GoldFinger1969

On 5/19/2022 at 1:31 AM, Cat Bath said:

I absolutely believe I can tell what a MS64+ 1920 is suppose to look like and where the line is between A, B & C.  

I wouldn't doubt you, CB.  I just know I've read lots of articles where a bunch of "experts" were showed a coin (maybe it was a Saint, I can't remember) and the grades were ALL OVER the place.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:22 PM, MarkFeld said:

I don’t think it’s at all spurious. It makes sense that a “+” sells for an especially large premium when there’s a substantial value difference between grades. Look at what a 64 and a 65 are each worth. 

Let me elaborate further.

While I understand that the population drops off tremendously between 64 and 65 and thus the 64+ is worth a nice jump from 64....it's just that to grade a coin that "fine" seems very difficult considering that many times the graders are off by 1 or even 2 grades.

Now, in the case of the 1920 there are very few in the higher grades so maybe it's easy to tell a 64+ from a 64.  It just struck me as a bit unusual and stuck out with other condition rarities where you need to go up 1 whole grade to see the inflection.

On 5/18/2022 at 7:34 PM, Woods020 said:

This is a sound strategy it seems to me. At 10% and a healthy portfolio you are doing things the right way. The 10% PMs won’t see the gains or losses of the other investments, but it’s hard to argue that having a small amount as part of a larger strategy is a bad idea. 

10% is probably too high for most people.  However, if a person has the investment cash flows and diversifies the remaining 90%, it's not reckless for most people.

On 5/18/2022 at 11:07 PM, Woods020 said:

A big problem in this hobby is peer pressure. I don’t necessarily think half of what is graded needs to be graded, and I don’t think we need CAC in most cases. However if you want to ever sell a coin, or compete in registry sets, you have to play the game. I participate in the registry kind of but not seriously. However I do like selling coins. The coin market is extremely quick to self impose additional constraints on itself. You won’t convince someone today a coin is strong for grade if it doesn’t have a green bean. If it isn’t cac’d it’s immediately seen as a lesser coin. And we do it to ourselves. But when the masses decide that’s what they want we have no choice but to suck it up or lose money. 

JA is notoriously very tough on gold coins/Saints.  Probably because the standards got so lax in the late-1990's/early-2000's from the TPGs.

I think I read somewhere that no 1908 No Motto Saint has ever gotten a CAC sticker.  Or maybe it's the Wells Fargo bunch (though I though I had seen a few over the years).

Just curious...the inflection on the 1920 Saint seems to come with the "+" designation which is very spurious as it's basically a half-point equivalent in the minds of many.  Usually, you need a full 1-grade jump to see a big jump like the prices I quoted above.

Any other Saints (or other coins) have a "+" as the inflection point ? 
 

On 5/18/2022 at 2:23 AM, Cat Bath said:

OLD THREAD ALERT.................Price update.  1920 in MS64+   $25,000  I suspected this would be one to watch.

Sad part is I had three 1920 MS64+CAC in my hand and put 2 back in early 2020 for $4,300 each.

A 1920 MS64+ CAC went for $23,400 a few weeks ago.  Another one without CAC sold for $18,000 a few months ago.

MS64's were going for about $4,000 give-or-take the last 2 years.  20-35% more for CAC.

Has this coin gone up a bunch in recent months ?  I'd be suprised if it had, unless a couple of well-heeled buyers needed condition rarities of the coin.

On 5/18/2022 at 2:39 AM, Cat Bath said:

Remember this one?  https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-saint-gaudens-double-eagles/1921-20-pr64-ngc-cac-jd-1-r8-as-a-proof/a/1333-3499.s  Regardless, I was using the 1909PR saint as an example of a new die that didn't have flow lines in the discussion about luster.

I do remember it...this is the coin where there are 2 of them and 1 traces its origins to the Ghiraradelli Chocolate Family.  I believe Roger included them in his Saints book as a special item.

For one of the longest, most in-depth, detailed, intricate, quasi-informative posts from what appeared to be a serious coin collector (or dealer).....the OP sure disappeared in a hurry and never posted again. 

On 5/16/2022 at 11:23 PM, Cat Bath said:

At least people are collecting coins rather than beany babies.  What other people think is a very important thing nowadays and provides confidence when coins are considered investments.

And yet....barring those who collected pre-1950...or those who caught the bullion bull market of the 1970's having purchased beforehand....I have noted here that even "Trophy Coins" like the 1933 Saint and 1908-S Norweb Saint return mid-single digits at best over long periods of time.

Maybe there's a niche sector in the small denomination coin sector that I am not familiar with that has generated stock-like returns in recent decades (I doubt it, since the U.S. coin index was in a bear market from 2010-20).  But I think there's one thing virtually ALL of us here agree:  coins should not be considered investments and they haven't generated appropriate risk-adjusted returns over the last 40 years. 

You have to enjoy your coins.  They're not investments (don't pay dividends or income).  They may or may not appreciate even a low amount over time.  At a minimum, if they hold their value, you've got a few $$$ in an emergency stash if you ever need it.

But the 1921/22's are NOT proofs.  And the 1909 may have been the last "liked" proof created as the Mint kept going back-and-forth between Satin and Sandblast.

So I'm not sure how surprising it is, Cat, that the 1909 Proof looks so much better than the 1922.

On 5/16/2022 at 10:08 PM, VKurtB said:

If you dabble in the CoinTalk site, do NOT get into a conversation with Doug the head moderator over the cause of luster. He is utterly clueless on the subject and he regularly misinforms his members on the topic. On luster, or the ostentatious British spelling “lustre”, Roger is 100% right and Dougy-poo is 100% wrong. 

I would think that a microscopic close-up of a low-luster coin (i.e, 1908 NM) and a high-luster coin (1923-D) would show the ridges.

On 5/16/2022 at 9:22 PM, VKurtB said:

It never occurred to me that there were serious people out there who DIDN’T have this in their knowledge base. 

I honestly thought it was just referring to reflectivity and shinyness (is that a word ?) of light bouncing off the coin.

I had no idea that it was caused by deformation and microscopic changes in crystalline structure of the die.  I've admittedly not read many books that might go into luster in-depth....but I've read tons of articles and even posts by "experts" and nobody ever explained it like that.  In fact, it's kind of counter-intuitive:  the luster INCREASES as the die gets more worn and the crystalline structure changes.

If it was common knowledge, I sure didn't have it.

I wonder if we did a multiple-choice question how many on the site would guess the correct choice ? 

On 5/16/2022 at 8:21 PM, Tazcollector said:

Since you referenced a 1924 i note that a 1924 PCGS 67 CAC sold for $38,400 at the recent Heritage auction (which is consistent with prior auction prices and what I paid for mine in a private sale so the Heritage price wasn’t a fluke sale).    The 24 is a common date coin—on a rare date (where the CAC pop is also very low) the CAC spread can be much more material.  The extremely low CAC pops on many of the Heritage coins that you originally posted a few posts up is one of the drivers of the prices.  

That's a helluva boost though from the MS67 price to just under $40K for a CAC sticker.  There aren't that many MS68's I know -- and then you throw in JA's tight grading standard for Saints/gold and I'm not surprised by a 200% premium to a standard MS67.

You're right, Taz, on the premiums.  Whether it's a lower grade on a Saint that is rarer in lower grades (i.e, 1908-S) or just a condition rarity for a common 1924 if you go high enough....the CAC sticker will add a nice premium.  

On 5/16/2022 at 7:33 PM, RWB said:

The DE book, much like some of my others, uses a more expansive approach the date/mint materials that is common. Nice that the "side bars" are appreciated.

They made the book, IMO.  Sort of like how TV dramas in the 1970's and 1980's would have 3 stories in an hour-long episode.  If you didn't like one of them, you had the other two. 

The sections on copper spots etc. was also very informative dealing with Double Eagles.  And of course the longer chapters on gold flows, the Gold Standard, gold mining, Assay Offices/Sub Treasuries, etc....this was all a nice break from just turning the page and going 1-up chronologically on Double Eagles by years.

As I stated....I commend you and Heritage for not only compiling great information, but laying it out in a very useful format.

CAC POWER:  The value of the CAC designation -- regardless of whether you like it or hate it -- can't be denied from these prices.  Note how a lower-graded Saint jumps up in price to eclipse a similar or even "half-point" higher Saint:

• A 1927 MS65+ sold for $3,375 (w/bp).
• A 1927 MS65 sold for $2,925.
• A 1927 NGC MS65 CAC sold for $3,724
• A 1925 NGC MS66+ sold for $7,200.
• A 1925 MS66 CAC for for $8,269.
• A 1924 NGC MS67 for $11,812

While some of the coins were in NGC slabs (albeit older ones that might be more conservatively graded), note that the CAC designation seems to drive the price differential, especially when there's a big price jump to the next grade.  The 1927 MS65 NGC CAC sells for a nice premium to the MS65+ (PCGS).

On 5/16/2022 at 4:44 PM, RWB said:

I merely attempted to make what was already known clear and concise within the context of DE and related coins. This is one of several subjects where the US Mint could provide comprehensive and accurate information, but fails to to so.

It was a home run.  It's one thing that just stuck in my head and I didn't forget it nor need to read it again to absorb it.  Needless to say, lots of other stuff in a 600-page book I could benefit from re-reading them....and I plan to do that. 

On 5/14/2022 at 5:37 PM, DWLange said:

Aside from the fact that no one reading that ad is going to have such rare and/or high grade coins, what's misleading about it?

I think it's like those lottery ads.....implies all you need to do is pick 6 numbers and you're rich.

On 5/16/2022 at 1:04 PM, VKurtB said:

Welcome aboard on understanding what luster is. I have to say that I’ve had that covered for over 50 years. It’s good you’re into Roger’s Saints book, but I can’t shake the feeling you’re missing a great deal of widely known information from books you might have read before his. That said, Roger deserves kudos for including basic concepts that might have evaded his audience. 

Did other books discuss luster at the miscrospic scale ?  I've seen luster talked about generally in other coin books I have (granted, my library is probably not as large as yours or other veterans) but I never saw it described as in the Saints book.

Not to say it hasn't been described as such elsewhere. I'm just saying I've read lots of books AND articles -- and I can't recall that microscopic analysis being included, which is why it stuck with me so much when I read it in the Saints book.

LUSTER:  In any book -- especially one that is 600+ pages long -- you are going to remember stuff that sticks with you for years and maybe even decades.  I can still remember some funny 1-liners from baseball books and novels that I read as a kid in the 1970's. 

Reading this Saint-Gaudens book, the section on LUSTER was fascinating.  It's one of those things that you take for granted whenever you read about coins and luster.  I just assumed that luster was synonymous with being shiny or reflective of light.    When the book spells out the microscopic details of what luster entails, let's just say that if I am fortunate to be around in another 40+ years I'll remember it like those books I devoured from Scholastic in the 1970's.  

I had always just assumed that luster was simply a smooth, shiny surface.  Not so.  

From the book:

"Luster......is the visual result of light reflecting off of thousands of tiny ridges and grooves of metal in the smooth (field) areas of a coin.  These imperfections were created in a working die as the hard steel was stressed during the striking of thousands of blank planchets.

The original surface of a coinage die is smooth....and largely free of imperfections.....The pressure, or force, applied to the planchet was approximately 100-120 tons per square inch.....with each blow of the die, an imperceptible movement occured in the crystals of the die face. 

Following several hundred strikes, the die face had distored slightly so that the fields were no longer completely smooth, but consisted of miscroscopic ridges and grooves.

This type of surface alteration was most prominent in the fields of a die where movement of the metal was greatest and least inhibited by details of the design.  The portrait, inscriptions, and other design elements were sujbect to similar die deformation, but at a much lower rate and magnitude.  This explains why a coin shows luster in the fields but not in the raised areas."

This is the best (only?) REAL explanation of what causes luster that I've come across.  So at a microscopic level, the smooth fields are really more like a micro-version of a house roof with shingle tiles.

My only question is....wouldn't you then have pretty much EQUAL luster from coin-to-coin, year-to-year, since you would expect the die crystals to deform each year pretty much the same way ?  Why is the 1923-D so much higher on the luster scale compared to the 1924 or 1925 ?  Why is the 1908 NM so lousy on luster compared to the 1908-S ?

On 5/14/2022 at 7:24 PM, Mr.Bill347 said:

Sometimes I feel like Jack Klugman in the ODD couple!

Clean your bedroom !   - Felix  

On 5/14/2022 at 3:40 PM, VKurtB said:

Have you ever been to a large coin show? It’s not for the easily upset. It’s cold, hard frankness on steroids. 

I don't know....I went to FUN 2020 and everybody was super-nice, cordial, and helpful.  I can't remember one rude or obnoxious dealer and I literally stopped by a few hundred.

On 5/14/2022 at 12:28 PM, VKurtB said:

I good friend and customer in my family’s camera store and photo lab hanged himself over one of the severe collapses in graded coins. He was “all in” and lost the will to live. 

Bruce McNall, Wayne Gretzky's friend and Kings owner, got caught up in an inflated collection pledged as collateral.  That 1988-89 bubble was wicked.

On 5/14/2022 at 12:20 PM, VKurtB said:

I was flying all over North America installing and servicing One Hour Photo Labs made by Gretag AG of Switzerland. 

I remember those kiosks.....blasts from the past....did any mall or shopping center or strip mall NOT have one of those little shacks in the parking lot ?  They were almost stand alones.

I guess they died out in the early-2000's when everything went digital. 

On 5/14/2022 at 12:10 PM, VKurtB said:

No, not as large, but the expectations of the market are higher now than in 1982. 

Oh, I would expect the $$$ volume to much larger....at least for the gold coin section.  Not sure how some of the small denomination coins would fare today as they have had 1 or 2 bubbles and then deflated over the last 40 years.

1982 was a bad year to sell....coins were in the dumpster, and silver/gold had collapsed from 2 years earlier.

On 5/14/2022 at 11:51 AM, RWB said:

Many of the very best old collections are not in slabs. The grades are meaningless and the coins are original. It's only "nervous Nellies" who must have slabbed coins.

What makes it interesting is that the PR69 Trompeter/Morse coin definitely caught some gradeflation.  I think I read where had it been submitted raw TODAY....it would grade PR67, MAYBE a weak 68.