What information/proof/considerations should be involved ....

[MarkFeld]

.....when placing a pedigree on a grading label?

 

Some recent threads about correct (or incorrect) grading label pedigrees have resurrected some old dilemmas I experienced while working as a grader at NGC from 1991-1998.

 

At that time, if I recall correctly, the general policy at NGC was that we would note a pedigree on a grading label if either 1) The coin was submitted in a sealed auction house flip with some proof of purchase or 2) The coin could be matched to an auction catalog photo. Again, that was the general policy and a number of situations arose that muddied the waters.

 

Here are a few of them:

 

One thing that I debated, was whether a coin which had been dipped after an auction, but, which still could be matched in some way to an auction catalog photo, should receive the pedigree.

 

And, what if a submitter offered "proof of purchase" from the sale but the coin no longer matched the auction catalog photo?

 

What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?

 

What if the coin looked like the one in the catalog but there was a very minor degree of uncertainty?

 

What if a roll of coins was sold as one lot - should each individual coin receive its own pedigree, if submitted individually?

 

Should a grading company automatically remove the pedigree (think, for a moment of the possible long term ramifications) if a submitter requests it?

 

The purpose of this thread is NOT to flame the grading companies for their pedigree errors, but rather, to note some of the considerations and difficulties involved in the pedigree process.

 

So, for those who care to reply, if you were responsible for decisions about grading label pedigrees, under what circumstances would you be willing to include the pedigree? What information or proof would you require? Would you allow any exceptions to your policy and if so, what would they be?

 

 

[dragon]

That's a really tough dilemma for any grading company IMO. An auction invoice is meaningless IMO as coins can be switched around and determination can be near impossible unless there is a plate in the catalog that matches the coin exactly. And with rolls of coins....forget about it.

 

As an example, I purchased some high grade Morgans from Superiors Club Cal-Neva Sale in the late 80's, I still have those coins and the original auction flips with inserts, but the coins are now in PCGS holders. Only one or two of the coins were plated in the catalog, and there is no way you could match my coins to those plates with any certainty even though they are the same coins, and since the coins have long since been removed from the sealed flips, there is no way I could prove they were from that sale.

 

I have always thought about asking PCGS if they would add the "Club Cal-Neva" pedigree to those coins, but I always figured they would say no since most were not pictured in the catalog and the ones that were are no longer in the original auction flips.

 

dragon

[gmarguli]

I'll start off by saying that I am not a big fan of pedigrees. In fact, if it is a useless pedigree like 99% of the ones PCGS has done to give an ego boost to their registry set players, then I will actually pay LESS for the coin since I have to go thru the trouble of removing the pedigree. If it were a famous pedigree like Eliasberg then I would consider it a neutral on an average coin and a small plus on a great coin. I still wouldn't pay more than a couple of percent more for the coin no matter what.

 

I also feel that pedigrees should be reserved for special coins. Not $30 coins out of a famous collection. Not junk Morgans like Bass had tons of. And sure as hell not a bunch of junk removed from slot machines like Binion had.

 

A coin in a sealed auction flip means nothing. Show me a flip from the auction and give me a sealing machine and I can show you auction company sealed flips from the Eliasberg sale containing Sacagawea dollars. A sealed flip isn't exactly a security feature.

 

 

One thing that I debated, was whether a coin which had been dipped after an auction, but, which still could be matched in some way to an auction catalog photo, should receive the pedigree.

 

Sure. It's the same coin. If you can match it to the catalog then pedigree it as from that sale. Does it really matter if the buyer dipped the coin?

 

 

And, what if a submitter offered "proof of purchase" from the sale but the coin no longer matched the auction catalog photo?

 

No longer match in what way? The coin doesn't have marks it used to have or the coin toned a little more? Big difference there.

 

 

What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?

 

Then it quite possibly isn't a worthy coin of having a pedigree. Sorry, but just because your 1881-S Morgan in MS63 was owned by Eliasberg doesn't mean it is a coin worthy of a pedigree.

 

 

What if the coin looked like the one in the catalog but there was a very minor degree of uncertainty?

 

Err on the side of caution as you do with the grade.

 

 

What if a roll of coins was sold as one lot - should each individual coin receive its own pedigree, if submitted individually?

 

Not likely worthy coins.

 

 

Should a grading company automatically remove the pedigree (think, for a moment of the possible long term ramifications) if a submitter requests it?

 

Yes. I'd be extremely pissed if I sent in a pedigreed coin to a service and asked to have them remove the pedigree and they said no. Me customer, them business.

 

 

So, for those who care to reply, if you were responsible for decisions about grading label pedigrees, under what circumstances would you be willing to include the pedigree? What information or proof would you require? Would you allow any exceptions to your policy and if so, what would they be?

 

1) The coin is worthy. It is special in some way. It is rare, super high grade, monster toning, etc. The pedigree would be an enhancement for the coin and it would not be something meaningless or something that would be used to sell a $30 coin for $75 just because it came from a famous collection.

 

2) The coin is pictured in the catalog. There is NO doubt it is the same coin.

 

3) The coin is not pictured, but it is submitted by the auction house on behalf of the owner around the time of the sale.

 

[TomB]

This is a good thread and I don't see any reason we should be fighting about it.

 

I agree with those who don't hold a pedigree very highly, however, if one is willing to pay more for it, then, let them do as they please.

 

For me, a third party certification service should outline what it is they will accept for pedigree purposes and the pedigrees that they will allow.

 

1)The collection should be significant either in its breadth, completeness or quality.

2)A chain of custody should be intact from the auction house to the certification service.

3)If no chain of custody exists, the coin should be plated and easily identified.

4)If not plated, its diagnostic characteristics should make it easy to preclude a pretender.

5)Rolls should not have a pedigree.

6)Insignificant coins from a significant collection should not have a pedigree.

7)Coins dipped after the auction should lose the pedigree since the pedigree suposedly means that someone who put together a terrific set chose the coin for some reason, likely its eye appeal. A dipped coin will have drastically different eye appeal and may not have been chosen by the collector whom the pedigree is named for.

[gmarguli]

7)Coins dipped after the auction should lose the pedigree since the pedigree suposedly means that someone who put together a terrific set chose the coin for some reason, likely its eye appeal. A dipped coin will have drastically different eye appeal and may not have been chosen by the collector whom the pedigree is named for.

 

What about removing things like carbon spots? How about dipping a coin where a vast majority would believe the dipped coin looks better than the original? An early proof with haze can be dipped to a B&W stunner. Should the coin lose its pedigree just because the original owner didn't do what 99.9% of the numismatic community would do? What if the original owner did dip most of his coin to brilliant condition, but he aquired this coin and died before he could dip it?

 

I don't think a dip should exclude a coin from getting a pedigree. After all, all it is is a name of a previous owner.

[TomB]

Should the coin lose its pedigree just because the original owner didn't do what 99.9% of the numismatic community would do?

 

Yes, definitely and without question.

[EVillageProwler]

Should the services adhere the Trompeter provenance to his proof gold? Many were, or became, POS specimens.

 

Can you imagine what has happened, or is happening, to the Dallas Bank stuff?

 

 

EVP

 

[Android]

Should the coin lose its pedigree just because the original owner didn't do what 99.9% of the numismatic community would do?

 

Yes, definitely and without question.

 

Tom,

 

What about sending a pedigreed coin to NCS for conservation? Should the coin lose its pedigree?

 

This brings up another question that perhaps NGC could answer. Would NGC transfer the pedigree from a PCGS (or any other service) after a trip to NCS for conservation?

 

[TomB]

What about sending a pedigreed coin to NCS for conservation? Should the coin lose its pedigree?

 

Yes, definitely and without question.

 

The answers are consistent because the coin would no longer have the same eye appeal as it had when it was part of whomever's collection deserved the pedigree. Eye appeal, and its interpretation, are extremely important.

 

I have some coins that most would agree are superbly toned and I also have some coins that I think are superbly toned yet others would with near certainty not care for. Should my collection one day become a pedigreed collection (NO chance) then I would want only coins that fit my collection and tastes to be represented with my pedigree. So, if someone were to take a coin with what I consider tremendous toning, and then send the coin to NCS for removal of the toning, then it is no longer the piece that I owned and does not have the same eye appeal. Therefore, it would not deserve the pedigree. Even if that conservation would be lauded by 99% of the numismatists, it still would not deserve the pedigree. Why? Because it would be a coin that I would not have included in my pedigreed collection had it looked like it did after conservation.

[dragon]

Well TomB, that being the case, would that mean that if Iwogs coins were sold at auction and pedigreed, they would then lose the pedigree if any developed subsequent toning, LOLOLOL. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

dragon

[Android]

I'm not necessarily talking about dipping a toned coin white. I'm talking about removing (for posterity's sake) possibly harmful debris, gunk, and grime that could effect the piece long term if left untreated. Similar to conserving rare art work. Would you still feel the same way?

[TomB]

If the certification service were run by me then the coins would only be pedigreed if they were as sold. If one wanted to remove such harmful agents from a coin I would assume that either the collector whom the pedigree is named for, or his her estate, would remove the harmful debris before they were brought to the attention of the auction house. In that way they would receive the pedigree.

 

If some would not like that then their option is to simply submit these coins to another service that would likely have more lax rules for pedigree holders. It would be the choice of the submitter and the market would determine which service's pedigree holder had more integrity.

 

The owner of the coin would have many options.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for the replies - you guys have made this topic even more interesting than I had thought it might be.

 

I remember the good old days - originally, in order to have your name included on a grading label pedigree, you had to be well known/famous AND dead. Little by little, those requirements changed - next you could be well known/famous and alive. Now days, the pedigree situation has been diminished to the point where many buyers of pedigreed coins have to ask "Who is that?" I think that is a shame.

 

Regarding whether to pedigree a coin which is from a well known collection and still identifiable as such, but, has been dipped, or changed in appearance in some way..... I have mixed feelings about it. In an ideal world, the coin's appearance wouldn't be changed and it wouldn't even be an issue. But, that is not the world in which we live.

 

I hate to think of browsing through a great auction catalog of a deservedly well known and respected collection, reading about coins which had been tucked away for decades, seeing the cataloger's descriptions, and comparing those to the coins which, in many cases, look so different, after what's been done to them.

 

Regardless of how much or how little one cares about various pedigrees, when that happens, some of the history, connection to the past and enjoyment are lost, in my opinion.

[EVillageProwler]

Tom,

 

What do you think the phrase "ex Norweb" means? Basically, it means that the coin used to be owned by Norweb. In a technical sense, doesn't the pedigree concept still hold?

 

I understand what you're saying about the coin being different, but isn't that technically a different issue than tracing a coin's provenance?

 

EVP

 

[TomB]

I guess you could call a coin "ex-Anything" if you like, however, using that term and tracing the provenance is not the same as putting the pedigree name on a holder.

[michael]

for me

 

the submitter would need to enclose the page from the original auction catalogue and the photo from the cat. that shows the coin as a no brainer from the auction and also the receipt from the auction and of course the coin

 

 

if not a photo in the auction cat or a good photo where you can tell positively that it is the coin

 

then the receipt and a signed statement from the officers of the auction company saying this coin is from the specific auction

when it was

the lot number

who bought it etc

and a high quality photo of the coin where it could be told from the photo with the auction company officers verifiing the photo taken of the coin as from the auction as it will appear on the holder

 

if you cant do the above to within a moral certaintude then no pedigree on the holder

 

for me

it is the responsibility of the submitter to prove to the grading services that this coin deserves the pedigree on the holder

 

the problem again arises down the road after the second third and so forth buyer of this so called pedigreed coin

 

and if i was the buyer of such a coin i would need substancial verification of the pedigree statement on the holder if i was paying any sort of premium bnased on the pedigree statement on the holder

 

and for me it is always about the coin the coin should stand on its own merits if you let a coin make a substaqncial price jump as per a pedigree that is okie and great!!! just verify to your own satisfaction!!

 

and in the case of not buying the coin but the holder and/or pedigree statements

 

just let the buyer beware!!

 

for pedigree you pays your money and you takes your chances

 

it is just not a simple thing to take anyones word when it comes to pedigree as this is not a perfect or fair world we live in especially so multiplied amny times over in the coin game

 

michael

[Hoot]

For what it's worth, there have been a few comments on the monetary value of a pedigree. It's truly up to the buyer to determine. However, I think the true value of a pedegree is simply that the provenance of a coin can be traced. It's intrinsically meaningful that a great collector recognized the worthiness of a coin for his/her collection. In that sense, I agree with what Greg said about the Binion hoard - what does it mean that a coin was hoarded, not selected for a collection? Probably very little.

 

I have a coin to which I recently had the pedegree added. It's a 1928-S MS65 buffalo nickel that was part of the recently sold Fivaz collection of buffs. Quite a collection, and this coin shows some amazing characteristics. I have to believe that Mr. Fivaz hand selected the coin, and that is somehow meaningful to me, albeit i don't have a way to place monetary value on that. So, the coin (I hope) will be passed on through generations and will be tracable to the Fivaz collection of excellent buffalo nickels. I kind of like that.

 

Hoot

[Oldtrader3]

I have to ask myself, in this world of loosely designated or executed attribution and frequent preservation/dipping, does provenance add value to the cost of a coin? Unless the coin is slabbed with provenance while still owned by a famous collector, is there really traceability, particularly where the coin was not plated during auction.

 

IMHO, this entire series of threads illustrates many loopholes and weaknesses in the present system. Particularly, where provenance adds value to a coin. There is too much word-of-mouth and trust in this business and not enough proof.

[EVillageProwler]

TomB,

 

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not broadly in favor of the rampant practice of working on coins in the hopes of maxing out their value.

 

But, why is the application of a previous owner's name onto the insert tied to the state of that collectible? That is, technically, what is the inaccuracy of applying "TomB" onto that gorgeously toned TD after you sell it to me and after I dip it blast white?

 

Or, let's say that I crack out that TD and let it sit on my window sill for a few years, and it changes color. Is the method of the alteration of the coin's state at issue?

 

There is one really important thing I've learn from all my years of watching TV, and that is that the only constant is change!

 

Were you to sell me that TD, and were I stoopid enough to dip it and have it labeled as from the almost world famous TomB collection, then I would expect the pedigree information to contain not only a trail of ownership but also physical evidence of a dramatic state change.

 

And, upon further investigation of said state change, you'd also find in the public record of one TomB of CT having choked to death one EVP of NJ for sheer idiocy!

 

 

EVP

 

PS Big cheering going on at the Mets game right now. I think they're at home, so it must be something good for my team!

[TomB]

I don't see anything wrong with stating that the coin is from the world-famous TomB collection the problem I have is that, once the appearance of the coin is changed, it should not have the pedigree on the label. You can still state where it came from.

 

Please note that this is an example of the TomB grading service and the standards for pedigree label. If the history of the coin is important to you then you are free to gather the history of the coin and to even have it slabbed by another service if you want the pedigree on the holder. However, to have the pedigree on the holder of a TomB grading service slab then the coin has to be essentially as sold from the collection so that the look of the coin as it sat in the collection is closely preserved.

[EVillageProwler]

Uh, Tom, I wrote "almost world famous"... But, since you're a heck of a guy and maybe willing to give me lots of freebie submissions to your pre-embyronic service, I'll drop the "almost" word.

 

 

EVP

 

[TomB]

Shows you how big my head is, huh?

[sanmary]

Not a big fan of pedigrees either, however the pedigree is the pedigree. It's not about weather or not the coin is in the exact condition that it was in when the pedigreed owner owned it, it's about the name. He/She owned this coin. Which brings me to my next thought.....wouldn't it be cool of my killer 1794 Cent was in George Washington's pocket??? You bet it would and if proved the price would multiply 1000 fold or more. Not why I bought this coin. Not knowing where it has been and wondering is half of the romance. Also, for the grade it is sweet. Just my thoughts.

[MikeKing]

then the receipt and a signed statement from the officers of the auction company saying this coin is from the specific auction

when it was

the lot number

who bought it etc

and a high quality photo of the coin where it could be told from the photo with the auction company officers verifiing the photo taken of the coin as from the auction as it will appear on the holder

 

if you cant do the above to within a moral certaintude then no pedigree on the holder

 

 

 

this could be problematical (not impossible) to do.

If there were only 5 of these coins in existence, would you be happy with a reasonable photo (lets say black and white from 20 years ago) from a prior auction?

 

for me

it is the responsibility of the submitter to prove to the grading services that this coin deserves the pedigree on the holder

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

 

 

[MikeKing]

Just some thoughts to some intriguing questions

 

One thing that I debated, was whether a coin which had been dipped after an auction, but, which still could be matched in some way to an auction catalog photo, should receive the pedigree.

 

Perhaps it could bear the pedigree name plus the notation 'dipped' or 'conserved' or whatever would be suitable for what was done, since the assumption with the pedigree is that it is as (best as can be) it came from that original collection.

 

And, what if a submitter offered "proof of purchase" from the sale but the coin no longer matched the auction catalog photo?

 

I would think that if it doesn't match the photo it doesn't fit the pedigree, the photo possibly being the most accurate representation of the coin.

 

What if the coin was never imaged in the auction catalog?

 

If no photo is available, auction receipts and description being the only thing available; I would think the accuracy of this would depend on the rarity level of the coin (e.g. if there were only two in existence it should be more accurate than if there were two hundred in existence...in which case, how would you ever know for sure?)

 

What if the coin looked like the one in the catalog but there was a very minor degree of uncertainty?

 

If there was a minor degree of uncertainty, then you couldn't be certain of the pedigree.

 

What if a roll of coins was sold as one lot - should each individual coin receive its own pedigree, if submitted individually?

 

Too many and not likely.

 

Should a grading company automatically remove the pedigree (think, for a moment of the possible long term ramifications) if a submitter requests it?

 

Perhaps this would depend on why the submitter requested removal of the pedigree label, although, as a consumer paying for a product, why shouldn't a submitter be able to request re-holdering or re-grading or crossover without the pedigree designation. Since grading is grading and assigning a pedigree is assigning a pedigree, one not having anything to do with the other. On the other hand, if there is no good reason other than the customer not wanting a pedigree label (e.g. if they just wanted the purity of grade representation and had a family feud with one of the Eliasbergs), it could be viewed as promoting mis-information...

 

 

Anyway...those are my thoughts

 

[MikeKing]

And sometimes the pedigree can be essential to verifying the authenticity of a coin.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for the replies, folks.