GoldFinger1969

That's interesting on the removal thing, because since you probably are going to sell the coin for MORE $$$ than you paid, you would think checking the purchase price would be inconsequential. Also, I would think pre-Internet that finding out sales prices was very difficult except for coins that got publicity and news articles written about them.

I certainly agree..........

We've ALL made these mistakes, so don't beat yourself up. Just make sure you LEARN from them. And don't forget to take advantage of resources like these forums, especially on Indian Heads and Saints. And yeah....you're just learning about them ? Make sure your next few purchases are either graded or you run it by folks here with some high-res pics.

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.

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.

What was the nature of the dispute between them ?

If he's using the gash as the identifying mark, it shouldn't matter if it was holdered or not. It's CLEARLY visible. 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. Thanks, I'll have to check it out. 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 !

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

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Exclusively paper money or they also had coins ?

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.

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.