GoldFinger1969

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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).

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.

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

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 ?

Clean your bedroom ! - Felix

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, off the top of my head it looks like some of the descriptive information dates to the 1980's. I didn't realize that some of these prestigious collections had so many uncertified coins. Should be very interesting for some of the Trophy Coins to see where they stand next to their graded peers.

It's not anywhere near as big as the (1982) Eliasberg Collection, right ?

Hey Alex...more tidbits on The WF Hoard. This is from a back-and-forth over on the CU (PCGS) message boards a few years ago, I thought it was interesting. Does any one know why it seem that the Wells Fargo ones seem to be graded higher than non wells fargo coins? Yup. When you have nearly 8,000 gem 1908 NM saints put aside at time of issue, it's not much of a stretch to figure there could be a lot of high grades in there. The median grade was MS66 when PCGS first did these (all OGHs). Only a single coin graded less than MS65....a lone MS63. Besides never being circulated, these bags of 1908's must have rarely moved because they don't have the hits often seen on coins this size and weight. When these came out this lone hoard had >10X the number of 1908 NM MS66's than had ever been graded at PCGS. There had only been <25 MS67's and 0 MS68's up to that time. I've generally liked the quality of WF OGHs that I've run across though many people think they're over-graded. No doubt many were cracked out and resubmitted or sent to NGC. The heavy grade inflation in MS64-67 Saints really didn't begin until the 1998-2004 period. If not for this hoard MS66 and MS67 $20 Saint type coins would be a lot harder to come by. It's interesting that CAC has yet to sticker a single 1908 NM WF Saint. Here's the break down. MS65 - 2237 coins MS66 - 4867 coins MS67 - 695 coins MS68 - 98 coins Coins were brought onto the market thru Ron Gillio. They were in SDBs in a Las Vegas branch of Wells Fargo. More meaning thru a frontier-days meme, I suppose. They all went thru at once. Think about the gradeflation when grading a group as close to technicallly perfect as these pass thru the grading room for days and days as a steady stream. Helluva bell curve. or, as Broadsruck put it, "hoardflation"... Disagreeing with roadrunner (was the thread a year ago?), I've observed these coins, and, because of them, all '08 NMs to be awful "investments" and a drag on the whole common-date Saints market. They are discriminated against for a reason. The coins may be technical 7+, but the satiny lustre has no immediate visual impact. The absence of detraction/distraction may be very apparent, but the blaze is not there. And they don't dip out worth chit. FWIW, the shop I was working at happened to buy in a large group (100+) of BU Saints and send them in at the same time the "Wells Fargo" hoard was going through. The grades we got were, on average, about two points higher than we expected. Some of them were so overgraded we did not feel comfortable selling them to our retail customers, so we wholesaled them out instead. I can't agree with the Colonel that the 1908's have been lousy investments....what generic gem gold hasn't been for the past 4-6 years? I can live with the 1908's having satiny luster that doesn't blind you like a 1923-D saint. Can't have it all. I'm sure a lot of MS66 and MS67 common date "O" mint silver dollars don't have the luster pizzaz of an 1880-S or 1881-S....think 83-0, 84-0, 85-0. And they tend to be much more softly struck. So be it. Some coins don't come from the US mint in AAA quality, eye appeal, and moon monster blast. I'll take them as they come. Gem WF Saints are nice looking coins to me. And who really cares if gem original coins can't dip out for an upgrade? I sure hope that the majority of WF saints didn't go through the dip machine before getting originally graded. The odd part is, as a bourse buyer, I almost never see these high grade Wells Fargo coins. With 8,000 of them graded, where are they? As type collector I might consider buying one of these "stigmatized" coins if the price was right (relatively cheap). Getting to upgrade a gold coin from the era from MS-65 to MS-67 could be exciting, but like I said I never see the coins. As a collector, I'd rather have an '07 in PCGS 64 CAC for a NM type coin, even for more money. Great skin, lustre and color are available. Or a '24-'28 in MS65 as my one type coin. Put a 27P in 66CAC next to an 08NM in 67. Don't think, use your reptile brain . . . Per JA "They're really pretty bullion, aren't they?" YMMV Just my 20 bucks worth . . . My guess as to why not that many around is because lots of ignorant people were sold super-grade coins via promotion by Spectrum at a time when CAC wasn't around. Which may not have mattered. All the NGC coins are attempted upgrades. Some made it, some didn't.

I must have missed that. If this sale is to generate $$$ for the Foundation, I wonder what the sale was for years ago.

No idea....and I don't think you need to be THAT rich to collect error coins.

I found the inventory; lots of coins purchased DECADES ago that haven't been for sale since many of us were teens or younger. http://hbrf.org/coin-collection/coin/hbcc-1044/ The UHR/EHR is from the Eliasberg Collection. It appears to be ungraded. Will be very interesting to see what it grades because a few of the other Proof UHRs caught gradeflation. One of the MCMVII HRs is from a Paramount sale from 1984. Another MCMVII HR is from a RARCOA sale 1973. An 1861-S Paquet Reverse is from a direct sale in 1987 via an auction in 1967. A 1907 Saint is from Abner Kreisberg 1966. A 1911-D is from 1967. A 1915 is from a 1981 sale. Looks like the collection only has 6 Saints for sale, including the UHR/EHR.