RWB

Normal rim HR $20s were closer to what Henry Hering seemed to be aiming for in November, but the Mint was done with any more models from the Saint-Gaudens studio. Had Hering been more aggressive we might have had a better low relief version than the one Barber produced. The fin rim (defect) pieces were accepted only because the Mint wanted President Roosevelt to have high relief coins. By late December Barber commented that he was afraid the President would order the Mint to keep making HR for 1908.

Someone likely use banking soda and a toothbrush to make it "shiny."

Yeah. Back then they didn't dry age the ribeye. They got it fresh just before cooking - the before-dinner version in Charmy's last photo.

Goldfinger started a thread on this subject which should answer your questions. You can also consult my Saint-Gaudens Double eagle book, "Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles as Illustrated by the Phillip H. Morse and Steven Duckor Collections" available from Heritage Auctions, Dallas, TX (648 pages).

Finding "the whole truth" about the 1933 DE from production to first public/private sale is impossible now. Too much was ignored and skipped during the 1944 investigation and the people involved are dead. The Mint also withheld the 1932 DE infill information and the persons with knowledge of those normal processes were not interviewed by SS. So conversations are about what-did and what-if.

Well, at $14 it's a bargain, just check silver melt value if you plan to bid.

Thanks from all !

The Saudi Gold story is one chapter in the book - not the entire contents. Here's the first page of that chapter, and a later page:

The marks on Washington's cheek would disqualify it from the highest UNC grades. (You've also got the very rare "Side Saddle Drummer" variety...

Are you recommending the owner spend $35 on a coin worth $25? That's nutz. A simple Cointain or plastic 2x2 will be fine and offer just as much protection as a slab.

Is the eagle wearing contact lenses?

Ask this person when they saw this occur or where they got their information. "Looks like" is meaningless.

The decision to make and sell proof coin sets was made by Morgenthau. Initial impetus came from FDR's staff to M to the Mint with M making the decision just after Louis McHenry Howe's death. Mint staff wanted to drop the matter.

No connection was ever presented between Switt and the Philadelphia Mint, except for issuance and revocation in 1937 of his gold license. The Secret Service reports mention no known connection by Switt with any Mint employee they interviewed. If you read the related material in my Saint-Gaudens DE book, it might spark some additional ideas. No one is trying to convince you of anything - only to present facts and information gaps that the trial court refused to permit.

No 1933 DE were ever reported or accounted as missing, neither was their any shortage of melt weight. Hence, there was no reason to check this or any other authentic gold coins made in 1933 or before. The Farouk export request was handled exactly the same way as previous export requests. It was only the coincidence of the inquiry and the date the Farouk 1933 left the country that it became "a mistake" after the fact.

FlyingAl - you might want to be more explicit with correcting the ATS post,,,, that is, specifically tell them the dolphin design was not the first. The first one looked a lot like the 1916 coins. The casts were found a a yard sale in New Jersey. Look up the auction descriptions from Heritage and Stack's-Bowers -- I wrote most of them.

All the die tables and related notes are in the 1936-42 proof coin book. Master dies and hubs were the same as used for normal, unpolished dies. Erosion is not evident on most proofs and certainly not on the master dies and annual master hubs. What you see on the proofs are products of sloppy polishing. Some proofs also show slight radial lines produced as the polished surfaces gradually lost their mirror. This is common on normal working dies but largely hidden by "luster" and larger scale die wear.

Lightly circulated common date/mint. Follow Woods020 suggestions and enjoy the coin as a way to open pleasant memories about your aunt and family.

Yep. I ran for local office some years back. No negatives about the opposition (I was the independent in a 3-way race), only positives about what I proposed to change and how that was better and less costly than the others. Came in 2nd. The winner - a bible college "minister" - lied continually and at will. Stepped way back from trying to help and be of public service. Still served on several state and national commissions.

A "cameo" has to have complete frosted relief on both sides with mirror-like fields. In the photos, I see too much reflectivity on the relief.

Thanks for posting the correction. The thread seemed to be growing with no one correcting the original errors. There is another version of the reverse with a different star arrangement, plus the one finally used in later 1917. There isn't much more information about these ----

Could someone here post on the thread ATS and correct things before it gets too far out of hand?

None of the members are "tied" to NGC or any other company. A message board like this one is composed of coin collectors with a wide range of experience, and a considerable depth of honesty that you will not find on esty and other garbage "experts" you've listened to. Mr. Lange is the Research Director at NGC and offers occasional thoughts as appropriate to the situation - usually about a posted variety question.

Many Mint press releases are superficial as far as numismatic terminology and usage is concerned. Remember that the US Mint was and remains a very insular place, steeped in "secret" knowledge and not comfortable with keeping details of how things were done. Had they been better at keeping engraving notebooks, there would never have been problems with 1936 or 1950 proofs or packaging, among just a few examples. There is also a strong tendency to deny obvious problems, then take destructive actions, and finally admit they made a mistake.

Here are cropped, rotated and tonal adjusted copies of the OP's original photos. They are simply too fuzzy to be of much use.