How to Write a Proveance/Pedigree?

[David Atherton]

Recently, there has been a few threads on NF emphasising the importance of provenance and pedigrees (a stance I happen to agree with). But, how does one correctly catalogue a provenance? I assumed the standard is to list the latest provenance first, then work backwards to the earliest one.

For example: Ex Harlan J Berk BBS 225, 30 November 2023, lot 10. Ex Curtis Clay Collection. Ex Schulman 254, 11-12 November 1971, lot 3376. Ex Dutch Royal Coin Cabinet, The Hague.

However, some sellers, and indeed many collectors, do not do this and list the provenance haphazardly, or the earliest first working forwards. How do you write yours?

Also, the use of the 'ex' abbreviation seems to differ as well. I always assumed 'ex' (meaning 'from') should only be used when a coin comes from a sale or a collection. If purchased from a dealer outright, 'purchased' or 'acquired' from is the correct form.

What inspired me to ask these questions is a recent coin purchase that came with several tickets and no dates. I tried to work out the sequence, but gave up and finally asked the seller. If not for that, I don't know how one could've made sense of it.

Having a standard format for cataloguing a provenance/pedigree seems to me the only remedy to avoid confusion.

Opinions?

 

Edited May 29 by David Atherton

[Meander]

I prefer going from the latest to the earliest provenance, I don't use "ex" but from and only when I say "from the collection" and always try to include the full date of the auction, not just the year. See the following example below.

Sikyonia, Sikyon. Silver Obol (0.83 g), ca. 350-330/20 BC. Laureate head of Apollo right. Reverse: ΣI above tail feathers, dove flying right. BCD Peloponnesos 257-9.

From the Lee Rousseau Collection, Goldberg 106, 3 September 2018, lot 1065; from the BCD Collection (not in previous sales); from the Hajo Zwager Collection, Van Zadelhoff, 14 October 1985, lot M102 (part of); from the Richard Cyril Lockett Collection, pt. II, Glendining, 25 October 1955, lot 1916 (part of); Ars Classica XVI, 3 July 1933, 1283.

 

[John Conduitt]

I start with the latest and go back, but most auction houses just put them in any order - it might be too much effort to swap them, or they might want the most impressive first.

I have heard that if you use 'Ex', it should only be for past collections, or auctions/dealers where you also specify the lot number and date. The current collection would be 'from' not 'ex'. The only reason that matters is that it isn't always clear whether the coin was in a collection or bought from a dealer if you don't say so.

What I actually do is use 'Ex' to mean 'this is the provenance' and only add detail if I think it isn't obvious it is an auction house e.g. 'CNG' is obvious, 'Chris Rudd' isn't.

[DLTcoins]

My impression is that "ex" should only be used when the provenance is something that can be verified independently (public auction, dealer price list, etc). A couple of fictional examples:

Ex John Smith Collection, ABC Auction 123, New York, 1 January 1965, lot 52.

From the John Smith Collection, purchased Spink, London, 1948.

 

[Rand]

The provenances are getting longer as a coin passes more hands and tracking transactions becomes easier. Even now, the listing of provenances could be longer than the coin description. Future transactions will expand the provenance lengths.

In contrast, with a long list of provenances, it becomes more difficult or impossible for a dealer and buyer to verify them. Errors in coin description are common, and errors in provenances are expected. Errors in coin description are easier to rectify as everyone can see the coin. Pedegree errors may be more likely to be passed on to the next sale.

I believe only verifiable provenances should be listed, ideally (perhaps in the future), with links to the sources (sale catalogues, books) or, better yet, to an online coin record with provenances/sale dates provided. This requirement would be one way towards an ‘ethical’ antique coin trade.

[Deinomenid]

         

43 minutes ago, DLTcoins said:

"ex" should only be used when the provenance is something that can be verified independently

          Re "should" etc there's no standard adhered to. The BM uses usually uses ex and/or previous owner  -

Previous owner/ex-collection: Sir John Evans

 

Heberden uses all sorts such as source and acquisition credit -

Source :Reverend J. W. Mackie

etc etc....and  dealers are way more varied.

I remove all the recent (for me) fluff. I really don't care if a coin was sold by Leu to Nomos to Roma to Roma to Roma to Leu in the past 3 weeks, as some coin provenances seem to like to state. The claimed provenances of coins  I can't  prove I place below others I can. Eg I have coins with claimed provenance from Mionnet 1807 but they are almost impossible to prove or "deaccessioned from the Départment des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Fonds Générale) etc.

But specifically on the  original question, an industry standard doesn't seem to exist but would be excellent. I've had the exact same problems recently with a couple of coins I traced back in part to Spink sales where I'm trying to establish which ticket came first  and it would be a miracle  if the owner was alive but am met with at best Delphic utterances.

 

 

 

 

[Curtisimo]

I catalog my provenances from oldest to most recent. I try to be as standardized as possible with how I record them. Take the below example.

Ex Howard Coppuck Levis Collection (1859-1935†), Ars Classica XI, lot 316 (June 18, 1925); Ex Walter F. Stoecklin Collection, Amriswil (1888-1975†), Obolos 9, lot 164 (March 25, 2018)

• If I have a collection name I start with that followed by the evidence for the coin being in that collection (usually a sale or auction). In the above example the first collection is “Howard Coppuck Levis Collection.” The Levis Collection was sold in Ars Classica XI so that auction is listed as the supporting evidence immediately after.
• Provenance items that should be read together are separated by a comma while items that should be read separately are separated by a semicolon. Note the semicolon to separate the Levis Collection information from the the Stoecklin Collection information.
• If I have life dates for the collector I list them after the collection name inside parentheses. The dagger symbol indicates the year of passing of the individual.
• I will sometimes include information on a collection such as the city it was formed in. In the above example I did this with the Stoecklin Collection which was formed in Amriswil. This can be useful when searching for further provenance.
• I put the date of the auction or sale in parentheses after the details of the sale.
• I use “Ex” to designate a former provenance. If I have a collection and a sale the “Ex” will come before the collection name. If I have only a sale, the “Ex” will come before the sale information. 

[Deinomenid]

8 hours ago, Meander said:

Sikyonia, Sikyon

Your lovely Sikyon coin just reminded me of an ancient  provenance argument. I only know the story from a monograph by Griffin on  Sikyon  but she says that among the many works of  the famous schools of  Sikyon looted by the dastardly Romans was a statuette  by Lysippos. A statuette  of the  famous Herakles Epitrapezios no less. Anyway, this 1st century AD Roman collector Nonius Vindex  owned  it and reportedly loved to quote  its  provenance (and in chronological order!), which was  Alexander,  Hannibal and Sulla.

Or ex-Alexander G collection, & formerly with  Hannibal/Carthage treasury inventory, acquired  in sack of Taras in xyz?

As an aside many modern scholars think  it was a fake.

 

 

Edited May 29 by Deinomenid
typo