GoldFinger1969

This made me sick....should have a contest for how many factual misstatements Stack's allows on this hit piece:

https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-6TDFN/1933-saint-gaudens-double-eagle

I'm kind of disappointed that David Bowers appeared on a panel with Tripp, and also that Stack's allows this on their website.  This guy stabbed the entire numismatic community in the back with his half-truths and support for career bureacrats at the Mint and the U.S. Attorney's office.

I used to post here regularly, but that major layout switch years ago made the site much more difficult to use and to look at.

Roger, I echo what Physics said:  other sites seem pretty active, and the layout of CoinTalk (CT) is probably the best of all the sites that I have hit and continue to look at and post on.

As for coin shows....it stands to reason that when you attend a show, there's lots to talk about.  Over at CT, we have a few threads that update on local and/or regional shows.  This past year I attended my 1st FUN Conference and that had a few threads of information, including one by me that talked about my experiences and tracking down my 1923-D Saint that I've wanted for a few years (Mission Accomplished !).  CT also reserved a room at FUN/OCCC and a bunch of us met up and hung out....it was nice to see the faces behind the posts....several of us also met after-hours.....I think next year the goal is to do that even more especially if we can all book at the same hotel so we can hang out easily at the bar, dinner, etc. (this year I was at a different hotel from most of the guys).

Of course, right now, there are NO shows around so it's strictly online blatherings.  Hence this post. 

34 minutes ago, RWB said:

"The above took more than a year of direct research (basically full time) plus materials I'd collected for the previous decade. The date/mint photos are from the Morse and Duckor collections, but detail images and others come from many sources.

The old book, although interesting, was a promotional publication. The one I wrote and Heritage edited is a true research publication. It won both Book of the Year, and Best Specialty Book awards from NLG.

I'm looking forward to it.  As I have spent more and more time researching (and adding to my nascent collection) of Saint-Gaudens coins, I'm getting more proficient in grading and judging the individual coins, but aside from HA high-res pics, most of the books I have (Akers, Bowers) are low-res.  Even the internet, lots of sites the pics aren't high-res or high quality.  So I'm looking forward to getting your book. 

I enjoyed FMTM but I think this book will be easier for me to digest with the pictures and the subject matter. 

Thanks Roger...that clears it up.  Just to be clear.....when you say "Treasurer" you don't mean the Treasury Secretary, you mean the Treasurer of the United States (person who signs on the left side of our currency), right ?

BTW, I'm getting the Red Saint-Gaudens Morse-Duckor book that you apparently edit.  On another site I was asking about the difference between that book and the Blue Morse Coinage book that came out like a decade or more ago.  Figured the Red book probably had more up-to-date information but was afraid maybe they dropped alot of the photos from the Blue Morse book.  They're not cheap so I hate to buy both. I'll get the Red one, I see it on Heritage.

10 hours ago, RWB said:

Simple question with a complicated answer.....Let me know if this is not specific enough.

I think your simple question with a complicated answer would NORMALLY be good enough, Roger.  But with all the downtime I/we have right now, I finally got to finishing/reading Illegal Tender which was the inspiration for my question and I kind of feel like I'm in a tug of war between you and David Tripp. 

I'll use the 1933 DE's not because I want to rehash that whole debate but because it does illustrate what I am referencing on DE's in general.  You had 3 production runs of the 1933 DE:  March, April, and May.  Forget the April Executive Order -- doesn't matter here for my purposes.  Let's also simplify things and say that a total of 450,000 DE's were minted, 150,000 in each month.  Again, just for simplicity purposes (exact numbers don't matter here, this isn't the trial  ).

Now....assuming history was changed and those 1933 DE's hit the public, banks, and European overseas just like their earlier brethren.....would they have been OK'd only when the entire 450,000 run was struck and minted ?

Or when the 1st batch of 150,000 was done in mid-March ?

Or even earlier, when you had a few hundred or a few thousand of the mid-March run ready, assuming you had the public asking the CSR at the cashier windows "Do you have the new 1933 DEs available yet ?"

I remember all the debate about "official release" dates during the trial and that's what I'm trying to pin down.  The 3 runs of minting give us multiple opportunities to release them (at the end of each run, at the end of the final run, or early in the runs for any of the 3 minting periods).  This is what Tripp never gets into, IMO, and what the cashier daily statments and that accountant (Greisser ?) never talked about.

In fairness, I don't know if you did, either.  Neither side in that case said that standard procedure was to release DEs as soon as the entire run was minted....or after each batch (of 150,000 in our example)....or as soon as a few hundred/thousand were minted in the 1st batch.  Whatever.

That's what I am trying to pin down.

And whenever that "OK to release them" order was given...when the bags left to go to Federal Reserve Banks or commercial banks...or when a few dozen/hundred coins went up to the customer service desk for folks who wanted a new 1933 DE or for those who took a Mint tour and wanted a soverneir....was this "OK to release" order in print somewhere.....OR....did the Director or Superintendent of the (Philly) Mint give the OK order or was it the Cashier......the assayer, who made sure that whole batches weren't "defective....or maybe someone higher, like the Treasury Secretary in Washington ?

Sorry to be so long-winded, and maybe there isn't a specific answer to this question which is why you and Tripp's book haven't addressed it.  Maybe this wasn't a formal procedure, maybe they just "winged it."  I don't know.

I'm just trying to ascertain, at least for gold coins in general and Saints specifically, who gave the final order to let them leave the Philly Mint into the hands of the public and banks ?

RWB, what constituted an "official release date" for coins in the 1920's and 1930's, when the telephone got more widespread ?  Did someone at the Mint or Treasury issue an "all-clear" message that let them know when coins could be released ?   Particularly interested in Peace Dollars and Double Eagles. 

They're minting hundreds of thousands...millions of coins....did they wait until a target number was reached and someone then OK'd them for release...it doesn't appear they were OK to release DURING the production of the stockpiles, right ?

If you are getting a common date, I would stretch for the MS-65 level (w or wo CAC)...the premium is worth it for the eye appeal and you'll enjoy a higher-quality coin (at least I do).  I doubt you see any AU's sneak that high; MAYBE MS-60/61/62.

Well, I feel that I know how to grade coins "fairly accurately" and CAC isn't meaningless to me. I also believe that I have more than "little to no knowledge of the hobby" and CAC still has value to me. So, I believe that your sweeping comments are way off base.

Agree with Mark, who has been generous with his time on these Forums giving us his opinion, advice, and expertise.

CAC is 1 more well-informed opinion. If you don't need it, you don't need it. Most in the hobby sadly do or at least benefit from it (and I include myself in that group).

I enjoy buying a CAC coin here-and-there and have no problem with the premiums the coins are afforded.

I do wonder, however, about John Albanese's statements regarding CAC and grading. First, his belief that there are clearly segmented A-B-C coins within each numerical grade -- I find that farcial. The graders themselves can't agree for sure on many/most coins up to 2 grades higher/lower, and I'm supposed to believe that some of them, including CAC, can tell which are MS-65 A's, B's, and C's ?

Please.......

Second, his whole mantra is that the TPGs got sloppy with grading, but wasn't he a founding member of NGC right at the time of the 1989-90 Bubble ?

I'm not blaming JA, but I think the whole A-B-C thing is ridiculous. I have no problem with CAC affirming some coins as higher/lower for the grade, but the specificity of the A-B-C trichotomy is a bit much to believe given grading standards and their variance.

CAC is basically grading the graders, IMO.

RWB, if so many of some types of coins didn't circulate, why did the mint make so many ? I am thinking of the Saint Gaudens and Liberty Double Eagles, especially later in each's production life.

If the bulk were used to do balance-of-payments transfers overseas, why not cut back on the mintage and make larger, easier to produce big gold bars ? As currency took hold, I would think the dropoff in circulation became apparent to mint officials comparing how many actual gold coins were used in 1855 vs. 1880 vs. 1900 vs. 1925, no ?