Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Do you like a pedigree with your coin?


jlueke
 Share

How do you feel about coin pedigrees?  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about coin pedigrees?

    • I love it, I'll gladly pay double for a blue blooded collection
      0
    • I like it, I'll buy a pedigreed coin if the price isn't too bad
      13
    • I don't care, I buy the coins not the names
      17
    • I hate it, I'll make the coin anonymous if I get a chance
      2


Recommended Posts

Since several list members are striving to own a coin from the Reiver collection it seems a good time to ask: How do you feel asbout pedigrees? The earliest pedigree dates back to the Renaissance.

 

691404.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must not care about it too much as I have never owned a pedigreed coin even by accident. There are a few that I think would be cool to own. Eliasberg for one.

 

There are more slab pedigrees out there than you can shake a stick at. Just browsing http://www.caspercoin.com/inventory.php?pa...ord=keyword&n=6 I found the following.

 

Jack Lee

NFL Set

Mike Casper II

New York City Set

R Dier Collection

Ray Cassano Collection

Wayne Miller

Mike Casper Collection

Mike Giley Collection

Miller Plate Coin

Flannagan

 

Most are absolutely meaningless to me. Many, I have no idea what they are. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im was going after a couple of Reiver coins, not because of his name, but because of the quality and eye appeal of these particular pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted "I don't care" but only because "it depends" wasn't available. For a coin pedigreed to a true numismatist, such as Eliasberg or Reiver, I will pay a little extra but not much. These guys built and held their collections for long periods of time. True collectors in my book. Its nice to have a piece that sat in their collection.

 

Some of the other "pedigrees" out there amount to nothing more than millionaires building #1 registry sets over a span of a year and then selling them off. Not true collectors as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't pay an extra cent for their name on a slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted "I don't care" but only because "it depends" wasn't available.  For a coin pedigreed to a true numismatist, such as Eliasberg or Reiver, I will pay a little extra but not much.  These guys built and held their collections for long periods of time.  True collectors in my book.  Its nice to have a piece that sat in their collection.

 

 

I agree. Owning a piece from a collection of a TRUE numismatist would be worth the extra couple of dollars. Now if, let's say, Donald Trump had his own pedigree I would never buy that. Why? He probably would know next to nothing about them and only cares about the value.

 

So I would fall into the "it depends" category. Although I'll probably never own one :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Owning a piece from a collection of a TRUE numismatist would be worth the extra couple of dollars. Now if, let's say, Donald Trump had his own pedigree I would never buy that. Why? He probably would know next to nothing about them and only cares about the value.

 

So I would fall into the "it depends" category. Although I'll probably never own one  :lol:

 

 

YOU'RE FIRED!! :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for the second option. Forget slabbed prima donnas. A pedigree with a fine ancient coin can be part of the coin's history. I guess the second option was "it depends" for me. I just bought an Abe Kosoff business token on Ebay. He issued it, so I guess that means he "owned" it at one time. Pedigree? Sort of. True numismatist? I think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I don't care. Of course for most of my coins, not too many people would bother to say that they owned them.

 

I wanted a cent from the Reiver collection because the sale of the collection is a great "milestone" in US Copper Collecting. It's a fantastic grouping of coins gathered by a true collector/numismatist. Perhaps I'll still get one. The internet auctions have quite a few terrific items.

 

I'm looking at some 1839 and 1838 Cents. Maybe an 1857 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John M Willem literally wrote the book "The United States Trade dollar" and is considered the father of collecting Trade dollars.His collection sold in 1980.If they had slabs then maybe I would pay a bit more for one of his coins.Most of these modern pedigrees are about vanity and as such are worthless to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few pedigrees I would pay extra for...

 

For example, I own a couple of half dollars pedigreed to Al Overton (and plated in his book). I also own a large cent (1807 S-296) from the William Sheldon collection.

 

These are pedigrees that I was willing to pay a premium for.

The Joe Blow Morgan MS-69 collection--no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said sure, if the price isn't too bad. Almost all of my Masonic medals are from the collection of Prince Victor Napoleon. They were inherited through various family members from Napoleon I. But the subsequent generations also added to the small collection so there's no knowing which ones were collected by Napoleon himself. But I would have bought them without that connection.

 

On the other hand the large (40mm) Napoleonic gold medals were definitely in Napoleon's collection as they were struck only for him in that metal and size. One of those I will eventually empty the bank account to acquire. They generally cost a little less than an Una and the Lion. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John M Willem literally wrote the book "The United States Trade dollar" and is considered the father of collecting Trade dollars.

 

I did not vote. I did not like the word "pedigreed." It is a post-modernist invention of the slabbing companies. The word you want is "provenienced." It means the same thing: you know where the coin came from.

 

A coin from a true numismatist is always interesting and I happend to have one from Euboea that was owned by Weber, the cataloguer of them. So, that adds some charm to the already attractive little drachma.

 

Also, I always write "ex" on the 2x2 or paper envelope or slip for the flip. Ex: CNG 2/29/02 or ex: Bergman ANA NYC 2002. That information is as important as the weight -- and I do weigh my coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the other "pedigrees" out there amount to nothing more than millionaires building #1 registry sets over a span of a year and then selling them off.

 

I agree. See above. "Pedigree" and "registry" are inventions of advertising, not facts about previous ownership.

 

That said. This topic got me to thinking. I love classical music. Yasha Heifetz was a collector. It was his hobby. He was wealthy, to be sure, but he collected coins, just as he played tennis: as recreation and personal enjoyment. Many such collections have been sold over the years and to own a coin previously appreciated by someone else whom you appreciate is certainly valid.

 

We mention Eliasberg as a "true numismatist." Really, he was only a rich guy collecting coins -- nice, expensive, rare coins, to be sure. Was that any less valid for his having been rich? I dislike the anti-capitalist mentality that condemns success. Donald Trump earned his money -- won and lost fortunes; won and lost and perhaps re-won his reputation. Read Art of the Deal. Just because he did not start out dirt poor does not invalidate his success. I'd be honored to own a Trump coin.

 

Where I agree with the "anti-bourgeois" faction is regarding the newbies who come to the hobby with disposable income, know or care little about coins, but who understand an investment when they see one. They buy a lot of nice coins, have them slabbed, catalogued, and sold, and then they move on to horses or vintage cars, or bottles of wine, or something else they never understand from the root and rock, as a true lover does. -- But I cannot be specific because I do not participate in those kinds of sales anyway. I have no direct knowledge there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Almost all of my Masonic medals are from the collection of Prince Victor Napoleon. They were inherited through various family members from Napoleon I.

 

That's cool. Before I sold out, I held a coin that had been in John Qunicy Adams's personal collection. It was a common Roman denarius from Julia Domna, if I recall, but that it had been owned by JQA was interesting.

 

That same motivation drives colletors of colonial notes signed by Signers of the Declaration (or Articles or Constitution). If you collect the "note" not the "name" then the condition of the note alone relative to its price would end the discussion. But to build a collection of Signers is a tribute to the republic they created.

 

(Not a Bonapartist myself, I can take or leave the man and his family, but I hold no grudge, either. IN fact, it is said in my family that our grandmother's maiden name had been Chevalier but was Italianized to Cavilieri when they came to Sicily from Corsica after the 100 Days.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember buying a couple of coins ex King Faruk of Egypt's collection. So unstartling are they that I can't rmember which coins they are.

 

That they were once a part of his collection is pretty meaningless to me. That they havet ended up in mine is infinitely more important (as far as i'm concerned).

 

There is a difference between provenance and pedigree.

 

I like to know the provenance of coins but this is only very rarely possible. Sometimes the previous owners have an element of notoriety, but in the main they are just common garden collectors like me.

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the entire point of collecting is for history, so to have a provenence on a coin that shows someone famous owned it,* well frankly i'd kill for it. I wouldn't pay double the price though, although i'd be tempted.

 

*When i say famous i mean people that are historically famous; politicians, rulers, celebrities, evil despots etc. If it's merely been owned by someone whose only famous or important in numismatic circles (say Dr Nicholson) then no i wouldn't be bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  If it's merely been owned by someone whose only famous or important in numismatic circles (say Dr Nicholson) then no i wouldn't be bothered.

 

1. I find that an unusual opinion.

 

2. I do not agree with Tiffi & Pals, but I understand their point of view, I think.

 

A. On the one hand, everyone is someone, so what difference does it make who owned the coin before you.

B. You bought the object for itself and for yourself. (I once suggested that numismatic magazines should have more pictures of people and the editor replied that readers interested in people read magazines called People, not magazines called Coins.)

 

3. So, if I tally the alternatives correctly -- and assuming that Aetheling is not completely alone in his opinion -- the choices are:

 

V. It does not matter at all.

 

W. Pedigree matters.

 

X. Provenance matters but pedigree does not.

 

Y. Famous numismatists matter.

 

Z. Famous non-numismatists matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...