Jump to content
CoinPeople.com

Do you like a pedigree with your coin?


jlueke

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

What it comes down to for me anyways, is that I am not impressed with famous people. I always get looks or remarks from my friends when they see a celebrity and go all googoo over them, posturing for an autograph or a picture. I could care less, they pick their nose in private just like all of us(some of us in public too) :ninja: They are just more famous and rich than 99% of us, big deal. We are all going to croak just the same.

 

I'll never forget one day at the baseball hall of fame, I was standing next to a fellow looking at some great Yankee memorbilia of the past. I noticed that no one was around us but the whole place was looking at the both of us and whispering to each other. After a few minutes of looking at the displays I left the room, and was surrounded by people asking me questions on what we were talking about and what kinda person he was. To their disbelief I replied "he seems OK, why who was it?" I knew who it was after a few minutes.

 

People were like "you were in there for 10 minutes talking to Meatloaf( the pop singer, when he was at the top of his fame) and you didn't know, or ask him for an autograph?"

 

To me he was just another Yankees fan, who really knew his Yankee history, which really impressed me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify Mike. I mean someone who's famous for numismatics alone little interest me. Say Adolf Hitler, a past Pope, Napoleon, George V, Charles Dickens or Edgar Allen Poe had collected coins and the provenence was traced to them then yes it would interest me.

 

All of those people have been a representation of their era, either for better or for worse. So if say Napoleon collected coins with his image on then do you not find that a most exceptional piece of provenence to have on a Napoleonic piece?

 

Whereas if Mr i dunno... Smith made up expert collector of Napoleonic material sold his collection it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

 

Same if you had a piece of US 1907 gold, one was owned by Teddy Roosevelt, one was owned by ficticious Mr Smith above... which would you chose?

 

Well i'd go for Roosevelt all the way.

 

So basically i want celebs that are contemporary or in someway related through an historical event to the coin in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only pedigree I care about is my own!!!

 

 

:ninja: As I started reading this thread, I was thinking the exact same thing. The pedigree of my coins start with me. :lol:

 

 

Actually if I had a coin that had some interesting history behind it, I would definitely make note of it. However, I would not go out of my way to get such a coin. However, if price and all such relevant factors were near equal, of course I would take the coin with a "known" history. I already have plenty of coins with long pedigrees -I just do not know the details! :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify Mike. I mean someone who's famous for numismatics alone little interest me. Say Adolf Hitler, a past Pope, Napoleon, George V, Charles Dickens or Edgar Allen Poe had collected coins and the provenence was traced to them then yes it would interest me.

 

All of those people have been a representation of their era, either for better or for worse. So if say Napoleon collected coins with his image on then do you not find that a most exceptional piece of provenence to have on a Napoleonic piece?

 

Whereas if Mr i dunno... Smith made up expert collector of Napoleonic material sold his collection it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

 

Same if you had a piece of US 1907 gold, one was owned by Teddy Roosevelt, one was owned by ficticious Mr Smith above... which would you chose?

 

Well i'd go for Roosevelt all the way.

 

So basically i want celebs that are contemporary or in someway related through an historical event to the coin in question.

 

I don't think your view is that unusual though my initial reaction was the same as Mike's. But I think if you put two coins up for auction, one traced to Teddy or Adolf, or Josef, and the other to Elisaberg, Garrett, or Bowers I'd wager that the non-numismatists would garner a higher price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think your view is that unusual though my initial reaction was the same as Mike's.  But I think if you put two coins up for auction, one traced to Teddy or Adolf, or Josef, and the other to Elisaberg, Garrett, or Bowers I'd wager that the non-numismatists would garner a higher price.

 

 

Exactly, they have wider appeal outside of numismatics. So if you want a good 'investment' (dare i say that word), then those are your friends.

 

Naturally i care less about profit margins, but imagine this;

 

Me - "I have a coin previously owned by Bowers"

Average person - "who?"

 

 

Me - "I have a coin formerly owned by Josef Stalin"

Average person - "Really! How did you get that?"

 

 

 

For me it's all in the reaction there. Although no one (except you guys) and my immediate family knows i collect coins, it's nice to think what other people might think should i be stupid enough to tell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... but imagine this;

 

Me - "I have a coin previously owned by Bowers"

Average person - "who?"

Me - "I have a coin formerly owned by Josef Stalin"

Average person - "Really! How did you get that?"

 

 

me: - "I have a couple of coins that were once owned by King Faruk of Egypt. Not only was he a king but he was also a renowned numismatist."

 

Average person: "Who?"

 

me:- "King Faruk....Egypt...you must have heard of him...no?"

 

Average person (including most numismatists): "How nice for you. The weather has turned rather chilly of late hasn't it?"

 

One persons `celebrity' is another persons `non entity'. If `celebrity' owned coins are placed alongside those of less than stellar owners can they be told apart? From my own direct experience...no.

 

Thankfully, all my coins are celebrities in themselves, else I wouldn't want them. Provenance is good. Celebrity on the other hand is...whatever you want it to be. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion (or I haven't noticed if it had) was the reasons WHY a famous person/collector owned a coin. To me, someone like Rievers, Eliasberg, et al owned some many spectacular coins, and that is most likely the reason they bought them. But they also owned a lot of not-so-spectacular coins. Would I want one of those just because of the name? Not really, or at least I wouldn't pay extra for it. Would I want a 1924 Saint that was owned by David Akers and happened to be featured in his early 20th centurt gold book? You bet! Because that coin was special for the coin that it was, and that is what prompted Akers and me to buy it. Would I want a V-nickel that Teddy Roosevelt happened to have in his pocket at one time? Not really, it's just a nickel. Would I want an Ultra-High-Relief Saint that was presented to him by the mint director in 1907 for his approval? You bet! (though I probably couldn't afford it!). My point is, the missing link to this discussion is context!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just bid on 2 Barber Halves from Mr. Reiver.I would take a measure of pride winning one even though he wasn't known for his Barber Halves.

 

GSA Carson Citys have a pedigree of sorts and are now eagerly collected. At the time they were considered a glut on the market. It took several sales for them to sell out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear that we each collect for somewhat different reasons (coin, token, medal, currency being a common thread). History is one of the interests many of us share, although one could be interested in art, value, profit, etc with little or no interest in history. My personal enjoyment is derived from the history represented by the coin and the history of the coin if it is known or knowable. A melted pile of coins from the San Francisco earthquake have a history that exceeds the value of the gold and silver that might be present. Shield nickels recovered in archaeological studies of the Little Big Horn battle field contribute more to the telling of that story than their actual monetary value.

 

I recently bought two Roman coins (one of Augustus and one of Nero) with their cabinet tags hand written by the previous owner. They are written in a beautiful, quill pen inked script including the attribution of the coin, where purchased, and the date of purchase. The collector was apparenty an English industrialist who died in 1908. The family is now disposing of the collection. He wasn't famous or even a famous numismatist, but the cabinet tags are a wonderful link with another time and another person who shared my passion for collecting. I didn't pay extra for the tags, but they made a difference in opting to buy them versus other coins that day. They will remain with the coins and I will pass them along with my tags when I sell the coins. With a little luck, a collector a 100 years from now will share some of the same connection with the past that I felt when I first saw the tags and the coins.

 

Whether you value the associated history that accompanies your coins or could care less, I would urge you to preserve it when possible. You never know when it might make a difference to a future collector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear that we each collect for somewhat different reasons (coin, token, medal, currency being a common thread). History is one of the interests many of us share, although one could be interested in art, value, profit, etc with little or no interest in history. My personal enjoyment is derived from the history represented by the coin and the history of the coin if it is known or knowable. A melted pile of coins from the San Francisco earthquake have a history that exceeds the value of the gold and silver that might be present. Shield nickels recovered in archaeological studies of the Little Big Horn battle field contribute more to the telling of that story than their actual monetary value.

 

I recently bought two Roman coins (one of Augustus and one of Nero) with their cabinet tags hand written by the previous owner. They are written in a beautiful, quill pen inked script including the attribution of the coin, where purchased, and the date of purchase. The collector was apparenty an English industrialist who died in 1908. The family is now disposing of the collection. He wasn't famous or even a famous numismatist, but the cabinet tags are a wonderful link with another time and another person who shared my passion for collecting. I didn't pay extra for the tags, but they made a difference in opting to buy them versus other coins that day. They will remain with the coins and I will pass them along with my tags when I sell the coins. With a little luck, a collector a 100 years from now will share some of the same connection with the past that I felt when I first saw the tags and the coins.

 

Whether you value the associated history that accompanies your coins or could care less, I would urge you to preserve it when possible. You never know when it might make a difference to a future collector.

Nice thread. Very well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Since several list members are striving to own a coin from the Reiver collection it seems ...

Hold that thought.

I recently bought two Roman coins (one of Augustus and one of Nero) with their cabinet tags hand written by the previous owner. They are written in a beautiful, quill pen inked script including the attribution of the coin, where purchased, and the date of purchase.

So, what happened to the cabinet tags of Jules Reiver?

Well, NGC kept them for Heritage.

"Ex: St. Oswald Collection (Christie, Manson & Woods, 10/1964), lot 146; Edwin Shapiro (via Lester Merkin); C. Douglas Smith (1965); Alfred Bonard; C. Douglas Smith (10/31/1968). Envelope Included."

Now that makes the coin worth something. Being the finest known mahogany blah blah blah is not a detraction, to be sure.

 

Also, I have to ask, relative to the numismatic importance of numismatic items owned by numismatists: Does it matter if the item is a "plate coin." When you see "Smithington IV.34a.(this coin)" does that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I have to ask, relative to the numismatic importance of numismatic items owned by numismatists: Does it matter if the item is a "plate coin."  When you see "Smithington IV.34a.(this coin)" does that matter?

A plate coin is kind of cool if you have the book. But I prefer finest known over plate coin. If you get both together, then you're talking a sweet extra :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I buy the coins not the names. but if I have an option of buying a non-pedigreed coin and an identical Eliasberg, for instance, I'll go with the Eliasberg. Think of the history when you own it (and the profit when you sell it :ninja: ) !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...