked is the unappreciated rarity of really nice pieces which can only account for a minute fraction of a percent of the total coins available to collectors. Time and time again, a corpus of a type will reveal only a couple decent examples at the head of a long tail of also-rans, and these are the coins that more often than not were in the best named collections. But then they found their way in because the collector had the money to spend in the first place, thus saving the vendor time and effort searching for a buyer. This is a win-win situation for both parties and is the way collecting and much of life has always been. Jobs for the boys is the same principle viewed from a different angle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as a collector, or NPME (non-profit making entity), I do, wherever possible, try to obtain coins with a provenance. I find it important that a coin that I want to keep has some extrinsic baggage, a life story if you will, and I would pay more for that.

I'm sure that we'd all like to own unique coins, well I like to think that, to some extent, a provenance gives you that. 

For each coin, I like to compile a file of information containing not only the physical specifications and historical details of the piece but also the tickets, auction catalogues, and any information that I can find relating to previous custodians. I do not then have generic examples of such-and-such a coin or medal, but examples with unique alter ego's, thanks to their provenance. A provenance can give an unobtrusive cookie-cutter coin a unique aspect. Of course, there are provenances and there are PROVENANCES and that's another interesting discussion.

I suppose you're either into it or you're not, as the actress said to the bishop.

Here's a recent example. I'd been looking for a Lilburn acquittal medal for a while and I passed on a better looking (and cheaper) example to select the one below. I chose it above the better grade for its interesting, albeit tenuous, non-numismatic provenance.

image00411.thumb.jpg.bf406960070e77a3669f4c568d287e1f.jpglilburne.png.3fce880699d260076b4a910fd4e27b6d.png

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 12:06 AM, Rob said:

I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. A famous name is not a cast -iron guarantee of the best coin, and even if it is at the time of writing, can be superseded by a new find. A few collections are unquestionably outstanding in both quality and depth, but a constant rate of attrition to the corpus of available coins due to museum purchases and bequests means that the remaining quality coins with a long and distinguished provenance are gradually reducing, and increasingly sought after.

A good example of changing fortunes is that of Montagu's Petition Crown, now in Blackburn Museum as a result of the Hart bequest in 1946. At the time of the Montagu sale in 1896 it was considered the best available example and had a provenance going back to the mid-18th century, but having viewed it last week, I can definitely say it is now a clear second to the Slaney coin, which was an unknown example during the 19th century having been out of sight since 1789 when a previous owner died. GC did some work on his family tree about 5 years ago, and in a short space of time showed a direct line of descent from the 1st Earl of Clarendon - Charles II's Lord Chancellor at the time the Petition Crowns were struck. Can the continuous family ownership be proven? Sadly not, but I'd have a fiver on it being the case because if anyone was going to receive an example, it had to be the top brass in government or other royals and it notably was not known to other collectors in the early 18th century.

I think one factor that is often overlooked is the unappreciated rarity of really nice pieces which can only account for a minute fraction of a percent of the total coins available to collectors. Time and time again, a corpus of a type will reveal only a couple decent examples at the head of a long tail of also-rans, and these are the coins that more often than not were in the best named collections. But then they found their way in because the collector had the money to spend in the first place, thus saving the vendor time and effort searching for a buyer. This is a win-win situation for both parties and is the way collecting and much of life has always been. Jobs for the boys is the same principle viewed from a different angle.

 

I'm straying off the subject here Rob, apologies, but while you were there did you see the 1672 silver proof halfpenny in the Blackburn Museum? Probably unique and in beautiful condition. They sent me a photo of it once and it looked the equal of the BM 1673 silver proof (Peck plate coin). And separately again, whatever happened to Noble's silver pattern quatuor maria vindico halfpenny P403 (Glens 1973). Disappeared into the ether? That was a fantastic coin as well.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No things got cut short as they are a bit short staffed at the moment with people on maternity, so really only looked a few trays of hammered together with some the important crowns, i.e. Petition, Reddite, Oxford City View, various Cromwells including a Dutch Copy, Incorrupta, 3 Graces, Mills large head etc. I wanted to see the halfpennies, but that will have to wait for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the provenance from hoard which from my point of view is probably more appealing than a coin owned by "famous collector" because it is a guarantee of authenticity and you can track the history of the coins. Of course, when there are coins with both provenances it is reasonable to consider a good premium depending on the type of the coin.  

Since English coins are not my primary collection I always try to buy coins with provenance. 

I would like instead to ask you: how much extra would you pay for coins published on books or papers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×