GoldFinger1969

Does anybody here have David Akers' book, United States Gold Patterns, 1836-1907 ? I am wondering if the book includes the Saint patterns from 1907.

I think it has to do with the cost. 1 oz. gold coins will cost you at least $2,000-plus. Numismatic premium coins will cost $2,500 - $5,000. Saints are my passion but I've only bought 4 in the last 7 years. You have to be patient (or rich ! ) and enjoy doing lots of reading and research on these coins as you are unlikely to buy a few every month when you start out collecting these beauties.

Have you looked at or read his other books ? I know you don't like gold or Saint coins, but you can't say the Saints DE book isn't a well-written, well-researched book.

Figured a thread for those interested in any kind of gold coins might be appropriate for those collecting a bit more upscale or just interested in learning for enjoyment's sake or down the line potential buying interest.

Not my debate or cup of tea, but I would say something like that is splitting of hairs. Anybody with interest in what Dan Carr produces will find it out and then make their OWN determination as to whether or not it is counterfeiting, replicas, duplicates, copies, retro pieces....whatever. If Roger's style is to at times be absolute, so be it. You know where he stands. A collector can disagree with his opinion and debate it....or just ignore it and continue to go their own way. Doesn't have to be a contentious debate or get personal, that's my point. Forget about the specifics of Dan Carr stuff, that's how I treat ANY topic.

Yeah, Kurt....but just because you have a disagreement with someone doesn't mean you have to make it personal. Use that same energy to post on coins.

That proves my love for coin research and reading....I can only buy a Saint-Gaudens DE about as often as the NY Mets or Jets make the playoffs ! I'm sure there are, if I went back and went over it. But I found the book's conclusions for the most part to be well-supported and impeccably documented. Quite frankly, he wasn't looking to break new ground with any major revelations. He debunked a few Old Wive's Tales but for the most part, the book made no grandiose proclamations. The biggest controversial debating points would probably be the theoretical number of potential Saint survivors (I personally think that undocumented Saint destruction is probably NOT evidence of survivorship for the bulk of the coins missing or not definitively melted down) and the passage on the 1933 Saints legal custodianship. Roger provided in-depth supporting documentation via extensive analysis of post-WW II hoards for the former and gave interesting supporting evidence on the latter including the shortfall of 1932's which was filled by 1933 Saints. In the example I gave, Roger says that any Saint not definitively accounted for by being melted down in the 1933-37 meltdown could STILL be out there. Maybe, but I think tens of millions of "missing" Saints would have been found by now. I don't doubt the possibility -- even likelihood -- that the known Saint-Gaudens DE population will increase by tens of thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands in the next few decades. Maybe even sooner if gold explodes in price. But I freely admit this is a guestimate on my part. I haven't been able to get any estimates myself from dealers, columnists, and others who see these hoards 1st-hand. Gun to my head....I'd say a few hundred new Saints a year, the majority of which may not even be submitted for grading because they are worn. Still, a few might be Mint State and/or rarities. Roger wrote the HA essay on the 1928 Saint Double Eagle bag, which sold for a few thousand dollars. It's a fascinating story and involves a Mint Super who appears to have gotten unfairly caught in the theft of a complete bag of 1928 Saints ($5,000 in 1930's money) and could have been held personally liable for it. I find these missing 1928's one of the best stories -- but unfortunately, thinly-known and researched (because of lack of evidence and investigative work done at the time) -- involving Saint Double Eagles. There's even a thin tie-in to the 1933 Saints that left the Philly Mint, though the ties are very speculative and more of interest to folks like me than numismatic researchers who can't find any direct link (admittedly so). Still, it's fun to speculate. If those stolen 1928's could ever be found and verified as such, they'd command a pretty premium to the generally common generic 1928's that sell today in MS-66 and below. Enjoy the back-and-forth with you and the others on this otherwise esoteric and arcane analysis of research, books, facts and opinions, and how they intersect with our little world !

I'd like to go but I'm getting ready to have a procedure done so travelling is probably out. This is the Spring Whitman Baltimore Show ?

Probably true FlyingAl..., but at the same time it helps us in an endeavor -- coin collecting, numismatics, grading, etc. -- without absolutes. So I think that we know the quality of people we deal with. I would never say someone isn't good at what they do just because they have a different opinion than me. All I know is I read a 640-page book that Roger wrote/edited and I found it chock-full-of-facts and well-supported conclusions/opinions. I don't think it would have helped me if facts, opinions, and conclusions were all color-coded. Yeah, you were spot on. The problem is that Roger likes to answer using jokes and humor and VKurt can be sarcastic and at times smarmy and it can lead to a volatile back-and-forth. Throw in their diametrically opposing views on gold in general or the 1933 Saint in particular....and it's like inviting Putin and the Ukrainian Freedom Association to the same dinner. I think you did a good job. I agree with your analysis here. I just can not recall in the Saints book (which I read in-depth and in it's entirety, not the case with FMTM) reading anything where Roger tried to pass off an opinion or a conclusion as definitive fact. There was no "Walter Breen, Longon Hoard" moment. I'm not an expert on coins or even Saints, but I have read alot on both and if someone tries to pass something off that is not clearly established or a logical conclusion, I'll probably sniff it out. I might not have the answer myself, but I can tell when someone is jumping to an unsupported conclusion. If it's on a minor detail, hey, those happen in a lengthy books. If it's a major part of a chapter or a key idea, then I'll have trouble with it. As you noted, we can be parsing things a bit too finely here....debating how many Angels fit on the head of a pin. Again....I didn't see any noticeable unsupported opinions being passed off as facts or even conclusions in the Saints book. And I was looking for them, because I would have grilled Roger in the Saints thread. And those that I had questions on, Roger graciously answered my concerns in the Saints Thread and they tended to be minor clear-ups or questions. If I had a major disagreement on a key point in the book or in the 55 pages (to date) of the Saints thread, I can't recall them. This book by it's nature is more specific and defined than other books like my Saints book which covers 26 years, decades of the Gold Standard and other gold topics, and lots of different topics both within the Saints annual/mint coin reviews and the Special Chapters between them. This type of book is by necessity going to have more conclusions along with lots of facts but you can't possibly have every other sentence footnoted and given a stamp of approval. Facts, logical conclusions, and nebuoulsly-supported opinions are 3 different levels of confidence. At various times, you need to decide if something is major or minor and the level of proof needed to make a statement and if that statement is one of fact, conclusion, or opinion. Roger's numerical math on Saint survivors is one good example of this and the presence of hoards and hidden bags being found, plus a continued drip-drip-drip from the retail public, can lead an individual to take EITHER position on more coins being found (or not) for a particular Saint mintage. Not sure what is special about the 1936-42 Proofs but clearly there's enough interest in them to justify a book. Other sources besides books might be the commentaries in auction catalogs and auction sites like HA, forums like this, and other various sources on the web. I recently found some new information on the 1983 MTB Saint/Gold Hoard from the Stack's website archives.

Roger's Saints Book: As an example of Roger's attempt to be fair, he had 2 lengthy sections on the debate abour Proof High Relief Saints. Despite not believing that they ever struck Proofs...and despite the stronger evidence that there wasn't.....Roger gave equal time to the pro-Proof side. He could have just as easily given a few sentences and left it at that. I haven't read some of these other books you folks cite, but if they have the footnotes and bibliography that the Saint-Gaudens DE book has, it's about as well-researched a book as you can get. If you disagree or like some other books, please tell me who are these authors and their books. I can tell you I like Bowers' books on Double Eagles and Morgan Dollars and Akers/Ambio's book on Gold Coins.

BTW, there is a difference between BIAS and OBJECTIVITY -- they are often used interchangeably, but they are NOT the same thing. You can be biased and still be objective.

I'm a bit lost here as I don't know ANYYBODY who has ever said they don't want opinions and facts separate. I think the gray area is where you draw conclusions. It might pay to give examples from somebody's or Roger's books/research, but I gave an example above from a topic and book I am familiar with above, namely Roger's Saints book. I do not think that everything presented in any book is always either labled a fact or an opinion....many times it's a gray area between. I don't think that unless you state these nebulous areas are facts that if you present them as plausibly true that you are guilty of fraud. I think only MATERIALLY FACTUALLY WRONG information being presented as factually true or possibly true is a breach of ethics. Not every logical assertion needst to be mathematically or visually/orally confirmed. I'm confused....can you give an example of something that is an opinion being passed off as fact ? I may be at a disadvantage given my lack of knowledge about Peace/Proof coins that Roger wrote about but hopefully I can follow the facts/opinions.

People must love the designs or they think they are going to be able to sell them for more $$$. People get sucked in at tops -- coins, baseball cards, the stock market, ARK ETF Funds, etc. -- and these Peace and Morgan issues are no different.

1926-D: The 1950 Menjou Catalog states previous high-profile auctions did NOT have this coin. It was estimated to go for $2,500 but sold for $2,000. 1924-S: Menjou Catalog calls it the rarest of all double eagles, ".....there are perhaps less than 5 specimens extant." The estimate was $2,250 and it sold for $2,000. Not long after the 1950 Menjou Auction, small hoards started to come back from Europe and the population numbers for each coin swelled.

Agreed....but well-supported OPINIONS are worthwhile. BS is not. For instance, Roger said in his Saints book that (theoretically) there are 39 MM Saints that can't be accounted for, the documentation for which is NOT there that they were conclusively melted. So in theory, they all could still be out there. That's a fact. Now...if he said that PROVES that there are 39 MM Saints in SDBs, foreign banks, American attics, etc....that would be something not supported by the numerical fact above. He's not saying that. OTOH, if he were to say that regardless of the veracity of the 39 MM Saints.....there continue to be mini-Hoards and they can come out at any time and depress the numismatic value of a premium coin so be careful....that is an OPINION that IMO is WELL-SUPPORTED by the underlying facts. See the difference ? You just have to be careful and qualify your statements. Don't oversell something. I think this is just basic common-sense.

Can what be accepted as fact ? Opinions in books that are backed up by other facts ? I think they can...if NOT supported, then no. If I say that the Mets WILL win 90 games this year and make the playoffs, based on everything they have done so far I think that my OPINION is well-supported by the facts. If I say that they will win 105 games...steamroll through the playoffs...and win the World Series...that's an unsupported opinion and conjecture. Some of these books I can't speak to. But FMTM is too detailed and too long to be mostly "opinions." As for his Saints book which I have gone back to dozens of times.....I think it's meticulouosly researched and opinions are clearly presented as such. When talking about trade flows, the Gold Standard, use of Double Eagles, etc....RWB presents actual factual documentation and/or logical reasons based on economics, finance, and Treasury/Mint policy to make reasonable deductions. I think we are splitting hairs here, folks. Like wondering if a coin is MS-65 or MS-65+.

Which is why I personally save key threads on this Forum....articles I find on the Internet from years or decades ago.....commentaries by folks like David Akers, RWB, etc....and of course, the actual books themselves and if possible in their PDF form. As I mentioned on the RWB Saints book thread....I want to have key non-Saint chapters and the Saint Commentaries from the book available on my smarpthone/PC. Since Heritage does not have that available (at least to the public; I am sure they have it in dowloadable format for themselves) I am going to eventually have it typed up in Word/PDF myself. Will take some time or cost a few $$$ but well worth it. Again, if you see something critical to your interests here or elsewhere, don't assume it'll always be there. If it's unique or insightful information, save it....store it as a PDF on your own PC and back it up. I've got lots of Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle commentaries from Bowers, Akers, RWB, etc....all saved. As an example, there was a super-interesting spill-the-beans thread over at CU on the Origins of The Omega Countefeits. Somehow, myself and another person DID save it -- but for reasons we can't recall, we both only saved the main storyteller's responses and posts (a guy who claimed that the Mafia was involved with the Omega's) and not the questions (insightful or deragotory) from the readers and contributors of the thread. Makes the 32-pages of 1-sided commentary difficult to read and understand, like listening in on only 1-side of a telephone conversation. You also have the infamous Franklin Gradeflation Thread which may still be there but the comments of people since banned from CU may or may not be there. And who knows how long that thread will stay there.

Yup, have gone the way of the VCR. My PC purchased last year doesn't have one which means I have to use downloads and stream.

If anybody saw an article on an early 1920's Saint in COIN WEEK in the last few days....let me know. I got an alert on my smartphone but accidentally swiped it away when I meant to click on it. It was for a 1920 or 1920-S or a 1921 or something like that (I think). I never get these alerts so it stood out....but I can't find any article in recent days on the Coin Week website. For all I know, it was something from weeks or months ago, but who knows.

Really good post, FlyingAl. While I hope to read FMTM in its entirety this Summer, I read Roger's Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles book cover-to-cover....you can clearly see the depth of research that the book involved....and where Roger offers opinions or draws conclusions, I believe they are very reasonable just like his estimates for each coin's population. There are so many scamsters and fraudsters out there that to quibble with someone's methodology or style or conclusions is to focus on minutae, IMO. If you think someone is wrong on a specific fact or opinion, then point it out. But the information-sharing we all get from these Forums and from other websites was unknown 30 years ago. Whatever specific interests you have, the information is now available to all and quickly, too.

Demand is up even if the mintage/supply is too compared to earlier special coins like the 2019-S....you have all these new Keyboard Kollectors who have $$$ and these coins are still way more affordable than more expensive coins and gold ones.

The reverse, I guess.....the one selling for high-3 figure and low-4 figure prices.

2019-S ASEs didn't come down to regular ASEs, what makes you think these coins will ? They're trading below the price of 2019-S's but way above regular business or proof strike ASEs of recent years.

Not as much as many of us would believe, based on recent trading experiences.

You would think so but the recent experience with these ASE or other 1-ounce silver special coins is their secondary trading spikes ease off but do NOT collapse. Think of the 2019-S ASE. These may be way overpriced to us....but to many of the new Keyboard Kollectors....they are at least AFFORDABLE relative to pricey Morgans, Saints, or most gold coins. I think these are the people buying and keeping the prices afloat.