GoldFinger1969

Yup, seems that the way to go....thanks JT.

Gotcha....so net-net....there is NOT more/new information in the 1st Edition...it's just 99.9% the same as the 2nd Edition, just written/ordered differently ?

They don't make tons and tons of some of these coin books. Always good to buy them and put them away even if you aren't sure if you can read it at that time. I have given thought to buying a backup copy of Roger's SAINTS book but it came out recently so I assume I have time before it disappears. But from what Roger intimated, they don't print hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of these books, maybe sometimes just more like thousands.

Time loop !! Time paradox !! Gotta be careful when using that Time Stone.....

Thanks, JT !! Here's one of the reviews from Amazon on the 2nd Edition: "This is just a rehash of Akers' original withOUT all the personal wisdom and insight that Akers shared with the reader, which is what made his books the best coin guides around. There's very little in this book that isn't readily available on the internet. Look for the original...it's just a better book." I think I misread it.....I thought that the "personal wisdom and insight" comment referred to this book but apparently, if you read the comment above, the person is referencing OTHER books that Akers has written. Otherwise, he says that this is just a rehash which implies it's basically a carbon-copy of the 1st Edition without stuff taken out. I guess the only/main difference is the hardcover.

I'm going to re-read (and finish !) FMTM. I think I went in with such limited knowledge the last time that I found the book very difficult to understand. Learning about the minting process in such minutae does help collectors understand what causes all the differenct die and other variations that we see on all our coins. That was MY interest in getting FMTM, not necessarily learning all the details about the employees, equipment, etc. Roger's attention to detail and his excellent writing style in ALL his books is duly noted and appreciated !

It shouldn't, but that could be why you nevere see a "+ or "*" designation at MS-61 or MS-62 levels. But you do see them at MS-65, 66, and 67 grades.

I can't really make it out, but I would venture to guess that the distribution was skewed a bit to the LEFT with a lower Bell Curve distribution biased below MS65 or MS64. Since then, especially since 2004 or so, standards apparently "loosened" and more MS65's, MS66's, and maybe a few questionable MS67's have been recorded.

All coins, not just proofs it seems, from the auction footnotes in the DE Red Book and also in your Saints book. I can't prove it....but I'll bet that if the price of those 1933 Saints in the early-1940's was closer to $35 instead of $350......the Feds don't care about their release. Instead, you had a bunch of anti-FDR, anti-gold confiscation bootleggers making 2x or 3x or 5x or 10x on coins that never had an "official" release. No wonder the Feds were a bit peeved. Yup, and the demographics of the Baby Boom and the post-WW II economic environment were big tailwinds to all coin prices.

I'm not..... An 1859 Proof Liberty DE in 2004 (from the Red Book) cost $22,500 in MS-60 and $250,000 in MS-65. I'm sure the prices are higher, wouldn't surprise me if the prices had doubled since then.

Modern coins and recent coins didn't appreciate. The auctions for Morgan Silver Dollars in the late-1800's and early-1900's were for $1.05 or $1.20 at most for coins with a face value and silver content of $1.00. The 1907 High Relief -- something of a frenzy back then like those San Francisco Enhanced ASEs of 2019 or the privy mark Gold/Silver 75th WW II coins -- sold for $25 and maybe $30 right out of the gate then fell back below $25 a year or two later. A decade or so later they were $21 or $22, tops.

That is one crappy-made coin, if legit.

Thanks, much appreciated. I know the 1st Edition is fewer pages but it might have bigger pages. Just go to 1 or 2 sections on the Saints (I'm really not into the Indian Head Gold Coins) and see how they compare for maybe the 1907 High Relief and/or the 1924 or another year. If they are essentially the same except for updated information or if the 1st Edition had more of Akers comments (which is what 1 or 2 people alluded to). Thanks, JT !

I hope this doesn't mean we have to end this thread now. When ? Now. When is now ? We just missed it.... When ? Now !!!

Deep or Ultra Cameo, Hog ?

Modern high relief coins would be concave....and have the devices above the field. Not a flat field with a device above it. It'd be a circulation disaster with friction and wear.

The Satin vs. Sandblast (Matte) Saint-Gaudens Proof back-and-forth was very interesting. When you are used to Proof coins being shiny and mirror-like, anything else being called a "proof" would have been confusing.

Does anybody have this book and possibly the 2nd Edition, too ? I've located a used copy of the 1st Edition but only wanted to buy it if there was material information that got dropped from the 2nd Edition softcover (which I have). It's not inexpensive. I've gotten conflicting information so far on whether the 1st Edition contains material information not included in the 2nd.

If they had cared about the numismatic community, they would have filled a few bags with all the various years and mint marks for Saints and Morgans before they were melted and saved them for posterity !

Nobody was looking at the coins from different Mints too closely like under a magnifying glass. As long as the major details were pretty clear and not "mushed" the higher-ups probably felt it was good enough for circulation and/or storage bags. It wasn't until decades later that enough people cared about strike quality and other quality control stuff.

Curious Gmarg....I know you rely on your grading skills, but does the year of certification -- the type of slab -- enter into your decision to resubmit and/or crackout a coin ? We know that certain slabs and labels were associated with -- correctly or not -- tighter or looser grading.

Collectors send in a certified coin to the same TPG that certified it -- and sometimes it gets a new, higher grade (with a new label and slab, I presume) ? Am I reading this correctly ?

Fascinating Roger, thanks .....will I read those details in FMTM ?

Roger or another veteran can pine in, but having just finished Bower's RED BOOK on Morgans (I'll finish the Double Eagle one tomorrow ) I can tell you: The striking quality of Morgans at the New Orleans (O) Mint were consistently lousy. Why they never got better over the years I have no idea. Clearly, they weren't reading this website. San Francisco Mint had usually the best-struck coins for Morgans. Philly and Denver (when they got in the act) were usually 1st or 2nd or 3rd for a particular year. From a collector/numismatic POV, strike quality and luster matter. From a minting perspective, the higher-ups at Treasury or Philly may have not given a hoot. They figured all the coins were either going to get worn in circulation or stay in bags -- who cares about luster or strike quality ? Anybody who complained could just go buy the proofs, if available, right ? Anyway, the lousy surface quality and strike quality for Morgans comng from New Orleans and the usually good quality from SanFran easily got drilled into my head from Bowers' RED BOOK. Not sure I got any Mint segmentation on quality from Bowers' DE RED BOOK (finishing up) or even from Roger's SAINTS magnus opus. The details are there, I just can't recall any particular pattern Mint-wise 8 months after reading the book.

Whoa, that is a HUGE jump in grade, from 65, let alone 64 and 63. You've had this happen many times ? What coins are you talking about here ? Pics would help.