GoldFinger1969

I do wonder why the Mint Director's letter focused on destroying them. Maybe he meant assuming it wasn't wanted/sold to someone at the Mint ? As we know, if you paid for a pattern it was (apparently) OK. So if the Mint Director wanted these patterns destroyed without exception (for whatever reason), I would think he would have said in the letter: destroy them...not to be sold or stored....melted upon receipt. I would think the chances of these being used as counterfeits may have played a part.

So if the Boston Museum sold this piece in the last 35 years, no way someone getting that piece didn't know about the value and history. It's not like it disappeared 90 years ago when it was only marginally worth more than the nominal FV. You buy anything from a museum, you're gonna check out the prices.

If this is true, wouldn't this massive destruction of supply be accompanied by a big RISE in the price of specific coins in those sets ?

...or a couple of Nilla Wafers.

The annual Doug Winter "What's Hot, What's Not" review is always a good read: https://raregoldcoins.com/blog/2023/12/29/the-annual-dwn-whats-hot-whats-not-list-2023-edition The first one deals with the Fairmont Collection.... I found it a bit confusing (will re-read it).....some Liberty Head DE's from Fairmont have outperformed Liberty Head DE commons....but with the expanded supply, you would have expected them to LAG relatively even if they both went up in price. I think this could be a case of the price being higher than a pure bullion coin but still "affordable" to many new collectors who found the rarity factor that Doug highlighted not showing up proportionately in a higher price (the article shows what I mean). Also: a case of the expanded supply of Fairmont creating its own demand, much like the 1857-S $20 DEs with the SSCA.

But were they ? I see the same debate in my financial markets.....where the debate is growth vs. value. You've heard of the Magnificent 7 and the controversey around their valuation. Well, you can make all the arguments you want but at the end of the day if those 7 go up and you don't own them or are underweight....you underperform....and you lose money....and then you lose clients. And it doesn't matter if in 2 or 5 years you are "right" because it's NOW that matters. That's what JA was talking about with that 1985 Gold Type sets. Would have been VERY INTERESTING if that bubble had hit a few years later when both PCGS and NGC were around. Would their initial "conservative" grading standards have held ? Would they have loosened ? I guess we are going to find out now somewhat in real time with CACG.

The price has come down a TON since that article and the Top Pop PR70DCAM/UCAM has gone from 7 to 23 to over 400 (I think that is both PCGS+NGC). 69's will sell for about $2,500 or so......70's I think are just under $10K.

CB, here's the link to the entire article and the key paragraph: "...I’ve had discussions, arguments with Joe O’Connor, Warren Mills, guys like that, these boutique dealers that really have stricter standard and will have discussions about grading and they’re saying, “John, you’re wrong about this and you’re wrong about that.” I’m like, “Well, I don’t know if I’m wrong and I’m not saying you’re wrong either. You just have a different standard.” So, it’s a certain standard. It’s probably unfortunate, Charles, because there seems to be… again, I’ve been a very large buyer over the years of rare coins as well. So, it’s almost like those who have the money rule. I remember going back to 1985 when the hottest part of the market, the white-hot part of the market was the gold type sets. Marketing companies were selling them as MS63. And there are certain coins in gold type sets, certain coins that were really the toughest ones, like Type-2 $1 gold pieces, and five Indians, for example. All of a sudden, literally, what is today’s $800 to $1,000 super slider Type-2 $1 gold piece was an MS63. It was $15,000 and people are paying $12,000 or $13,000, selling them for $15,000. To me, it was a head scratcher. I remember sitting down with a large group of– it was probably the 32 original guys that made markets– and the guys at PCGS. We talked about grading status. I remember saying, “Hey, these are 58.” And some said, “You can’t call those 58. They’re worth $15,000. They’re selling at 63.” I said, “Yeah, but that’s now. There could be a day when they’re going to be AU again.” Fortunately, I think that the more technical rules prevail because PCGS never got into that trap in 1986 upgrading AU Type-2 ones 63. Fortunately by then, that market had collapsed. For those dealers, sales came way down and then all of sudden, grading got conservative. But it is a fact. I remember laughing about it as a teenager, whether it was MTB (Manfra, Tordella & Brookes) or A-Mark or the large houses, would always have a disclaimer on their invoices saying that “Grading standards can change with market conditions.” That’s crazy. That’s BS. That’s impossible. How can that be? I could never figure it out. But they were right. There have been times in our coin market, I’ve seen it many times, where 2+2=5. And in this case, a slider Type-2 $1 gold piece, whether you liked it or not, it’s sold for 63 money. Therefore, it was 63 for that period of time, maybe for that year. The same with five Indians. Sliders were $2,000 and they became 63s. You could argue all you want and do no business or you can just go with the flow. The point is, I’ve always said, unfortunately, there almost is no real standard, and it does change with market conditions. Now, we hope to change that....." https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/ Yes, PCGS and NGC didn't start for another year or two. I think JA is talking about generic grading by dealers and the change in grading standards during this Gold Type Bubble was not 1 or 2 increments but apparently mid-AU's to Choice MS. Probably very forgiving of more than minute wear it would seem. Veterans I've followed all seem to agree with your market grading timeline. First cracks by late-1990's/early-2000's....by 2004 it was in full swing.

Not at all, I find him VERY honest. Go back and read his comments in the late-2022 CoinWeek interview about the 1985 Gold Type Set market grading time. You tell me if his analysis of the 'choices' is correct or not.

Where or how did you come up with those figures ? I don't doubt that many Proof/Mint sets were opened up and sold piece-mail for key dates or for a certain proof....but I agree with Kurt, I see TONS of these things at shows and many of them (most of them ?) are worth face value or original cost -- no appreciation whatsoever.

It's certainly a numismatic rarity from a collector's POV. Whoever had it -- it certainly wouldn't have had to be surrendered, either with the $100 gold limit and/or the numismatic exception, right ?

My understanding was that purchasing patterns was legal and customary since the late-1800's. Didn't Charles Barber have 8 of the MCMVII UHRs ?? I'm not sure if this letter would supersede that practice. Maybe, maybe not. At the same time these were happening, you had the legitimate transfer/purchase of the UHRs. Maybe because they were continued with the MCMVII HR and then the actual SG DEs it was different whereas these patterns never saw the light of day production-wise. But if this letter applies to the Superintendent it would surely apply to the Chief Engraver, right ?

Security for a show like that should probably cost about $5,000 a day. Spread over 200-400 dealers, it's not exorbitant.

Well, don't finger me, I wasn't even born yet !!

And yet I direct you to the late-2022 CoinWeek article with John Albanese in which he discusses how it was virtually IMPOSSIBLE to not market grade in 1985 when a particular Gold Type Set pulled a Ralph Kramden and went bang-zoom-to the Moon. You HAD to market grade or you basically went on sabatical for a few months or years -- or went out of business. That's not me saying that -- it's John Albanese himself who I think is a CRITIC of market grading -- and yet he says he understood why it happened, and not for any nefarious reasons. I wonder how much time CACG graders are spending per coin compared to the existing TPGs. You can't tell me that you can look closely for rub and unoriginal surfaces in the 10-15 seconds that these guys are allotted per coin. Not every human is a Mr. Spock, a Data, or even a Gary Kasparov or Bobby Fischer....our minds aren't machines that can act like clockwork for hours on end without making a mistake. Who are mustache and vazquez, never heard of them. I agree with the general thrust of your financialization argument -- I see it in the financial world with the proliferation of ETFs and other gambling-like instruments. But again, the "good" kind of market grading that Albanese described is at least understandable, if not forgiveable. At least the way he described it. I guess you could say I'm more for CONSISTENCY in grading as opposed to preferring either hardcore ANA grading or market grading.

Police should have an EASY time setting up a sting. Where's Henry Gondorff and Johnny Hooker when you need 'em ?

Roger, when did the Boston Museum sell the coin ?

I'm not sure about in this forum but over ATS they have had some doozies with back-and-forths by ex-graders and really knoweldgeable folks (not that we don't have them, too, just not in the quantity over there)...about wear, cabinet friction, rub, and friction. It's gotten more prominent and heated ever since CACG came on the scene and some coins went from initial grades of MS to AU under the CACG regime. I've learned alot, but if these experts and professionals can't agree on the definition -- or when it should come into play -- then how the heck can a lowly peon like me figure it out ?

Really ? HA too ? I would think they wouldn't accept large consignments because they don't want responsibility for them...it also might "cheapen" their brand...but if someone was a collector and had dozens or hundreds of certifified coins....I would have thought HA and GC might allow a few raws to be sold by them as an exception to the rule. Caveat Emptor, of course. No distinction between raw bullion vs. raw numismatic coins either, I presume ?

I haven't seen that, though at times seeing the imperfection on normal-sized 69's is VERY tough. A bit easier on those 5-ounce coins.

That's one of the things I LOVE about this hobby. Focusing on large-size U.S. coins -- Double Eagles, Morgans, etc. -- I have expanded my knowledge about the financial and economic times they were utilized. Maybe it's good that the more expensive coins have the more expansive history and stories behind them....it gives you time to save up to get more $$$ to buy your next one !! Seriously, for those coins involved in the gold and silver escapades of the Unite States, as well as their prominence in international trade, banking, and hoards....you have some great stories. Let us know if you pursue them.

Die breaks, die lines, die chips, die collapse -- were certain coins more susceptible to one or the other defects than others ? For instance, a large Double Eagle or Franklin Half vs. a Lincoln Cent or Roosevelt Dime ?

Where do you think this supply is located ? Is it stored in closets like my younger cousins 1980's and 1990's baseball cards ? Was this a case of they simply struck too many of these things and there's an endless supply like those mint and proof sets that we all got in the 1960's and 1970's ? If the holders of these coins are NOT numismatists...if they don't follow trends....then couldn't this supply take DECADES to come out as individuals (accidentally) learn it is/might be valuable ? Or their estates liquidate ? Or their heirs do ?

You guys think this pattern is accidentally in someone's collection ? Or that someone knowingly has it and doesn't want to divulge ownership -- maybe beause he/she thinks it will be confiscated ?

Do we have an estimate of how long they suspended work ? Are we talking weeks....months....what ?