GoldFinger1969

I am surprised that no stories about the Lost 1928 Saints has ever appeared...no wondering if the coins ever made it to the dealers...no write-ups or allegations in any auction catalog ? Maybe because the 1928's were so plentiful after the 1940's ?

What's the rest of your collection ?

In the future, if you have any coins, handle them with gloved hands and put them in protective sleeves or holders.

c/o VWCA....Veterinary Waste Centers of America.

Lenin's and Stalin's Paradise wasn't much better.

When I get those 1933's out of Fort Knox, I'll pay for you to come and be a featured speaker.

The Mint Superintendet like Dressel (spelling ! ) was the guy who was ultimately liable, as I recall from your 1928 Saint Bag writeup.

What's an anode ? And wouldn't $80K in gold be over 2,000 ounces....or over 140 pounds ? That's alot for 1 person to hold, let alone "wear" on them...guy must have really worked out. My favorite. Not sure where that date came from (was that when they went to melt the coins ?). I remember the moving of the bags in 1933 and I believe a bag of 1933 Double Eagle Saints was moved and dust was involved. Somewhere, I have the write-up you did for a 1928 bag from the US Mint where you told the story...great job. Imagine how much one of those 1928 DEs could be worth if their pedigree to the stolen coins could be established. I suspect that gold was melted down, you wonder if someone was smart enough to save 1 or 2.

Is the 57th Street address no more ? If so, was it a Covid move or did they relocate out of Manhattan or just to more spacious/cheaper digs ? Rents in that area are nutso.

Could be....I guess you did most of the research for the Saint-Gaudens DE book up through 2015. But JD's comments may have been from another source (provided via HA ?) that was even earlier. I don't know if Scott @ NGC or JD were both from other sources or if they were new to your Saints book (apparently JD wasn't). Regardless, the debate was informative. I think the no-Proofs side has the stronger argument. Does anybody know if NGC will no longer certify MCMVII HR's as Proofs ? DWLange ?

David, I think most of the research -- aside from books and articles in stuff like COIN WEEK -- was in the auction catalogs themselves.

No, that's from the book....you had him representing the No-Proofs side, remember ? The press that struck the UHRs and HRs seemed to be more powerful than the regular striking of Saints, right ? Maybe that extra tonnage plus the fresh dies gave the newer struck coins an enhanced look. Yup, that's where I got the above and I recall your focus on the first 500 to keep TR happy.

Excellent article. And so damn spot on -- imagine if the conviction and trial had been 10-15 years later during the age of the internet.

Just curious...did you ever meet him ?

94 years old...not bad.....as my grandfather (who lived to 98 1/2) used to say.....he got his money's worth out of Social Security.

There are two 1920 coins. The 1920 is pricy after MS-63 and jumps to figures in MS65. The 1920-S only has 100-150 coins and is 6-figures in MS. The 1924 is modest premium up to MS65 and even low-5 figures or high-4's for MS67's.

It starts tomorrow, no cancellation or postponement. A few no-shows, that's it.

Just found this thread, dated, but lots of good information. Not too familiar with most of the detailed work done by Breen -- more of my readings are on Saints and Liberty's -- so I am more likely to read stuff by Akers, Bowers, Roger, etc. I will say that the "fill in the blank" approach to missing research is something we see in many fields, not just numismatics. Clearly labeling such data or writings as opinion or conjecture is definitely the most honest way to include it. Integrity is key in ANY research. I am familiar with one example where Breen "jumped the gun" -- a supposed hoard of 40 or so Saints for a very rare year/mint found in England. I can't remember the Saint, though I am sure I have it in my research files. Whether Breen initiated or helped spread the rumour I can not say. Whether he said it once or five times or twenty times, I can not say. If he was told it by someone reliable and ASSUMED it to be true, I can not say. So while the information on a long-lost hoard found in England turned out to be false, how much blame Breen should get is debatable. Also, just talking about something is different than WRITING about it permanently -- if this was mentioned in any of his books or columns, I don't know.

MCMVII HIGH RELIEF Proofs: Pro & Con Scott Schechter, of NGC, made these points: Expert opinion evenly split Single die pair for MCMVII HR Proofs as per NGC Distinctive texture and satiny luster to the coins Sharply detailed design elements All Proofs were of the Wire Rim variety. Flat rim coins, produced later, are not in the "proof" discussion. The deep recesses of the HR dies prevent the die from being polished (why is this ?) HR "proofs" did not have mirror finishes...Proof attributes were very crisp strikes and heavy swirling die polish lines and other special attributes (what other attributes?). David Akers believed proofs were struck as did Walter Breen. I value Akers opinion here more than Breens if only because Akers focused on Saints and gold coins and Breen covered anything and everything. By the 1980's, coins struck from just one die marriage and one collar were associated with these special features and called proofs. "Proof collar" used only with this 1 die pair. The Proof Collar is Edge 3 or Edge B-II also used in the MCMVII UHR. Serif letters as described in RWB's RoAC 1905-08. I have trouble identifying the swirling die polish on Page 77. I see the die lines below the olive branch but am not sure I see swirling die polish. I see a bunch of (swirling ?) lines below and to the left of the olive branch bottom, is that the polish ? Heavy polish seems to be very fine thin die lines. John Dannreuther, Author: Basically, UHR collar + Early State of Dies + Lots of Die Polish = Proofs Danreuther says HR's were struck 2 or 3 times (were ANY struck 2 times ? I thought all got 3 blows from the press). No officiaL RECORD UNLIKE 1907 proofs and all other proofs recorded over the decades, no mention of them, no discussion among key Mint officials and workers. Me....I think PCGS should just use the PL (Proof Like) designation. Someone said here or on another site that NGC is not labeling any MORE MCMVII HR's as proofs....earlier ones are grandfathered. Did I read that correctly ?

Page 89 on the 1907 Arabic Saints.....look at the top-most arrow in the picture of the rays. "Thin die scratches extend between rays on the left side on approximately half of the coins examined. These do not match marks left from die repair and were probably an incomplete area that Barber failed to finish." Wow, what detail. I swear to God, I look at the picture of the die scratches and it looks pretty much like imperfections in the rest of the picture of the coin. Without the arrows I'd be seeing nothing. How you/they could ID that as die scratches...and then know that something that you can barely see doesn't match marks (?) left from "die repair" is beyond me. Just amazing....I guess this is maybe 2nd-hand stuff to a professional numismatist or researcher but to me I'm amazed you can tell these are die scratches as opposed to just normal imperfections in a surface that isn't perfectly smooth.

I am re-reading the Proof Debate in the book.....was this your idea to have 2 "guest" advocates or an editor at HA ? I really liked this section and how you treated this controversial subject. Great job.

Maybe, but is the hub cast ?

BTW, the reason I'm on the Proof MCMVII thing is it somehow showed up in some old Omega High Relief threads ATS that I have been reading the last few days. Just wish I could have read/saved the original Omega thread that got KO'd.

Roger, you seem to have a pretty good relationship with NGC and with DWL....wondering if you both have reached an accomodation or we-agree-to-disagree on the existence of MCMVII High Relief Proofs ? You did give the pro-proof side equal time in the Saints book, and I think that's great, especially if you personally believe that technically no "proof" HRs were struck. I enjoy a good back-and-forth -- and CIVIL -- debate. Kudos !