GoldFinger1969

Looks like Fred only got to look at the Saint in 1977 for a few seconds....so he may not have even noticed the leg gash.  You wonder though....it stands out on the obverse....maybe he was looking at a non-Farouk coin. 

Very interesting interview with Fred Weinberg (I've never met him, sounds like a great guy).....so $250,000 for a 1933 Saint DE in 1977.

They only were concerned with CURRENT "leaks" of good or "odd" currency getting out of the Mint.  Old stuff was OK; current year was not.  That doesn't answer how the "thiefs" were treated if it was in the past and/or if they had reimbursed the Mint.

So...if you posses errors from 2022 and a few years before, you might have a problem with the 2022 (current year).  However, while Fred or you can keep your pre-2022 stuff.....does the "thief" have criminal liability (I would guess he/she does) for the current and/or prior years ?  What if they were TOLD it was OK and they took 2 stuck nickels and gave a dime in return (they paid up, in other words) ?

Also, the current vs. prior year principle doesn't seem to apply to the 1933 Saint.  If what Daddio said applied back then, you couldn't own the 1933 Saint in 1933 but in 1934 or later it was OK.  But maybe that current vs. prior year thing only applied recently and to "odd" stuff.

On 7/14/2022 at 2:53 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Mr. Daddio told him the "leakages" had been identified, had since been plugged up after ascertaining who was involved, how and why they were able to accomplish them and assured Mr. Weinberg his accumulation was compiled from years past and were of no concern. It is present untoward activity that now concerns Mint security. So, in short, he was allowed to keep his collection of oddities. I may be wrong but I believe Episode 11, Part 2, was the last of the entire Slab Lab series. I am guessing I continue to receive their notifications because I am still a Set Registrant. To @Oldhoopster, have I contributed to the "body of knowledge," or what?  

Surprised that the Mint would care about "oddities" and the like unless they had high monetary value.

I assume FW's contacts "paid" for whatever they took out.  You know, gave a dime back for 2 nickels stuck together, that sort of thing.

On 7/14/2022 at 10:21 AM, RWB said:

The telegram was an official document. A telephone call was not.  Mr. Moessner was being temporarily transferred to the NYAO to handle a large influx of foreign gold. Skinner sought to obstruct and delay this. Another telegram on the same date says:  "Failure to comply with instructions relative to Mr. [Ernest F.] Moessner inexplicable STOP I am at this moment wiring Mr. Moessner to report in New York not later than Wednesday [Sept 5] next week." Later that day she changed to order to "immediately, not waiting until next week." As a former Governor, Ross was not going to accept insubordination. The telegram is a reprimand of Skinner. Notice that her first stop on a planned visit to the Mints and Assay Offices was Denver -- and a visit with Mr. Skinner.

What was the nature of the dispute between them ?

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Fred Weinberg had seen the 1933 D.E. in 1977. The next time he saw it was in 2002 at a Sotheby's (Wilshire & Bedford) auction at which time Bill Daddio, Chief Mint Officer, approached him, read his name tag, recognized him as a foremost error expert and asked him the question as posed (a few posts up). He told him he would not be able to give him a definitive answer without viewing the holdered coin, raw.

If he's using the gash as the identifying mark, it shouldn't matter if it was holdered or not.  It's CLEARLY visible.

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Mr. Daddio (my guess as to correct spelling) told him that was no problem and arranged to have a special viewing performed at Sotheby's Safe Deposit Room. He viewed the coin raw but was unable to state conclusively whether that coin was the same one he had viewed some 25 years earlier.

That's strange....I can't believe someone as skilled as FW wouldn't remember a noticeable gash on a prominent device like a leg.  It's not like you're trying to remember and compare luster 25 years apart.

It's almost like you are saying -- or this story is implying -- that Weinberg saw 2 different 1933 Saints.

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

The video is 19:20 minutes long. All of what I described followed a brief discussion on errors and how leakage had occurred at the Philadelphia & S.F. mints, but not so much Denver's, after which he addressed the matter of the 1933 D.E.-- a short anecdotal recollection which transpired within the first 8:30 minutes of the episode -- before again returning to the discussion of errors.

Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Hopefully, one day I will learn how to set up a link.

If you are watching YouTube and want to copy the link.....highlight the URL address.....hit CTRL-C....then put your cursor in the space you want it to appear and hit CTRL-V.  On these pages, the link shows up as a YouTube image with a play button in the middle, as Mike showed above.  Thanks, Mike ! 

On 7/13/2022 at 7:27 PM, The Penny Lady said:

Show attendance is currently better and stronger than pre-Covid, including at many of the smaller shows.

That's very interesting ....we'll see how many people keep active and how many new coin collectors are "sticky" to the hobby.

On 7/13/2022 at 7:17 PM, RWB said:

Ross' initials indicate this was the approved text (with cross outs) that was to be sent by Western Union. Blue shows it was a presscopy that Ross approved.

You wonder why she just didn't call him and read him the riot act. 

On 7/13/2022 at 7:18 PM, The Penny Lady said:

Even though the Long Beach show is owned by Collectors Universe (and has been for many years), it is not the exclusive grading service there. ANACS has always had a table, as has NGC  but it is my understanding that NGC has chosen not to set up at the Long Beach show for this year due to economic reasons.

OK, thanks...since you attend many shows, Charmy, how would you describe attendance compared to the trend pre-Covid ?  My undestanding (as a local show attender only aside from FUN 2020) is that show attendance at many 2ndary shows was declining but The Big 3 (ANA, Long Beach, FUN) were holding up and maybe increasing dealers/attendance.

Interested in your thoughts since you actually interact with other dealers and the public.

On 7/13/2022 at 4:58 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

The r.p.g. diagnosis or the distinct gash on her left leg?

OK, I'm a bit confused....for those who joined late...you are saying that the gash on the leg of the 1933 Saint is the identifying mark that will trace its lineage going back in time, right ?  I forgot what we were discussing as multiple topics got introduced.

The problem -- aside from it not being sold publicly at auction past 1940 -- is that stock photos of coins were often used which wouldn't show particular identifying marks.

So Long Beach is a PCGS-exclusive show ?  Does NGC have a counter show it is the primary sponsor of ?

How long have Long Beach & PCGS been tied together ?

On 7/13/2022 at 5:47 PM, World Colonial said:

USD is the cleaning dirty shirt in the room.  As I attempted to explain in an earlier post, gold already rose noticeably until last August and it isn't an inflation hedge like most who buy it for this purpose believe.

If inflation was going to gallop for a decade, it would be.  But the market believes the Fed WILL stamp out inflation -- even at the cost of a recession.

We'll see if Jerome Powell is Paul Volcker. 

Meanwhile, inflation continues to soar but the dollar is the best house in a lousy neighborhood and this is impacting gold negatively as the Dollar and Euro hit parity.

On 7/12/2022 at 4:35 PM, RWB said:

As for the 1933 DE is was produced as a coin and so has almost as much claim as 1932-D to be part of a set.

1932-D ??  Did Denver almost decide to mint DE's in 1932 ?

On 7/12/2022 at 6:03 PM, USAuPzlBxBob said:

I was at a window dealer the other day, and when I arrived, I was waiting while listening to a guy describe a NJ shore property being fixed up, owned by someone else, and before it was done, someone offered $2.2 MM.  The owner refused the offer even though a handsome profit would have been made.  The story continued that when it was finally ready to go on the market, it listed for $4.4 MM.  Finally it sells… $6.6 MM.  The guy telling the story then said, "You watch, in a few years it will be lucky to be worth $350 K."

I had a friend of someone in the family tell me that a friend-of-a-friend earlier this year or last Summer (can't remember) had a home that was worth maybe $2 MM or so on the Jersey Shore.  House was not for sale.  Then a walk-up buyer offered $4 MM in cash.  SOLD !!! 

This being said.....beach front property is limited (ask Lex Luthor about that  ).  The NJ Shore is super-popular and my sister's in-law own a 1-floor, 1,100 sq. foot shack 1 block from the ocean that is probably worth $600,000.  No way these houses are collapsing by any large percentage.  You have 2 huge metropolitan areas -- NY/NJ and Philly -- fighting for the valuable land.

On 7/12/2022 at 3:51 PM, World Colonial said:

It's all part of the asset mania and the loosest financial conditions in history.....It's what I have posted here before, though I know you substantially disagree with me on this subject.

No, actually I think I agree with the bulk of your sentiments.  I just do not think that coins are going to get slammed by a 4% Fed Funds rate.....they might not be HELPED and even go down....but not like these phony baloney Crypto currencies and other assets that went up TONS more than coins.

Had coins had anything like a 1979-80 or 1989-90 move in price, I'd totally agree with you.  But let's face it....the rise in gold/silver probably helped most coins that we track/collect more than easy Fed policy.

I guess the good thing for coin collectors is.....we may go down but we'll lose alot less than other inflated assets that are junk. 

On 7/12/2022 at 12:00 PM, RWB said:

Then they are promoting a lie out of greed and deserve nothing but condemnation.

Maybe theoretically...but not morally  (I've been meaning to use that phrase I picked up from "Sanford and Son," the 1970's sitcom with Redd Foxx).

Seriously, as long as they are TRANSPARENT in what they do, I could live with it in very limited circumstances.  Not saying it is right or wrong....just that as long as something is DISCLOSED it is different than if you just sold the marketing without the true facts.

On 7/12/2022 at 9:08 AM, Elite Collection said:

A lot of registry sets include unique coins. They sometimes even include coins that only exist in the Smithsonian.

I didn't know that, that seems odd.  I mean, include coins that are only in a museum ?  What are you supposed to do, hire Tom Cruise and the IM team and break in ? 

On 7/12/2022 at 9:08 AM, Elite Collection said:

I might petition PCGS to include the 1933 with the other Saints sets, but I bet it will be quite political because it's going to make it impossible for anyone else to beat my sets. But I am trying to be the #1 set without including my 1933 Saint, so that this is a moot point.

Good luck, regardless of what PCGS decides and you pursue, I'm looking forward to seeing your expanded collection. 

On 7/12/2022 at 10:14 AM, World Colonial said:

It's the financialization of "collecting", pure and simple. 

Then maybe we have to accept "financialization" of coins and collecting.  As transparency and information has increased in the present relative to 40 years ago (TPGs, internet, online auctions, etc.), perhaps the price for these coins SHOULD increase from both higher demand and a reduced "risk premium."

I can tell you in the stock market, comparisions to the P/E for the stock market during the 1920's, 1950's, or even 1980's is ludicrous (and I'm more of a value/GARP guy).  As transparency and information have increased exponentially over the decades, the normalized P/E of the stock market has gone up.  Where stocks used to trade anywhere from 6-15 times earnings....today it is closer to 15-25 times earnings.

Food for thought.

WC, you make some excellent points.  I just think that with other coins collapsing in price at various times -- commemoratives, Franklin Halfs, etc. -- if these coins were substantially overpriced the price would come down.  I don't think a coin could stay at 6x fair value for years and years unless it DESERVED to.

I agree with you on the number of collectors.  It's tough to deciper "strong" from "weak" hands.  But again, with so much supply...what do you think is holding up the price if in fact it is overvalued ? 

If it is investor demand holding the coin -- and not coin collectors -- it is STILL someone who wants the coin.  Not sure why since you would think they'd prefer low-premium bullion coins.

On 7/10/2022 at 1:39 PM, VKurtB said:

There were plentiful dealers of both paper money and exonumia, including the nation’s premier exonumia guy, Cunningham. 

Exclusively paper money or they also had coins ?

On 7/12/2022 at 5:13 AM, Cat Bath said:

BTW...If the UHR is a proof then why is it not listed as necessary in the collection of proofs (9 would then be necessary)

I'm going to say because while it was struck like a proof and looks like a proof, it was never segregated from another coin with the same year and strike characteristics that was available for general circulation.

The annealing process that RWB has detailed along with the 7-9 strikes of the huge metal press create the proof look.

On 7/12/2022 at 1:51 AM, Elite Collection said:

So the 1933 is a coin, but it's not part of the complete set of Saints.

What defines "complete" I guess is in the registry keepers definition.  Cleary, the 1933 is a coin but with only 1 available (for now ) it's essentually uncollectable.  The next rarest Saint has at least 10-12 speciments available (the 1927-D) so while it is tough it is not impossible.

If for whatever reason you decided to keep the 1933 and give it to your heirs, EC, then NOBODY could have a "complete set" of Saints.  I guess the registry people didn't want to create that conundrum. 

On 7/11/2022 at 10:29 PM, DWLange said:

UHRs come under the same situation as gold Stellas---declaring them patterns may reduce their perceived value. There are going to be times when numismatic fact is subordinate to marketing. One doesn't have to agree, but it isn't likely to change anytime soon.

It's a coin to the layman but to us professionals we call it a pattern. 

I guess the main thing that distinction results in is that you do NOT have to have the 1907 UHR to have a complete set of Saint-Gaudens.  You do need the MCMVII HR but not the 1907 UHR.

On 7/11/2022 at 7:33 PM, World Colonial said:

It's so common and the difference between one point MS increments is so minor, as a collectible, $25 is a generous price with current silver spot at $19.

I'd be curious to see the price going back decades relative to silver.  That said, I still think expecting it to sell for $25 is way too low.  $50 would be cheap....$100 might be "fair value" or something like that.

Again...the coin is AFFORDABLE which means alot.  The average person can afford 1....and if you want 2 or 3 or 4 you can even stretch for that and it will be 1/3rd what a Saint would cost you in average grade.

On 7/11/2022 at 7:33 PM, World Colonial said:

Similar principle for common "investment" widgets like the 1881-S Morgan dollar.  Heritage sold an MS-65 on June 29th for $180.  Combined pop in this grade is about 115,000 (yes, for this one grade) with I'd guess almost no duplicates (proportionately).  That's nuts.  It's a bullion coin selling for about 10X spot.  It's a classic example of how collecting has been financialized.  With somewhere in the vicinity of 1MM estimated to still exist and maybe around 75% owned by non-collectors, its price is almost certainly predominantly due to financially motivated buying, since the supply exceeds the demand by those who actually want it as a collectible by a substantial margin.  It's so common and the difference between one point MS increments is so minor, as a collectible, $25 is a generous price with current silver spot at $19.

But demand is pretty high for coins like that....from collectors and folks who can afford a quasi-bullion coin.  Who knows how many people own it such that if silver goes to $50 or $100 an ounce....this coin doubles or triples, even if it lags bullion in appreciation percentage.

Also...lots of people can afford a $200 coin.  It's a lot different than what I see for Saints with plenty of supply and folks have to fork over $2,500 or $3,000.

I have an 1879-S in MS-67 (CAC, I think, too)....I think I paid about $700 for it.  Some of these Morgans, you really have to go up in grade to have a low pop number and jack up the price to where you see demand destruction.

$200 doesn't do it.  $700 does.