GoldFinger1969

I should have known that from the re-make of "Wild Wild West" with Kevin Kline and Will Smith !!

I think it was the Treasury personnel or the predecessor of the Secret Service. The articles on that period do use the phrase "Secret Service."

No, they were generally not allowed after April 12, 1933. But I don't see any legal dictum that states that -- it was most likely to prevent loss of gold from trade-ins from worn coins. I agree that the government didn't want wide-scale availability to the public. But I do not believe this applied to the usual perks and privileges afforded Mint workers, especially higher-ups. I haven't seen too many primary sourced discussions of the gold-for-gold exchange policy aside from the Froman Letter. But I've never heard of one that would indicate the policy was meant to absolutely prohibit ALL exchanges including those already promised to Mint personnel. Or those that already took place but weren't distributed. You keep harping on the "preponderance" argument and the civil course of action. Since the government suffered no harm from an exchange but collectors and dealers did, I believe that unless you can tell me that there's an order or letter absolutely prohibiting distribution of the 1933 DEs before a certain date, no prohibition should be enforced. Release dates were not black-and-white. Nobody thought 1933s were NOT going to be used/distributed. They minted the suckers up through May 1933 !!

You're just speculating. If someone at the Philly Mint sold them to Switt, what crime did he commit ? They could have been the personal property of the seller....could have been coins of numismatic value. Someone in the Philly Mint might have come into the coins properly and or done a harmless exchange and then sold them to Switt or someone else. Yeah, once the order to melt all coins was known, you'd probably want to get a few of whatever you could for every year. I don't think that's a crime for all non-1933's or the 1933's, either. By your own admission, you don't like U.S. gold coins, so I don't expect you to see things through the eyes of a collector of that age.

All at the Mint...maybe. Not necessarily the vault. You couldn't get into the vault. Except to steal 1928's......

Define "illegal." Are you saying that the Mint higher-ups couldn't have exchanged a few (paid for in other gold coin) if they wanted them for numismatic reasons ? There was NO OFFICIAL prohibition on the release of 1933 DEs -- they just never were because of what was happening in March and April 1933. If you wanted some 1933's once you realized they'd all be melted, who's to say that a Mint higher-up didn't let a mid-level Mint worker have that privilege ? And if they had wanted to do it in 1933 or 1934 or 1935...but didn't have the $$$....maybe they were told they could do it up to the day of melting. Or something like that. Charles Barber and other Mint officials took advantage of their status, as long as everything was an arms-length transaction...ho harm, no foul. Also, the Coiner had 1933's at his cage. Both from the assay commission plus the undercount of 1932's.

Smart move...he created free publicity, driving up the price !!

Maybe, althought I disagree. And it's been established that many of the facts that the government & Tripp relied on were false.

You obviously haven't read the advertisements and correpsondences among dealers, collectors, etc. from that time. The 1933 was considered in a group of "tough" coins to obtain not some unique stand-alone. It's really no different than the belief that the 1927-D was plentiful because many people who said they saw one or knew of a sale in fact were referencing 1927's or 1927-S's. Confusion and lack of a central TPG-like counting mechanism made knowledge of how many coins were out there very difficult.

What is ? The rarity of the 1931s and 1932s alongside the 1933's as opposed to a separate category ?

And imagine this in the 1930's where most of the information is dealer-to-dealer talk, rumours, hearsay, whatever.

I think there may have been a game of chicken going on. If you wanted a coin...cheap...you'd say you recently sold or heard of some sales at a nicely discounted price. Maybe you panic the other guy into selling. Certainly this was alot more true in the 1930's when information was scarce than today when prices are a few clicks away.

Definitely the case.....and with some coins like the 2009 UHR, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a 70 and a 69....sometimes even a 68 (unless you're a super-sharp grader/collector).

Registry & Type Collectors: We've talked here and in other threads about how many people collect Saint coinage. I looked at the total number of grading events at PCGS and NGC for the 1908 No Motto. Interestingly, the premium in high grades really collapses right at the MS-65 level. If you include that grade, you have a maximum of 65,000 coins available in that grade or higher (it's less, accounting for double-counts/re-submissions). Exclude the MS-65 level, and you have about 18,000 coins in MS-66 and higher, which does NOT totally cover the estimated 25,000 Type/Partial-Registry player estimate I saw a few years ago. The premium here accelerates in a way that the jump from MS-64 to MS-65 does not. It appears that demand for the Registry and Type collectors is satiated by that 65 grade which helps zero-in on the number of collectors. So those guestimates I had for registry, type, and investor participants in Saint coinage look like they are in the ballpark.

The history I am talking about is in the books and research that I have read or done. It's certainly NOT on the label so it's not being used to market. But I am admittedly unique in that regard. That's one perspective. But art and coins are not interchangeable so I don't think someone like me, hoping to eventually get my "artwork" in the form of an MCMVII HR, wants some painting for my wall. I don't.

I don't think they'll track those asset classes.

Could be as few as 2 bidders if they both want "the best" and there's only 1 coin with that pedigree.

OK...so that figure above is MINTAGE not SURVIVORS. Got it !! It seems like record-keeping over in Europe/France isn't as detailed as here in the U.S....and the books on the coins don't seem to focus on this information either. Saint-like books like those by RWB, Akers/Ambio, and Bowers seem rare or non-existent for Roosters and other European coins. I'll look around for some primers.

Wow, that's alot of survivors...I guess mintage was even higher. Any idea how many 100 Franc Roosters, which would be close to our 1 ounce coins ?

It wasn't just the 1933 that was highly sought in the 1930's. The 1931 and 1932 were also wanted. I have actual price transactions and some auction catalog ask/realized prices -- might take me a bit to find and compile but I will post it here when found -- for part of the Fab Five and 1933 Saint. This would be the 1931, 1932, and the 1933 (I guess the 1931-D they didn't care about since it was a mint mark). Year & Mintages: 1929 1,779,750 1930-S 74,000 1931 2,938,250 1931-D 106,500 1932 1,101,750 1933 445,500 Saints from 1931 and 1932 started showing up in 1936. Before that, they were hard to find. Like the 1933 Indian Head, because they were officially offered for release by the Coiner, none could be claimed to be an "illegal" coin to own. In May 1936, 102 1931's and 175 1932's started to show up in New York City and Philadelphia. They were considered super-scare before then with coin catalogs from 1936 showing $75/coin. According to collector James Macallister none of these coins were in circulation among collectors for several years prior to May 1936, when Israel Switt began to distribute them. It's very possible that Switt and all the collectors/dealers from the 1930's did NOT know that in fact the 1933 was NOT circulating outside of the coins that escaped the Philly Mint. Those who said it was super-scarce or tought to find or expensive to own...may have been going from hearsay, rumour, and chit-chat with other dealers and collectors. The 1931 and 1932 were believed just as rare but those WERE seen and owned and held by actual people so nobody had any reason to doubt they were out there. The 1933 was in the same class -- nobody had actually seen one/them until 1936 but everyone just assumed others had seen them and/or had a few. So....the 1931, 1932, and 1933 were in a group all together instead of the 1931 & 1932 with the 1933 off in its own rarified air. To collectors and dealers, the 1933 wasn't considered THE coin to own or the rarest by itself, just one of a bunch of tough ones to get with infrequent sales.

QA, did you post here how many TOTAL survivors of all Roosters are out there to compare to the Saints 3.7 MM ? Even if your figure includes different size coins, it would be of use.

The progression strike examples for the UHR were: 15 to 55 metric tons, 5 pics in increments of 10 tons. The obverse looked really bad at 15 and 25 tons; at 35 it was much tougher to see. For the reverse, you saw a really fat rim even at 45 tons and needed 55 to clear-it-up.

Since we are talking about 1908 Wells Fargo No-Motto Saints...does anybody have one in a high grade ?

It seems the lack of return address caused the problem, but putting it out there could be an indication of what is inside. You need a phony return address name if you are into gold or jewelry....like.....JOE'S DISCOUNT GROCERY COUPONS

Is that true ? Why were they seized ? How did they know what was in the package ? How long ago ?