Steve Roach and the Art of Law

Context matters: What value is lost when a set is broken up into parts?

2013-03-29T15:08:00.003-04:00

By Steve Roach - www.steveroachonline.com
Published as an editorial in the April 8, 2013, issue of Coin World

Eric Clapton's Gerhard Richter painting

It’s a curious situation when a set of coins is broken up.

On March 6, Morton & Eden Ltd., in association with Sotheby’s, offered in individual lots a set of 11 Proof 1859 U.S. coins donated in their year of issue by a Baltimore professor to the Royal Mint Museum.
While 10 of the Proof coins were purchased by a Tokyo firm, an American bidder purchased the 1859 Coronet gold $10 eagle for the U.S. equivalent of $308,636. Some rumbled that history was lost when the set was disassembled. However, the Royal Mint Museum kept 12 coins from the original 24-coin collection, so what appeared at auction was not necessarily even a “set” by traditional definitions.

Does numismatics lose, now that the Royal Mint Museum’s set is spread out in the marketplace?
Likely not. But not all sets are created equal.

Some sets deserve to remain intact. On Jan. 10, Heritage sold a complete 16-piece aluminum pattern Proof set featuring the Indian Head cent through the Coronet $20 double eagle with its original velvet-lined Morocco presentation case that housed the coins when they were struck at the Philadelphia Mint. The coins were offered as a single lot and the set was a cohesive whole.

This 1859 Coronet $10 gold eagle from the Royal Mint Museum brought in excess of $300,000

Sometimes sets aren’t exactly whole, but that doesn’t take away from their historical importance.
Few sets are as legendary in American numismatics as the King of Siam Proof set. That set was originally a diplomatic gift on behalf of U.S. President Andrew Jackson to the King of Siam (now Thailand) in 1836. When the set resurfaced in 1962, two of the holder’s 11 openings were empty. Those two spots were eventually filled with a gold Andrew Jackson inaugural medalet and an 1834 Capped Bust half dime, with speculation that those examples had been part of the original set.

The legendary King of Siam Proof set

Few would think today of breaking that set up, yet it is common for objects meant to be displayed together — and imagined as a whole when created — to be disassembled and sold separately.

Sometimes, even the concept of what constitutes a set is debatable.

For example, last October in London, Sotheby’s sold a painting by German artist Gerhard Richter, Abstraktes Bild (809-4) from the collection of musician Eric Clapton, setting a record for a painting by a living artist when it realized the equivalent of $34.2 million. The 10-page catalog entry failed to mention that when the 1994 painting sold a decade ago, it was part of a group — one of three identically scaled paintings and that there’s also a fourth from the group.

Art market analyst Judd Tully wrote, “Basically, the situation sounds as if a Richter triptych was broken up to serve the market, erasing its triplet or quadruplet paternity along the way.”

Does the single work lose the context it had when it was part of a triptych? Does a coin that was once in a set lose its context when removed from that set?

Many historical illustrated manuscripts have been dismantled over time when a prior owner believed that the individual parts were valued more than the sum. This is particularly the case with Persian manuscripts such as The Shahnama of Shah Tahmasp, perhaps the most renowned work of Iranian literature ever created. It remained intact until 1970 when it was dismantled, and sold via dealers and through public auctions. As a recent Yale publication states: “The credit lines of the captions in this book testify to the extent to which the manuscript has been dispersed. Its folios will never be reunited, but at least they can meet again as pages in a modern book.”

Context matters for coins and nearly all collectible objects, and scholarship can preserve context for future generations.

The making of a $10 million coin: the record setting 1794 silver dollar

2013-02-25T15:17:00.000-05:00

By Steve Roach - www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the Feb. 18, 2013, issue of Coin World

The sale of a 1794 Flowing Hair silver dollar for $10,016,875 on Jan. 24 at Stack’s Bowers Galleries Americana sale established a record for any coin sold at public auction.

The record-breaking $10,016,875 1794 Flowing Hair silver dollar

[Note: For further coverage on the sale, see Paul Gilkes' terrific story in the Feb. 11, 2013, issue of Coin World. For my subsequent comments on the impact of this sale on the larger rare coin market in the Feb. 11, 2013, Wall Street Journal, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578292490716986734.html)]

How it got to that level is a rather curious story.

There was no doubt that when the coin crossed the auction block it would be expensive. Although it had sold privately in 2010 for a reported $7.85 million, consensus prior to the auction seemed to be that there was a possibility it could sell for less.

During the auction, it almost seemed that it would sell for less, as bidding for the coin stalled at the $5.5 million level. Then, Legend Numismatics’ Laura Sperber invoked (in her words) “shock and awe” when she elected to jump the bid to $8,525,000.

Jumping the bid refers to placing a bid higher than standard bidding increments.

She wrote on her blog, “We firmly believe we took control of the bidding at that point and made a powerful statement about what it will take to beat us.”

The bid also had a symbolic element to it.

Sperber wrote that her firm “knew that $10 million would create a huge buzz for the entire coin market and ‘change the game’” before declaring, “A new era in the rare coin market has been created.” She went on to predict the possibility of a $25 million coin in the next decade.

While that prediction may be the subject of some debate in coin circles, there is no doubt that this coin will bring positive attention to the rare coin market and the market for great rarities should improve as a result.

One upcoming rarity has already benefited from this increased attention.

In the last week dozens of mainstream news outlets have covered Heritage’s upcoming offering of the Walton example of the 1913 Liberty Head 5-cent piece as part of its Platinum Night auction at the Central States Numismatic Society’s annual convention in Schaumburg, Ill.

The fascinating Walton example of the 1913 Liberty Head 5-cent piece

Executives at Heritage initially expected that the coin would realize in excess of $2.5 million.

Now, with the broad media attention that the record-setting 1794 dollar sale has attracted, that estimate may prove conservative.

Yet, reasonably set expectations are often better than unattainable ones, and the mainstream attention may bring new eyes — and money — into the coin field

Even well-studied areas reveal new discoveries thanks to private scholarship, the Internet

2013-01-21T15:23:00.000-05:00

By Steve Roach - www.steveroachonline.com
First published as an editorial in the Jan. 21, 2013, issue of Coin World

One of this week’s stories about the discovery of a new die marriage for an 1825 Capped Head gold $5 half eagle is perhaps most interesting for the way the coin was discovered.

[Note: See Paul Gilkes' story, "Researcher discovers new variety for 1825 Capped Head $5"]

A researcher was looking at Heritage’s auction archives, enlarged an image of a lot sold in a 2007 auction, and found the first new variety of any date of the early half eagle series since, at latest, 2006.

Does the fact that the coin is a “discovery” make the coin substantially more valuable? Likely not. It realized $51,750 when it sold in 2007, and the series has few collectors who collect it by die variety, at least when compared with series with more accessible starting price points like Draped Bust cents or Capped Bust quarter dollars.

The discovery is interesting and of some importance to numismatics as it sheds lights on some elements of the issue that were subject to debate by researchers, including die sequences and the fact that it is an overdate: 1825/4/1.

Perhaps most interesting to me is that this coin was once part of the Byron Reed Collection, which was sold when some high-value selections from the collection were offered at auction by the city of Omaha in 1996 to benefit the Western Heritage Museum.

While the half eagle was in that collection, one surmises that it was accessible to researchers.

However, despite the perceived availability of the coin to scholars while it was housed in a public collection, its true value to numismatists was identified only after it came to auction, went to a private collection (presumably) and was included in a searchable auction database.

Numismatics has long been a hobby dominated by private scholarship, in conjunction with collectors and with the support of museums.

As numismatic history continues to be digitized and more coins are photographed, the tools available to scholars will only increase and the discoveries are likely to keep coming.

Even well-mined areas of collecting like early U.S. coinage continue to surprise. Happy hunting!

Could sticking with a single design help small-sized $1 coin succeed?

2012-12-17T17:33:00.001-05:00

By Steve Roach - First published as an editorial in the Dec. 17 issue of Coin World

The Nov. 29 hearing on “The Future of Money: Dollars and Sense” dealt with two topics that have been the subject of legislative attention over the past several years: how to transition to a dollar coin and what are the possibilities for alternative coinage medals.

It's tough to get people excited about Millard Fillmore

These issues aren’t new, but they seem to have taken on a new urgency in the last several years.

The numbers make clear that switching from a paper dollar to a dollar coin saves money. The Government Accountability Office reported in February 2012 that replacing $1 notes with $1 coins could provide $4.4 billion in net benefits to the federal government over 30 years. The GAO has reported six times over the last 22 years that switching the $1 note to a $1 coin would save hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Coins last longer and are more “green” in that, in the stream of commerce, a $1 note lasts less than five years, while a $1 coin can last 30 years. As an experiment, carry around a small-sized Presidential dollar in your pocket and see how long it takes to actually wear down. You’ll see that these dollar coins are surprisingly durable.

Yet, dollar coins haven’t taken off in the United States because, when forced to choose between a coin and a note, Americans routinely choose the note. One problem is that a choice exists at all. The GAO’s testimony explicitly stated that public acceptance of a $1 coin has not succeeded in large part because the $1 note remains in circulation.

Both Canada and the United Kingdom made the change more than 20 years ago and, as the GAO report stated, “while observing that the public was resistant at first, Canadian and United Kingdom officials said that, with the combination of stakeholder outreach, public relations efforts, and ending production and issuance of the notes, public dissatisfaction dissipated within a few years.” It can be done.

In its Nov. 29 testimony, the Royal Canadian Mint discussed the success of its dollar coin program. Its dollar, nicknamed the Loonie for its Loon bird design, is visually distinct with an 11-sided shape and has been embraced by Canada’s population. The RCM cited a poll by CBC, Canada’s public broadcaster, that found almost 70 percent of Canadians identified the coin as a recognizable symbol of Canada.

Beyond the public’s affection for the design, Canada’s government saved $175 million over its first 20 years and Canada continues to innovate with its coin compositions, like the multi-ply steel $1 coin that it launched in 2012. That composition layers nickel and copper over a steel core and results, according to the RCM, in “the most economical, durable and secure coins on the market.”

To make a small sized $1 coin stick in the United States, a change must occur. Beyond being visually distinct from a quarter dollar, it has to be the only option and it has to become familiar to the public.

To be successful, it has to be instantly recognizable. A key takeaway point from the hearings is that Canada successfully “branded” its dollar with the distinctive Loon design, and over time the “Loonie” became an instantly recognizable symbol of Canada.

The current small-sized $1 coin program in the United States is characterized by the false start of the Anthony dollar (1979 to 1981, 1999), the Sacagawea/Native American dollar (1999 to present) and the various Presidential dollars (2007 to present). Unless laws are changed, in a few years, more than 50 distinct design types will exist for the small-sized dollar series. That’s just too much.

If a small-sized dollar is to stick, Congress should consider picking a design and sticking with it so that people know what a $1 coin looks like and usage becomes a familiar part of an American’s daily routine.

The aftershock of theft: A lingering problem of stolen goods

2012-10-18T18:50:00.005-04:00

By Steve Roach - First published in the Oct. 22 issue of Coin World

This painting was withdrawn from an auction amid concerns it was once stolen.

Sometimes the key issue with a discovery is not always the most obvious one.

Take for example the recent “flea market discovery” of a small 1879 painting by the French Impressionist Pierre Auguste Renoir. The landscape, identified as a Renoir on the name plate on the ornate gilt frame, was allegedly purchased for $7 in a box of junk at a West Virginia flea market.

Initially most reports focused on the value and authenticity of the picture. The Virginia auction house that was set to offer it in a Sept. 29 auction at a low estimate of $75,000 confirmed that it was authentic after vetting it with outside experts.

Turns out authenticity wasn’t the issue: The painting was likely stolen from the Baltimore Museum of Art in 1951.

While the picture was not included in several databases that track stolen and missing art, the museum received an insurance payout of $2,500 for the picture sometime after the theft. The painting’s sale has been halted pending the conclusion of an FBI investigation to determine the rightful ownership of the painting.

As thefts continue in the numismatic world — this week’s issue tells the story of one at a museum and another at a coin shop — an issue that lingers long after a theft is what becomes of the stolen property after the theft is forgotten and the items trickle into the marketplace.

As stolen coins from the collections of the American Numismatic Association and American Numismatic Society continue to have the potential to enter rare coin collections, one is reminded that the aftershock of a theft may continue long after the initial bad act.

Reform aimed at commem surcharges could help our hobby

2012-10-15T18:56:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - First Published in the Oct. 15 issue of Coin World

The U.S. commemorative coin program has again drawn the attention of legislators looking at ways to reform it, with the introduction of the “Commemorative Coins Reform Act of 2012” in the House and Senate.

The bills target surcharges, which are authorized by law for each commemorative program and are included in the price of coins sold by the Mint. Surcharges are paid to the recipient organizations — authorized in legislation — for projects that benefit the community.

The last substantial law with a broad impact on the commemorative coin program was 1996’s “Commemorative Coin Reform Act,” which was a response to a proliferation of commemorative coin programs and sometimes unpopular themes that resulted in the occasional unprofitable program.

The 1996 changes limit commemorative programs to two per year and require that Mint program costs be paid before surcharges can be sent to the benefiting organizations.

Today, legislators aren’t saying that too many coins are being issued. Rather, they’re saying that the private organizations that stand to benefit from the passage of a commemorative bill are driving the introduction of legislation. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., stated in a Sept. 21 news release: “Congress can still issue commemorative coins, but the funds should go to deficit reduction instead of becoming a money-maker for private entities. If organizations wish to raise money for worthy causes, there are many ways available without the use of taxpayer resources.”

Indeed, surcharges do seem to be the primary driver of many, if not most pieces of commemorative coin legislation.

Perhaps the passage of this new legislation could usher in a new era of commemorative coins celebrating and honoring a greater range of individuals, events and causes. A more interesting and varied selection of commemorative themes would appeal to a broader demographic and could better introduce a new generation of collectors to our hobby.

Of course, the Mint would benefit as these new collectors would be its future customers.

Will new evidence ever vindicate 1933 gold double eagles?

2012-09-24T18:53:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - First published in the Sept. 24 issue of Coin World

One of the great mysteries in American numismatics is how many 1933 Saint-Gaudens $20 double eagles escaped the Philadelphia Mint and remain hidden in private hands, held clandestinely in collections both here and abroad.

Judge Legrome D. Davis’ Aug. 29 ruling put further closure on a 2011 jury decision that the Langbord family did not own the 10 coins that Joan Langbord testified she found in a safe deposit box nearly a decade ago.

Judge Davis put the matter in plain terms: the disputed coins were not lawfully removed from the United States Mint and accordingly, as a matter of law, they remain the property of the United States.

The family’s lawyer, Barry H. Berke, said that he has plans to appeal the ruling. A decade ago, Berke was successful in persuading the government to dismiss criminal charges against the owner of another 1933 double eagle found under mysterious circumstances.

That coin was allegedly once in the collection of Egypt’s King Farouk and the government once, perhaps inadvertently, granted an export permit for the Farouk coin. The proceeds from the sale of the “Farouk” coin were divided between Berke’s client and the government after the piece set a record for a rare coin at auction in 2002 when it sold for $7,590,020.

Most collectors think that the jury, and now Judge Davis, made the wrong decision in the Langbord case and that the 10 coins belong to the family that found them. In absence of live testimony from those at the Philadelphia Mint in the 1930s, one must examine handwritten, dusty and often incomplete records to piece together a history.

The jury and Judge Davis considered the record documenting the movement of 1933 double eagles from minting to melting complete enough to establish that no 1933 double eagles legally left the Mint to private citizens.

Is it possible that some coins escaped through the back door? Yes.

Does that fact that some may have left the Mint under possibly shady circumstances make those back door escapees legal to own? No.

As both sides at trial pointed out and Judge Davis noted in his Aug. 29 ruling, 1933 Indian Head $10 eagles provide a useful counterpoint. Mint records reflect that just four left the Mint through authorized channels, yet many more exist and trade — legally — in today’s coin market.

Judge Davis clarified this fact, stating, “But this does not necessarily mean that the Mint kept shoddy records. It could also reflect that the ’33 Eagles left through the back door.”

1933 $10 eagles are different from the 1933 $20 double eagles in that the government has not maintained a vigorous, sustained effort to recover them. Gold expert David Akers has noted that the legality of private ownership of the 1933 eagle has never really been in question. Whether or not privately held 1933 double eagles are legal to own rests on assuming that a 1933 double eagle could have lawfully left the Mint.

It is a theoretical question, in the absence of proof that any actually did. Perhaps further research will reveal a smoking gun that proves that a few 1933 double eagles did escape the Mint legally to private individuals, and disproves evidence that Judge Davis — and the jury — interpreted to show that no 1933 double eagles were ever lawfully issued to the public.

However, until that evidence is discovered, privately held 1933 double eagles — but for the “Farouk” example — are fugitives of the law.

Counterfeits continue to threaten hobby: Weiss ancient "coin" case serves as a cautionary tale

2012-07-11T16:25:00.002-04:00

By Steve Roach - First published as the editorial in the July 23 issue of Coin World

The coin hobby’s attention has turned to counterfeits, once again.

June saw the introduction of legislation in Congress for an expanded Hobby Protection Act to cover sales of replica numismatic items and limit the ability of counterfeiters to fake third-party grading encapsulations (slabs).

The first week of July saw the continuation of the story of Dr. Arnold-Peter C. Weiss, a prominent hand surgeon and numismatist who was arrested in New York City earlier this year while possessing several coins that at the time of surrender were believed to have been imported into the United States illegally and as such, were illegal to own.

(Left: A circa 405 to 403/2 B.C. silver tetradrachm of Katane in Sicily (top) and a circa 405 to 403/2 B.C. silver tetradrachm of Katane in Sicily (bottom) had to be withdrawn from the Jan. 4 auction of “Selections of Cabinet W,” after New York and federal officials arrested the owner and detained the coins. The “coin” is also reportedly fake.)

It turns out that the three allegedly ancient Greek coins — valued in excess of $3 million — were highly advanced forgeries, officials say.

The coins turned out to be much “fresher” than expected, and Dr. Weiss has been charged with attempted criminal possession of stolen property. It is “attempted” because the coins were not ancient treasures looted from their homeland, but modern forgeries; “attempted” because Dr. Weiss thought that the coins were authentic and that they were recently excavated from Italy.

One of the coins — cataloged as a silver decadrachm of Akragas — and (if genuine) one of 12 known examples, carried an opening bid of $2.5 million and was set to be offered in a Jan. 4 auction conducted jointly by Classical Numismatic Group and Nomos AG. It was described as “A Masterpiece of Classical Art” and “one of the most beautiful of all Greek coins.” It was offered as part of the auction of “Selections from Cabinet W,” which the introduction said was “one of the most important offerings of ancient Greek coinage in living memory.”

The provenance of the piece as listed in the catalog was rather vague, though not inconsistent with many coin ownership histories, reading, “From a collection in the United States, once in a Swiss collection and, earlier, in an English collection in London in the 1960s.”

As part of his punishment, in addition to a fine of $3,000 and community service, the court is requiring Dr. Weiss to write an article for the American Numismatic Society’s magazine detailing the prevalent practice within the numismatic trade of collecting unprovenanced coins, the continuing threat of this practice to archaeology, and necessary changes in the trade to stop this practice and promote responsible collecting.

Interestingly, the introduction to the “Cabinet W” Jan. 4 auction catalog cites the example of Jiri Frel, the first curator of antiquities at the Getty Museum and his unrealized plan to build a collection of coins of the highest caliber. The introduction stated that Frel used to say that it was no longer possible to assemble a first rate collection of sculpture or vases, because the finest pieces were already in museums, but that it was still possible to buy the finest quality coins, adding, “The collector of Cabinet W has understood and seized that opportunity.”

As his 2006 obituary in the New York Times noted, Frel resigned from the Getty amid revelations about unscrupulous acquisition practices, including forging documents related to acquisitions and working with dealers known for dealing with looted artifacts.

Let the story of Dr. Weiss be a cautionary tale of the dangers in dealing with objects of cultural importance with murky ownership histories. The story also serves the dual purpose of alerting the hobby to the increasing sophistication of counterfeiters and reminding us of the ongoing threat counterfeits pose to our hobby.

For Coin World's coverage of the case, visit:
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/weiss-enters-guilty-plea-on-confiscated-coins/ and http://www.coinworld.com/articles/officials-seize-two-ancient-coins-at-nyinc/

When the permanent collection becomes a cash register: An editorial on the Hispanic Society's sale of its ancient coin collection

2012-07-06T13:52:00.005-04:00

By Steve Roach
First published as an editorial in the July 9 issue of Coin World

It is hard for most museums and institutions to maintain and care for coin collections, and the sale of numismatic holdings provides a tempting avenue for an institution to raise cash.

Coins occupy an odd place in most museums. They are small, easy to steal and hard to display. Even numismatic museums have problems. In the late 1940s, the man who literally wrote the book on early large cents — William H. Sheldon — substituted lesser quality coins while working with the American Numismatic Society’s collection of large cents. The recovery effort continues today. More recently the American Numismatic Association has been dealing with the theft of nearly $1 million in coins from its museum, stolen by a former employee in 2007.

The Hispanic Society of America recently sold its collection of nearly 38,000 rare coins in a sealed-bid sale after failing to find an institution that would purchase the collection as a whole. The set sold to a bidder thought to represent a consortium of dealers for an amount that is reported to exceed $25 million.

The executive director of the Hispanic Society of America, Mitchell A. Codding, stated in a Sotheby’s press release, “Proceeds from the sale will allow us to continue to grow our extensive collection of important Spanish and Latin American paintings, sculpture and decorative arts in keeping with our mission to promote the study and appreciation of the arts and literature of the Hispanic world.” He has stated that the coins were never formally accessioned into the Hispanic Society’s collection.

The ANS housed the collection for more than 50 years and published extensively on it. It will receive 10,000 of the coins from the former Hispanic Society collection as an extended loan from an American collector. Thanks to this collector, the ANS will continue to have one of the world’s premier collections of ancient coins from the Iberian Peninsula.

Yet, it has to sting a bit for the ANS that its work on the collection was used as a marketing tool by Sotheby’s as other coins from the Hispanic Society are starting to make their way to the auction block.

In choosing to sell the coins rather than work out an arrangement to donate or sell at a below-market value to the ANS, the Hispanic Society effectively looked at its collection as a cash register. Further, the sale may have been a breach of donor Archer Huntington’s intent when he gave the coins to the Hispanic Society.

However, the New York attorney general’s office did not step in to stop the sale nor did the Hispanic Society get a judge’s ruling to clarify the terms of the Huntington gift. The ANS did contest the sale of the collection in court, but ultimately lost.

Coin collections at non-numismatic museums have often suffered undignified fates. In the 1970s, the Metropolitan Museum of Art underwent an aggressive deaccessioning policy under the leadership of then-director Thomas Hoving. Many of its Greek and Roman coins were sold at auction to finance the purchase of a painted sixth century B.C. red-figure Greek krater in 1972. Twenty years later, Hoving admitted knowing that the provenance of the krater was misrepresented at the time of purchase and the “hot pot” was returned to Italy. So, the Met lost many of its ancient coins and the object that replaced them.

In the past several years, the ANS has also deaccessioned parts of its collection including die duplicates of some ancient Greek coins and non-American orders and decorations. As a result, the ANS has raised millions of dollars for its acquisition funds, which have been and will be used to purchase more coins, consistent with its mission.

One hopes the future stewards of the Hispanic Society’s coins will continue the tradition of scholarship started by the ANS.

Go Forward and Collect Boldly! Taking Chances in Your Collecting

2012-06-19T16:58:00.005-04:00

(By Steve Roach - First published as the letter from the editor introducing the July 2 Special Edition of Coin World) - Some coins are so rare that the opportunity to buy one may never pop up in a collector’s lifetime.

A complete set of Carson City Mint coins, including the unique 1873-CC Seated Liberty, No Arrows dime (shown), is scheduled to be auctioned by Stack’s Bowers Galleries at the ANA’s World’s Fair of Money in August

Our cover feature tells the story of the only known example of the 1873-CC Seated Liberty, Without Arrows dime and the many colorful individuals who have bought, owned and sold the coin during its well-documented yet still mysterious history.

Numismatist John J. Ford wrote of the coin in 1957 that it is “the rarest regularly issued American silver piece,” and it remains unique.

Perhaps collectors can relate to Louis E. Eliasberg Sr., the “King of Coins” who was the only person in history to assemble a complete set of coins issued by the U.S. Mint. He was an underbidder when the coin was offered at auction in 1950 where it sold for $3,650. After losing out, he much regretted missing his chance. Five months after the auction, Eliasberg received the opportunity to purchase it at $4,000, a modest increase from the price realized at the sale. He jumped at it and the rest is history.

Few collectors have that kind of luck. When extraordinarily rare coins are offered at auction, it’s never certain when — if ever — the coin will change hands again.

The only known example will be offered as part of Stack’s Bowers Galleries’ Aug. 4 to 12 auctions held in conjunction with the American Numismatic Association World’s Fair of Money in Philadelphia. The show is well-positioned to be the numismatic event of the year.

The last time the dime sold at auction, in 2004, it realized $891,250 — tantalizingly close to $1 million. Will it break the six-figure mark this time around?

Amusingly, the coin has been owned by two men named Waldo. Will a third Waldo be lurking in Philadelphia wanting to add this rarity to his collection?

The author, Carson City expert Rusty Goe, acknowledges that only a select group of well-heeled collectors will seriously think about bidding on the coin. He writes, “For Carson City Mint coin drumbeaters, this dime is their group’s heroic icon; it is their No. 1 entry to compete with the other heavyweight rarities in the numismatic world; and it is the king of their humble kingdom.”

Go forward and collect boldly!

June 11, 2012 Coin World Editorial: A rush to be first? Coin journalism in a 24-hour news cycle

2012-06-19T16:53:00.002-04:00

(Editorial by Steve Roach published in the June 16 issue of Coin World) - In today’s fast news cycle, there’s a lot of pressure to be first. Today, literally anyone with a computer and a connection can present and share a story. The recent proliferation of micro-blogging sites like Twitter even removed the need for editing and concerns about readability, allowing direct and nearly instant international distribution of content (as long as it is under 140 characters).

A purported 1870-S Indian Head gold $3 coin in a June 2 auction quickly made the mainstream news before anyone checked on the authenticity of the coin. The auctioneer eventually withdrew the coin from the auction.

It’s really enough to make one’s head spin.

There’s a robust and ongoing debate on where this instant expectation of news is taking journalism. While there’s certainly much to be said for the increased amount of news available, many believe that this rush to be first has resulted in a general loss of quality.

The coin hobby saw an example of this with a May 16 press release that a small auction house in Georgia was offering an extremely rare 1870-S Indian Head gold $3 coin. It was the second example ever made available to collectors and was promoted as the star of an otherwise modest June 2 auction, carrying an estimate of $2 million to $4 million.

Fox News ran with the story, which was shared hundreds of times through social media channels and reprinted in dozens of mainstream outlets. Steve White — owner of the Four Seasons Auction Gallery in Alpharetta, Ga. — told FoxNews.com, “It’s almost folklore to have this kind of rare coin be around.”

The mysterious coin was coupled with a wild provenance in that, allegedly, it was discovered glued in an antique San Francisco souvenir book, found there by a European tourist visiting a San Francisco bookshop in 1997. The story seemed tailor-made to capture mainstream media attention. Nearly all of the news stories barely flirted with the tricky subject of the coin’s authenticity.

It seemed too good to be true. So, before running the story, of course we did some checking with experts. They all quickly opined in near-unison that the new discovery was likely a fake. The coin was soon withdrawn from the sale, only a few days after its existence was announced to the world, as the auctioneer recognized the “need for complete independent verification of the coin and its authenticity.”

Perhaps fact-checking and trying to ascertain the truth of a story is old-fashioned, an established media convention that is seen as unnecessary today. However, one hopes that there still remains a valid place for news that is vetted and thoughtfully presented and considered from a coin-collecting perspective.

The European Fine Art Fair (TEFAF): A world away from the typical coin show

2012-04-16T09:07:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - www.steveroachonline
First published in the April 30 issue of Coin World

TEFAF — The European Fine Art Fair — held in Maastricht, a sleepy yet cosmopolitan city in the Netherlands, celebrated its 25th anniversary March 15 to 24.

Cahn International sells top quality examples of ancient art. Its booth at TEFAF is representative of the museum-like presentation that characterizes the show.

The show is seemingly entwined with the city of Maastricht and its local economy. What started in 1975 as a small 28-dealer fair eventually transformed itself into the leading fine art fair.

From the vetting to the atmosphere, along with the hefty admission charge, TEFAF is worlds’ away from the average coin show. Over the course of the fair, 72,000 people visit and most pay the admission charge of 55 Euro per person (or around $72).

A key factor for the show’s success is the fact that the show is vetted. Before the fair opens, each item displayed at the 265 dealer booths is examined for quality, authenticity and condition by international experts in 29 separate specialist committees selected from a team of 175.

It is also mind-numbingly opulent. More than 100,000 flowers, most locally sourced, decorate the aisles. The dealer booths are designed to resemble people’s homes or top museums, with varying floor and wall treatments and different ceiling heights.

The few booths to focus on coins, such as the one operated by Swiss dealer Tradart, contextualized them with antiquities. While some of the dealers included medallic art in their presentations, the focus at TEFAF is on more traditional decorative arts, paintings and furniture.

Simply put, it was the sort of place where one would feel comfortable spending big money on an object of lasting quality.

Often, the coin market is compared to the art market; usually with the suggestion that the coin market has room to expand to reach the prices achieved by fine paintings. Indeed, when a Paul Cezanne post-Impressionist painting sells for a reported $250 million in a private transaction, coins can appear to be underpriced when sheer rarity alone is taken into account.

But, a shopping experience like TEFAF feels exclusive and quality is nearly assured. It would be like a coin show where only the top dealers display a handful of their most important coins.

While such a model does not conform to the needs of the coin market, the aspect of showmanship and presentation, professionalism and theatrics could certainly be effectively applied to at least some coin shows. This could allow them to appeal to a new, broader audience of well-heeled, deep-pocketed potential buyers.

Pro-collector group loses test case involving Chinese, Cypriot coin imports

2011-08-22T18:29:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the August 29, 2011, issue of Coin World - http://www.coinworld.com/

A United States District Court in Maryland has held that import restrictions on ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins are not subject to judicial review, ruling in favor of the government on a test case initiated in 2009 by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild.

District Judge Catherine C. Blake’s comprehensive 52-page opinion, filed on Aug. 8, dismissed the ACCG’s case and granted the government’s request for summary judgment. The ACCG is a nonprofit organization “committed to promoting the free and independent collecting of coins from antiquity.”

The United States entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Cyprus on July 16, 2007, that imposed import restrictions on archaeological material including coins of Cypriot types. The Cyprus action reversed a long-standing tradition that exempted coins from import restrictions. The U.S. State Department restricted certain designated Chinese coins pursuant to an MOU effective Jan. 16, 2009. Thus far, U.S. Customs has not shown a strong interest in enforcing the import restrictions as they relate to coins, which on Jan. 19, was expanded to include certain coins of Italian types.

ACCG initiates a test case
In April 2009, the ACCG purchased 23 low-value ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins from the London coin dealer Spink and imported the coins via a London to Baltimore flight on April 15, 2009. U.S. Customs detained the coins for alleged customs violations upon their arrival in Baltimore and issued a Notice of Detention to “allow for determination of import eligibility and/or requirements.” On May 13, 2009, Peter Tompa, counsel for the ACCG, wrote to Customs formally objecting to the detention of the coins.

Two days later, Customs amended the detention notice to request additional evidence regarding the coins.

On May 27, 2009, the ACCG disclaimed any ability to present such evidence writing that because, “the coins — like the vast majority in circulation in the collector market — have no known ownership history, ACCG cannot say if they were first found in the ground of either China or Cyprus.”

The 23 coins were seized on July 20, 2009, and the ACCG was informed of the seizure the next month. Tompa wrote Customs to formally claim the coins on Sept. 8, 2009. The ACCG brought the lawsuit against Customs, the Commissioner of Customs, the State Department and the assistant secretary of state on Feb. 11, 2010, and filed an amended complaint on July 15, 2010.

In the lawsuit, the ACCG alleged that the actions of both the State Department and Customs in connection with the import of Cypriot and Chinese coin types were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Court rules against ACCG
The court’s ruling stated that when the government seeks the forfeiture of cultural property subject to import restrictions under CPIA — the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act — the initial burden is on the government to show that the material has been listed by the secretary of the Treasury on a designated list. Once this is shown, the burden shifts to the ACCG to show that the coins were legally importable. Since there is no dispute that the ACCG’s coins appeared on the list, the ruling focused on whether Customs and the other defendants had authority under the CPIA to restrict the importation of those coins.

Analyzing this point, the court found that under the CPIA, Congress assigned various responsibilities to the president and that the actions by the State Department and assistant secretary, while not directly undertaken by the president, derived from the president’s authority under CPIA.

The court also dismissed a claim that the government put the ACCG’s Executive Director Wayne Sayles on a “watch list” due to the ACCG’s decision to import coins of Cypriot and Chinese types for the purposes of the test case. Sayles alleged that he was searched by uniformed Customs officers on March 15, 2010, on his return to the United States from England. Judge Blake cited Sayles’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies through the Department of Homeland Security as the reason.

In a novel argument, the ACCG contented that the import restrictions were a violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, because the inscriptions and designs on ancient coins is “information or speech” as coins communicate “the ethos of a people, the means by which the ancient society expressed that ethos, and the individual expression of the coin maker.”

Judge Blake wrote that the imposition of the import restrictions were within the constitutional power of the government, and that combating looting and the illegal trade in looted ancient objects that threatens the cultural patrimony of other countries is a compelling government interest.

‘Disappointing turn of events’
Sayles called the decision a “disappointing turn of events” on an August 9 posting to his blog, Ancient Coin Collecting. He added: “My own interest in the past will certainly not abate because a judge in Maryland thinks the government is beyond reproach. In fact, I really doubt that my life will change measurably as a result of this decision. It is a sad day, but there’s much work to be done and little time to reflect on what might have or should have been.”

Tompa also penned an Aug. 9 entry to his blog, Cultural Property Observer, which called Judge Blake’s opinion well-written, but characterized the underlying situation as “shameful,” with “Faceless bureaucrats making decision in secret at the behest of connected, narrow special interest groups with little more than lip service being given to the protections built into the law for small businesses and individuals.”

The ACCG is currently reviewing its legal options, according to an official for the organization.

***
Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving fine art and collectibles, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Rare Platinum 1814 half dollar pattern a pre-ANA auction highlight

2011-08-22T09:12:00.001-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the September 5, 2011, Special Edition issue of Coin World

The recent volatility in the stock market had little impact on the Heritage sales held in Chicago, Aug. 11 to 12. That serves as a positive sign for what will likely be an exciting American Numismatic Association World’s Fair of Money.

While not the “official” ANA auction, it realized a healthy $31.345 million with 5,154 bidders competing for 7,370 lots. For comparison, the U.S. coin section of last year’s Heritage ANA auction in Boston realized just over $34 million with 7,133 lots.

Heritage’s top lot in Chicago was an 1855-S Indian Head gold $3 coin graded Proof 64 Cameo by Numismatic Guaranty Corp., described by Heritage as “arguably the single most important coin in the sale.” It realized a robust $1,322,500. At its last auction offering at Stack’s 69th Anniversary Sale in October 2004, it was graded by Professional Coin Grading Service as Branch Mint Proof 63 and sold for $276,000 — further confirming the current market’s taste for flashy, unique rarities.

The noteworthy 1893-S Morgan dollar graded Mint State 67 that was the subject of the Aug. 22 Coin World market analysis found a new home at $546,250, well above the reserve of $340,000 (or $391,000 with the 15 percent buyer’s fee).

Two other gold highlights included an 1863 Coronet $10 eagle graded Proof 65 Deep Cameo that sold for $299,000 (far more than the $138,000 that a similarly graded example sold for at a January 2008 Heritage auction), and a 1796 Capped Bust, No Stars $2.50 quarter eagle graded MS-61 that sold for $276,000.

Perhaps the wildest coin in the sale was a 1814 Capped Bust half dollar pattern struck in platinum with a lettered edge that realized $138,000. The obverse features 33 backward letters “P” punched into the surfaces, and “Platina” is engraved on the reverse. It is unique of the several known platinum patterns for the date in having the punched letters and engraving. With the post-striking impairments — likely contemporary to the coin’s production — it did not receive a numerical grade from NGC. But, as Heritage noted, “condition is all but irrelevant for this example,” and the eye appeal is “decent considering what the coin is.”

Among the major lots that did not sell was a 1921 Saint-Gaudens $20 double eagle graded PCGS MS-64 and a rare 1792 cent pattern graded Fine 15 (one of approximately 10 known) that did not meet its reserve of $379,500 (with the buyer’s fee).

Especially considering the recent financial uncertainty, the fact that the auction had a 95 percent by lot and 91 percent by value sell-through rate is impressive, showing that collectors are still willing to invest in their collections.

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving fine art and collectibles, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

“People don’t just want to buy an object, they want to buy a story.”

2011-08-01T09:11:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the Aug. 15, 2011, issue of Coin World

“People don’t just want to buy an object, they want to buy a story.”

Nicolas Chow, Sotheby’s head of Chinese works of art — a category that has exploded in the past three years — wrote this, and I find it wonderfully applicable to the coin market.

Perhaps his words resonate most deeply in specialist areas, with dedicated collector bases that are expanding as the Internet makes information more accessible and better connects people with numismatic objects that may intrigue them enough to open their wallets and set new standards for what a “market price” is.

Token collecting is accessible to most anyone as tokens are generally affordable and available. But, there’s also a high-end to the market.

On June 25 at a Steve Hayden auction featuring Civil War, Hard Times, political and merchant tokens and medals, a rare Loomis Hard Times token from Cleveland, Ohio, realized $13,450 (it had an estimate of $8,000 to $12,000).

According to Hayden, it’s one of just five known and has an ownership history going back to 1916. It was not “fresh to market” — it most recently traded at a Jan. 12, 2009, Stack’s Americana sale where it brought $4,600 and was offered at auction in 1999 and 2008 — but its high price in June was a function of the right venue and the right bidders.

That it was holed and worn wasn’t a detriment to the bidders, who had to ask themselves, “Where will I find another one?”

Pioneer gold has a higher entry point in that even the more common, low grade examples are expensive.

Mormon gold has an especially dedicated collector base. Eleven bidders fought for an 1860 Mormon gold $5 coin at the July 8 Heritage Summer Florida United Numismatists auction.

The coin’s design could be described as charming, as the obverse features a seated lion while the reverse shows an eagle behind a beehive.

It graded About Uncirculated 50 and realized a huge $80,500; where another AU-50 example auctioned several months ago at Heritage brought just $51,175.

However, in another example where grades don’t tell the whole story, a visual comparison of the two coins shows that the more recently offered example is of superior quality, with substantially stronger details. Specialists know quality and will pay for it.

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based writer, rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving fine art and collectibles, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Defining value: What are the 10 Langbord 1933 gold $20 double eagles worth?

2011-07-07T15:17:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com

As the trial to determine who owns the “Langbord 10” 1933 Saint-Gaudens gold $20 double eagles begins July 7 in a Philadelphia federal courtroom, many are wondering what these coins are worth. The Associated Press and Time both said that the coins could be worth $80 million, or more. But is this realistic?

We know what the coins grade since Numismatic Guaranty Corp. reported Nov. 3, 2009, that it had graded one coin Mint State 66, two MS-65, six MS-64 and one with an NGC Uncirculated Details, Improperly Cleaned grade.

When pricing any object, one first looks at comparables — other objects of similar type and quality and the prices they sold for. In 2002, the 1933 double eagle allegedly owned by Egypt’s King Farouk sold for $7,590,000 at auction. It graded MS-65 and was — and currently is — the only 1933 double eagle that can be legally owned by an individual.

So if the coins are ruled private property, are the “Langbord 10” worth around $7 million each?

That’s unlikely. When multiple examples of an object enter a market, the demand/supply ratio changes. While the added publicity helps — meaning that more people know what a 1933 double eagle is and may want one — it’s not enough to compensate for the fact that the coins are not unique.

A parallel in the art market is when an artist’s estate is valued for estate tax purposes, a blockage discount is sometimes used. This assumes that the works are sold at once, depressing the market. To maximize value, prudent estates use long-range marketing, which places objects into the market slowly, responding to the ebbs and flows of demand and artist reputation.

What pricing comparables do the 1933 double eagles have?

Perhaps most obvious is the 1927-D Saint-Gaudens double eagle, considered by some the rarest regular issue coin of the 20th century. Around 10 are collectible today from a mintage of 180,000. They are sold infrequently. The last example at public auction was an MS-66 that realized $1.495 million at a January 2010 auction.

Seeing that the prices for the top objects in many collecting categories are going sky high, with proper marketing to buyers beyond the existing coin-market, the 10 Langbord 1933 double eagle coins could be worth around $2 million each, perhaps more.

But how many more examples remain to be discovered is a troubling, lingering question.

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving collectibles and fine art, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Pretty cool! I'll be in Philadelphia next week covering the trial of the 1933 Langbord Gold $20 Double Eagles

2011-07-05T19:58:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the July 18, 2011, issue of Coin World

The federal trial that should decide whether a family or the government owns 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens gold $20 double eagles will begin July 7 in Philadelphia.

The trial of Langbord v. U.S. Department of the Treasury et al, is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. It is anticipated that the trial will take two weeks. Judge Legrome D. Davis will preside over the case in Room 6A of the U.S. District Court, 601 Market Street in Philadelphia.

Coin World's Steve roach will be attending the trial starting July 11, providing daily updates online at www.coinworld.com and through social media including Coin World’s Twitter account and its Facebook page, www.facebook.com/coinworld.

A rich history
The legal dispute over the 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens gold $20 double eagles began in 2003 when Joan Langbord, the daughter of Philadelphia coin dealer Israel Switt, allegedly learned that a family safe deposit box contained the coins. She and her two sons, Roy and David, transferred the coins to the U.S. Mint for authentication in September 2004.

In May 2005, the Mint authenticated the coins but refused to return them or initiate forfeiture proceedings. The Langbords sued the government in December 2006. On July 28, 2009, Judge Davis ordered the government to file a forfeiture action, ruling that the coins were unlawfully seized. The government filed its amended complaint for forfeiture and declaratory judgment against the Langbords and the 10 coins on Nov. 10, 2010.

The government’s case attempts to create a framework for the 10 1933 double eagles as being embezzled or stolen from the Mint and wrongfully retained. The Langbords have argued that there was a window of time where people could legitimately obtain 1933 double eagles from the Mint cashier, and that some pieces may have left the Mint that way.

At the heart of the case is the problem of proving actions alleged to have taken place in the 1930s and 1940s. To this end, both sides have retained three experts each, including numismatic experts David Enders Tripp, who is testifying on behalf of the government, and Roger Burdette, the numismatic expert retained by the Langbords.

A landmark case
The case is important for several reasons. Most obvious is that the coins are extremely valuable. On July 30, 2002, at Sotheby’s in New York, more than 700 people watched as six different bidders fought for eight minutes until the 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagle allegedly once owned by Egypt’s King Farouk sold for $7.59 million, plus $20 to officially monetize the coin. The buyer of that coin has remained anonymous.

If the Langbord coins are legal to own, the Professional Coin Grading Service Million Dollar Coin Club estimates that they would bring $2.5 to $3.5 million each at auction. Numismatic Guaranty Corp. posted a press release to its website on Nov. 3, 2009, announcing that it had graded the Langbord coins. One was graded Mint State 66, two were MS-65, six were graded MS-64 and a single one received an NGC UNC Details, Improperly Cleaned grade. The press release was removed from the NGC website several days later, adding further mystery.

In a larger sense, any court ruling that would question a collector’s right to own coins not issued as legal tender could jeopardize other legendary U.S. rarities like the 1913 Liberty Head 5-cent coin.

Final filings
While May and June were quiet months for filings, a June 24 order required the Langbord family to provide the court with two copies of its proposed trial exhibits before June 28.

On June 27, the Langbords filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum to allow the addition of Exhibits 200 to 207 to their exhibit list and prevent the government from offering several of Tripp’s expert appendices as summary charts.

The additional exhibits the Langbords seek to add fall under two categories.

The first includes two exhibits that should have been included in the Langbords’ original list and are not new to the government: Treasury Regulations issued under the Gold Reserve Act in January 1934 and an advertisement from a 1941 issue of The Numismatist for the auction of a 1933 double eagle.

The second category includes six additional documents that the Langbords are trying to introduce in response to exhibits produced by the government during discovery. These include three reports and a memorandum from a 1937 Secret Service investigation related to the Philadelphia Mint and “obsolete and inadequate” Mint record-keeping procedures in the 1930s, a document from April 1933 considering what constitutes “hoarding” and a 1934 memo to the Cashier of the Treasurer’s Office addressing gold and other coins being made available to “fill request[s] for a few pieces of new coins for special purposes.”

Perhaps more interesting are the Langbords’ objections to admitting all or parts of several of David Tripp’s summary charts introduced into evidence by the government.

Among them is Government Exhibit 75-B, titled a “Chronology of Relevant Dates regarding the History of 1933 Double Eagles, Including the 1944-1945 Secret Service Investigation and Reported Involvement of Israel Switt.” The Langbords characterize this chronology as being based on Secret Service reports that should not be admitted at trial. The Langbords also contend that it should not be admitted because it is written as an argument for the government’s position, and selectively characterizes (or as the Langbords argue, mischaracterizes) various presidential proclamations, laws and other directives while leaving out contradictory directives and letters.

In a June 23 e-mail to Coin World, Barry H. Berke, the attorney for the Langbord family, said that he fully expects that jury selection will begin July 7, with opening statements beginning on Friday, July 8 or Monday, July 11, while noting, “It’s always possible that a trial can have an unexpected delay.”

During the five years that this case has been in litigation, the possibility of a settlement has always loomed and could happen the day before trial is scheduled to start.

***
Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

$45,000 Picasso linoleum cut? Don't bet on it! Beware the cut-down poster.

2011-06-30T09:42:00.001-04:00

Each week, I get several e-mails with people who want quick, free, answers on what something is worth. Sometimes, I can dash off a quick e-mail (and do), while others take more work and I advise them to make an appointment. Often, the people who ask want some free guidance before they buy something on if something is "right" - while framing it as wanting an appraisal for (insert legitimate-sounding purpose). But, when there is a price tag on the picture, I typically know that someone wants pre-buying thoughts.

This was an easy one, and as a case study it provides some interesting fast lessons that you can apply when "picking."

Several days ago, a lady who found me online asked me to "appraise" what she characterized as a genuine Pablo Picasso linoleum cut from 1962, numbered 45 out of an edition of 160, “Still Life with a Watermelon.” While I don’t generally provide full appraisals from photographs, I’ve seen this before, so was able to answer it quickly, dashing hopes and potentially protecting her from losing money.

Originals sell at major auctions for thousands – one sold at Sotheby’s New York in October 2010 for $43,750 on an estimate of $40,000 to $60,000.

The size, at about 24 x 30 inches appeared right, but more troubling was the edition number. 45/160 is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the exact image, including the pencil signature and number was a poster for “Picasso Linoleum Cuts”, an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum in 1985.

There are cases with editioned works where there are duplicate edition numbers - this was not one of those rare instances. Sadly, posters of prints are often passed off as the real thing.

So, it was a poster, with the identifying text removed, which someone likely framed. Was it intended to be deceptive? Who knows; likely not because it was in an inexpensive frame. Still, even if the poster has some value to collectors, an incomplete poster likely has little-to-no value.

***

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Steve Roach's Painting of the Week:

2011-06-06T11:00:00.001-04:00

Continuing on last week's picture of cattle, here's another lively and much smaller picture. There is a lot of decorative value to be found in small-sized, unsigned 19th century paintings.

Anonymous American Luminist Landscape

Ca. 1850 to 1880

Oil on Board

$550

A charming small-scale example of (likely) nineteenth century American landscape painting with a sunset, cows, trees and a light mountain with a cross in the background.

One of my favorite passages is the tilted angle of the grey cow that is drinking from the water. Soft, atmospheric and showing the influence of the Luminist school of American painting, and artists such as Albert Bierstadt and Frederic Edwin Church. From an old east coast collection

Picture of the week: William Grant Stevenson "Cattle Watering" - $1,950

2011-06-02T18:24:00.001-04:00

Greetings! Over the summer I am going to start rolling this blog into a new and improved http://www.steveroachonline.com/ which is going to feature my coin and precious metal writing, examples from my fine art inventory and provide useful information on personal property appraisals related to my work as a fine art appraiser.

Until the launch later this summer, I'm going to spotlight some of my favorite paintings that I'm currently offering for sale, housed at my showroom at:
Lost Antiques
1201 North Riverfront Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75207-4001
(214) 741-4411

William Grant Stevenson (Scottish 1849 to 1919)
Cattle Watering
1919
$1,950

A charming traditional early 20th century painting of cattle grazing before a stone bridge in a good quality gilt frame. Stevenson was elected to the Royal Scottish Academy in 1885 and is very well-known for his beautiful pictures of animals in the countryside. In looking at examples of his work, this is one of his stronger efforts. Plus, it features cows, which Texans do love! Purchased from a London dealer.

A gentleman's adventures in dealing and collecting art

2011-01-28T11:25:00.000-05:00

After a six month hiatus, I'm coming back to this blog allowing it to become a place to share my adventures as a "gentleman art dealer" as I build my fine art appraisal business in Dallas, and buy and sell interesting 18th, 19th and 20th century paintings.

The "bread and butter" of my work is still with appraising and advising collectors on rare coins, but fine art has always brought me deep pleasure, and now working with paintings on my own has provided me with a greater understanding of what makes a painting good versus what makes a painting great (the determining factor is not always cost).

So many of these pictures have great stories behind them, and hopefully you'll learn a bit on how to make smart buying and selling decisions for your own collections.

Until then, happy collecting! Steve!

Steve Roach Online: http://www.steveroachonline.com/

Rare Coin Market Report: http://www.coinmarketreport.com/

Steve Roach Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach

Visit my wares at:

Lost Antiques

1201 North Riverfront Blvd

Dallas, TX 75207

Ciao for now!

2010-08-19T10:21:00.002-04:00

After almost five years and more than 30,000 views, my blogging at this page is coming to an end.

I'll still update on Twitter and I invite you to join my network on LinkedIn.

I’ll continue to write all about the rare coin market and collecting each week in the pages of Coin World and post selected writings online at www.coinmarketreport.blogspot.com.

Several posts have been left including the 2006 posting on how I passed the Texas Bar Exam which, even after four years, continues to get hundreds of views from nervous test-takers during February and July.

Thanks for five great years!
Steve Roach
www.steveroachonline.com

When is a museum's deaccessioning of a major work appropriate? Thoughts on Columbus' sale of Eakins "The Wrestlers"

2010-07-30T14:47:00.005-04:00

The blog “Los Angeles County Museum on Fire” posted a great new entry on July 24 titled “How LACMA Got ‘The Wrestlers,’” a large Thomas Eakins painting recently acquired by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and formerly in the collection of Ohio’s Columbus Museum of Art and National Academy of Design. The picture was the inspiration for "Manly Pursuits: The Sporting Images of Thomas Eakins" currently on view at LACMA.

LACMA on Fire explains how “The Wrestlers” – now perhaps the finest American painting in LACMA’s collection – was deaccessioned by two museums – Columbus and the National Academy of Design.

I say that Columbus made a smart move.

The blog seems takes issue with a museum like Columbus selling its masterpiece, summarizing it with, “no, you shouldn’t take away the picture that put Columbus on the map.” Drawing on an article by LACMA curator Ilene Susan Fort, the implication is that the homoeroticism of the Eakins’ “Wrestlers” made it an image “inappropriate for a moderate-size art museum in middle America.”

However, there’s practical concerns in having a great painting that doesn’t fit into a collection, taking up resources that may be better spent elsewhere.

I lived in Columbus from 2003 to 2006, and remember visiting the museum and seeing “The Wrestlers” in situ, where it occupied a wall in a hallway next to the cafeteria. It was an odd picture, indeed, and I had the feeling that it was “out of place.” Even a visit to the Columbus Museum’s highlights page for “Nineteenth-Century American” shows a group of pretty landscapes, still lifes, and pretty examples by John Singer Sargent and Winslow Homer. Nothing gritty or challenging like the Eakins.

In 2005, Columbus discretely sold its large Eakins, leaving a competent if a bit sad portrait of Weda Cook in the collection to represent Eakins and his realism (pictured below). That the sold painting went to a larger museum where it can be seen by many more people means that the loss of public access is not a concern. Further, LACMA already owns another version of "The Wrestlers" which will allow the work to be seen in a fuller context.

The museum made a business decision to liquidate a non-performing asset to acquire works that they can use to better engage the public and shed light on other works in their core collection.

Columbus is not a universal museum telling the history of art. Its pre 1850 pictures are effectively featured, Salon style, in a single room, but include a wonderful cabinet-sized Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, “Raphael and the Baker’s Daughter,” and a huge and imposing Artemisa Gentileschi. Columbus is first and foremost a museum of European and American modernism.

The 1991 acquisition of the Howard D. and Babette L. Sirak collection of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and modernist works had a lot of heft and depth to it. A great example is the Alexej Jawlensky “Schokko with a Red Hat,” a picture that would be a top-work at any museum worldwide (below). In fact, the picture was once a two-sided portrait. The other picture was detached and set a record in 2008, selling at auction for $18.6 million. Read the story on that here.

The museum's early acquisition of the Ferdinand Howald collection in 1931 provided the museum with some top-rate works by Picasso and Matisse. The Picasso, “Still Life with Compote and Glass” has one of the most intricate surfaces of any Picasso I’ve ever seen (pictured below).

The American collection has phenomenal pictures by Columbus’ own George Bellows, a fantastic Marsden Hartley (pictured below), and the presentation is a virtual textbook of 20^th century American art up to 1950.

It would be false to suggest that money was not a motive in Columbus selling its Eakins. But, if it was purely money that the museum was after, some duplicate Bellows would likely raise enough money for their acquisition goals. Surely the great Hartley, the Hopper, or even one of the four or five Monets would raise millions.

The museum has done some pruning of its Old Masters in recent years, with lesser examples showing up at the auctions of the past few years. For a museum that will likely contain its pre-1850 European paintings to a single room, such a move seems prudent.

The museum used the Eakins funds to buy the social realist collection put together by Philip J. and Suzanne Schiller. To regular museum goers, the pictures represent artists generally not shown in depth and support other key pictures in the collection, such as the bold 1998 acquisition "Herrin Massacre" by Paul Cadmus (below). In the three galleries devoted to the pictures, a story is told unique to the Columbus Museum and rather than having a singular painting that is of interest to a handful, it has a collection with the power to engage a community.

I think more museums should think like Columbus: using a great, but ultimately non-confirming painting to fund the purchase of multiple works that better fit the museum’s goals.

Dallas Rothko case begs questions about how much control sellers have once they sell

2010-05-19T17:37:00.002-04:00

A Dallas art collector’s lawsuit involving a Mark Rothko painting that just sold for $31.4 at auction asks the question of how much control can a collector expect to have over an object once its sale goes through?

Dallas collector Marguerite Hoffman filed suit in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas on May 11 against dealer L&M Arts, Sotheby’s, its head auctioneer Tobias Meyer, and David Martinez and his holding firm, Studio Capital, Inc., which Hoffman’s attorneys suggest was formed with he purpose of concealing Martinez’ art buying activities from the public. (Image of Tobias Meyer in front of the Rothko, with a Pollock to the left, from http://www.thecityreview.com/s10scon1.html).

The lawsuit involves an 8-foot tall painting with rich Orange colors, painted in 1961 by Mark Rothko. It was estimated at $18 to 25 million and sold for a strong $31.4 million. The picture was described in Sotheby’s catalogue as coming from a “private collection” and the provenance lists the painting as acquired from L&M Arts, New York and notes its inclusion in the 2007 Dallas Museum of Art exhibit “Fast Forward: Contemporary Collections for the Dallas Museum of Art.” The picture was at one time a promised-gift to the institution, but changing financial circumstances following the untimely death of Hoffman’s husband forced her to sell the painting.

Hoffman’s petition is noteworthy for its dramatic language, and its harsh assessment of Meyer, whose values are characterized as “mundane and materialistic.” It claims that Sotheby’s and Meyer committed a tort to secure the painting by forcing Martinez to break his contractual promise to make “maximum effort” to keep “all aspects” of the transaction confidential. The confidentiality portion of the agreement was essential to Hoffman as she “was determined to avoid the embarrassment that she believed would ensue if the fact of the sale became public.”

Shopping at the Dallas Museum of Art

A sad point is that Martinez effectively went shopping at the museum while the painting was on display in the “Fast Forward” show, traveling in secret to Texas to view the painting as it was on the wall of the Dallas museum. The sale agreement was dated Feb. 27, 2007 - while the painting was on display and (presumably) an assumed gift to the institution.

Apparently Martinez made a promise when he bought the painting in 2007 to keep it in his private collection indefinitely and in return for this promise, Hoffman received less than its fair market value, or less than it would bring at auction. The lawsuit states that: “Martinez traded his written promise for the promise of a cash bonanza.”

Some interesting points in the filing:

The assertion that “times have changed. The Rothko market is hot” as the reasoning for Martinez flipping at auction. Couldn’t the same be said in 2007 when it sold? Several months after Hoffman sold the picture, an earlier Rothko “White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose)” sold at a Sotheby’s auction for $72,840,000 (pictured below, right). Wouldn’t this argument be stronger if Martinez cashed out immediately, rather than waiting for the market to crash and be reborn?

How enforceable is a contract agreement that seeks to maximize the confidentiality of “all aspects of the transaction indefinitely,” and why wasn’t there a specific provision that addressed the possibility that buyer would try to “flip” the painting at auction for a quick profit? The contract addressed a breach before the delivery of the painting, but not post-delivery.

How could L&M specify with certainty that the painting would “disappear” into Martinez’ collection and why would it set itself up for the embarrassment when such a tough restriction failed to be met?

Desperation at Sotheby’s

Martinez was opportunistic in selling the painting, and the filing paints Sotheby’s as desperate for it. The lawsuit maintains that Tobias Meyer was desperate for high-quality marquee works for the evening sale as rival Christie’s had just secured two major collections: Frances Lasker Brody which included a Picasso that sold for $106 million making it the most expensive painting ever sold at auction and the Michael Crichton collection which realized nearly $100 million. The papers refer to a New Yorker profile of Meyer and describes him as aggressive and ready to pounce on an acquisition noting, “Meyer makes no bones about the fact that he has few scruples.” That Meyer had been coveting this painting for 15 years made it even more of a prize.

The demand for relief includes a request that all parties involved refrain from publicly discussing, commenting on or referring to the 2007 sale.

For its part, the Dallas Museum of Art has supported Hoffman, noting that the collection displayed in Fast Forward was intended to be fluid, and that the collection would “continue to evolve and change.” For its part, Sotheby’s has dismissed the suit without merit and L&M has stated that its actions were consistent with the highest ethical standards.

Now that “the cat’s out of the bag,” it will be interesting to see where this goes and if further filings shed more light on the collecting habits of Martinez.

LACMA's curious new Henner

2010-04-27T16:02:00.001-04:00

By Steve Roach
First published in Steve Roach and the art of law

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art has a clever way of selecting and funding some of the art for its collection. Each year it hosts a Collectors Committee event, where donors pool resources to purchase works for the collection. Curators from the various departments present works, giving short but passionate presentations on the object’s importance, condition and its place in the collection.

The members come together for dinner and vote on which pieces to acquire. The 2010 event raised more than $2 million dollars, and purchased some great objects, including what is perhaps the oddest choice in recent memory: “Portrait of Madame Paul Duchesne-Fournet,” by the forgotten academic painter Jean-Jacques Henner (pictured left). It’s the type of painting that most museums today have in storage, if they haven’t already deaccessioned it as it does not fit in with the public’s conception of painting in France at the end of the 19th century which is generally either Impressionism or Bouguereau.

Such was the case with the only expensive Henner to sell at auction in recent years, a sensual “Mary Magdelene” that sold at Sotheby’s in New York for $57,000 against a $25,000 to $35,000 estimate (pictured right). That piece has been let go from a museum's collection not once, but twice. It was bequeathed to the Metropolitan Museum in New York in 1891 by Sarah M. Hitchcock, and in 1928 left the collection. It went through five intermediaries in the next two years until landing in the collection of the Toledo Museum of Art where it remained until it was deaccessioned with several other European paintings in 2007. The picture was last shown in Toledo in 2005, in the exhibit, "The Unseen Art of TMA: What's in the Vaults and Why?"

First of all, I have not seen LACMA's new Henner in person nor did I have any knowledge of it during my time at Christie’s 19th Century European Paintings department. However, for the $335,000 price tag, I would have loved to have seen the curator’s performance, described as "memorable," on why LACMA had to have this piece, because from both a historic and aesthetic perspective, the picture seems a curious choice.

Henner and the academic tradition
In LACMA’s Unframed blog, Curator J. Patrice Marandel is quoted as stating, “Among the portrait painters of his generation, Henner developed a distinctive style. Less voluptuous than Carlous-Duran’s but more spirited than Leon Bonnat’s, Henner’s portraits were particularly appealing to a clientele eager to display in a dignified manner their newly acquired wealth and social rank.” The best talking point for the picture from the curator is not the quality itself, but that Henner charged his subject 10,000 francs for the picture.

An essay in The Collector and Art Critic, Vol. 3, No. 11 from September 1905, notes that “Henner is noted for his deadly coloring in his women’s faces, making them look like opium or arsenic victims; for his elusive outline and the russet hair of his models. His best part is the richness of his color, distinguished by the florid beauty of chromatic opposites…he may have often repeated the same note, yet his sonnets in paint were always tuneful and harmonious.” If the deadly coloring of an arsenic victim is ineed Henner's trademark, then LACMA's picture is at least typical in that regard.

Likely part of the presentation compared the work to John Singer Sargent's great "Madame X (Madame Pierre Gautreau)" of 1883-4 in the Metropolitan Museum, although the Henner lacks nearly all the elements that makes the Sargent so striking (and so daring).

As the witty and dead-on blog “LACMA on Fire” pointed out, when American museums have Henners, they’re not by choice, rather “They were given them long ago, after the death of the aristocratic sitters.” The anonymous author of that blog suggests that the impetus for the Henner's acquisition came from a Dia Foundation-organized show that traveled to LACMA in 2008 where artist Francis Alys collected around 300 copies of Saint Fabiola, a “once-famous, now lost, painting by Henner” (image of the show pictured, right). The show was described as a “clever postmodern Alys goofing off poor academic Henner, butt of a joke he’d n ever understand.”

Henner’s market and comparables
The auction market for Henner works is heavily skewed towards the bottom, with works of questionable authenticity, poor-condition or incompleteness selling frequently at regional auctions for $5,000 to $15,000. An example of a nicer “cheap” Henner is this “Portrait of Young Woman” that sold at Piasa for $8,250 against an estimate of around $2,000 to $3,000 (pictured right, top). Occasionally an example of almost comically low quality pops up at a smaller auction house, such as the picture “Red and Blue” that showed up at James D. Julia and sold for $1,380 against an $800 to $1,200 estimate in 2009 (pictured right, lower).

Looking at peer artists like Charles Carolus-Duran finds another large nearly two meter high portrait that sold at Sotheby’s in New York for $45,000 against a $30,000 to $40,000 estimate (pictured left). It’s a bit sexier than the new LACMA piece. A large Leon Bonnat genre painting, “The Broken Pitcher” sold at Christie’s New York for $180,000 against a $100,000 to $150,000 estimate, but it too had a greater decorative quality. A beautiful and large Leon Perrault, “The Young Seamstress” sold at Sotheby’s New York for $144,000 against an estimate of $25,000 to $35,000. But like the Bonnat, it was pretty and decorative.

The closest auction comparable from recent memory is a large portrait by the French society artist Jacques Emile Blanche, of similar size, but more animated in the composition with a real personality behind the sitter. “Portrait of the Comtesse de Greffuhle” went unsold at an estimate of $400,000 to $600,000.

There is a near total-absence of comparable prices for large academic portraits, as most sellers are unprepared to accept the generally low estimates that have to accompany these pictures to make them sell at auction. The aggressive estimate on the Blanche effectively killed all interest in the piece.

Thus, those looking to value these large academic portraits are left with few comps, instead relying on instinct and a perception of quality. It will be interesting to see how the new work is displayed, and in what context.