MarkFeld

MS62.

On 1/18/2023 at 6:29 PM, EagleRJO said:

This one was a dupe topic ... 

Thank you.

Pictures?

I didn’t read all of the replies but the coin looks genuine, cleaned and unnatural.

I'm deeply saddened to report I've been told by a friend at NGC that David passed away last night. My condolences go out to his friends, family and loved ones. 

On 12/19/2022 at 10:48 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I thought this article talking about the post-2020 price explosion in Trophy Coins by Doug Winters was fantastic and very interesting even though I don't really look too closely at the smaller gold coins esp. pre-1900:

https://raregoldcoins.com/blog/2022/10/18/the-million-dollar-liberty-head-eagle

"Before the Trophy Coin Era (which really began in earnest around 2020), the price of rare coins went up incrementally. A coin like an AU 1875 eagle was worth $150k in the 2000s, $250k in the early 2010s, and $350k in the early 2020s. Given its price history, one would have expected the next price increment for this date to have been $450k (maybe even $500k) in 2022. But this isn’t how values work today, and as a result we have yet another record price which is multiples higher than the previous peak of $372,000."

 

 

Doug Winter (not Doug “Winters”) is extremely knowledgeable and a great writer.

On 1/10/2023 at 10:19 AM, ChrisH821 said:

Looks like a counterfeit to me.

Yes, it looks like a modern copy to me. 
And coins should be held by their edges, so as to avoid fingerprints on them.

On 12/4/2022 at 11:02 AM, Just Bob said:

The fact that he was exonerated does not necessarily mean that he was innocent. It only means that there was no proof of his guilt.

However, the fact that Leech blatantly stated that he was mad certainly means his bias could have colored his judgement.

 I understand that his exoneration doesn’t necessarily mean he was innocent. At the same time, the accusations don’t necessarily mean he was guilty, either.

Why is it being assumed that Leech was correct? It seems that this sentence contained in the opening post should lend some support to the possibility that his accusation was unfair.

“Dodge was investigated for various changes during his term, but fully exonerated in 1881.”

On 11/20/2022 at 5:39 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

For Saints, Indian Heads, or both, Mark ?

The referenced thread was about a 1910 $10. My post originally contained an old description for a four piece ($2.50, $5, $10 and $20) 1910 Proof gold set.

On 11/20/2022 at 12:59 PM, Nutmeg Coin said:

Curious what thread was being referenced.

 

There is this thread where collectors are awaiting a final verdict on whether a 1910 $10 Indian is a proof or business strike....

 

1910 10 dollar Indian, any chance this is a proof? Update, Back from NGC! - Page 2 — Collectors Universe

That was the thread in which I’d posted an old Heritage lot description about 1908-1915 Proof gold coinage.

On 11/9/2022 at 7:40 PM, RWB said:

The following false comment was posted ATS by a well known numismatist. Obviously mistakes happen, but these are simply perpetuation of falsehood.

"The Mint responded by altering the proofing process in 1909 and 1910. The coins were struck on specially selected blanks and struck multiple times, but the sandblasting was no longer done. These pieces were struck on a medal press, multiple times, with special dies, and on special planchets. However, their appearance was still confusing to many collectors to that of a fully detailed business strike.
The finish used on these coins has gone by several names over the years. These have been variously referred to over the years as brilliant matte proofs, Satin proofs, bright proofs, new style proofs, and yellow proofs. But the name that has stuck has been the enigmatic "Roman Gold" proof. This term has been in use since the early 1940s, but no one seems to know the source of the term. According to Walter Breen (1977), the surfaces of such coins are "light in color, midway between satiny and mirrorlike, entirely without the granularity of matte or sandblast."

The first two highlighted comments are absolutely false. Satin proof gold of that era was struck once on a high pressure medal press. The ONLY difference between satin and sandblast, is the actual physical sandblasting of the coin at the Philadelphia Mint.

The longer third comment is also false because the Breen BS of "Roman Gold" has been abandoned by modern collectors and dealers in favor of the accurately descriptive "satin proof." Breen's term was totally meaningless and invented becuase he did not do the research necessary to learn what was really done in 1909-10 and in other situations at later dates.

There is no evidence one way or the other that blanks were "specially selected;" however, it is a reasonable idea when making a premium product for very picky collectors.

 

The “well known numismatist” has removed the incorrect portion of his post. While you obviously had no obligation to do so, if you’d messaged him, he would have been aware of it and taken action much sooner. Thank you.

On 11/20/2022 at 2:07 AM, pigeonman333rd said:

Sorry that's not my coin the guy wants 400 dollars for it. I figured offer him 200 but he needs better photos indeed but I got to stay off this post. Peace

The coin you’re being offered isn’t a Proof - if you buy it at an apparent bargain price, you’ll still be overpaying for it by a wide margin.

None of the replies have addressed the "looks proof like" portion if the thread title. If the coin merited a "PL" designation, it would be worth getting graded, though that doesn't appear to be the case, here. 

On 11/6/2022 at 7:22 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

Sorry, Mark, I promised to stay off this thread but this comment cannot go unchallenged. I do not for one minute believe this extreme measure is a viable option for those who wish to "test their grading skills...." Don't look to me to restore your credibility!  

It appears that you don’t keep your promises.

it doesn’t matter whether you, I or anyone else believes that what I described, is a viable option. What matters is what submitters of the coins believe. And I’ve seen posts from many collectors indicating that they submit coins for the reason I stated.

Now, in order to try to set a good example, I promise not to post to this thread again. And I keep my promises.

On 11/6/2022 at 5:40 AM, ldhair said:

I don't believe NGC will show strike doubling on the label. 

I agree and even if they did, I don’t think it would add any meaningful value.

On 11/4/2022 at 8:23 PM, VKurtB said:

So if I read you correctly, you’re saying that graders see little to nothing wrong with grading, but virtually everyone else with a gripe of any kind does. 

About par for EVERY course. 

I wasn’t saying that at all. I was saying that I didn’t recall any conversations with fellow graders about things (grading) having changed. That’s not remotely the same thing as saying that graders saw/see little to nothing wrong with grading.

While I was a grader, I had plenty of complaints about grading and I do now, as well. And I’m confident that at least some current graders feel the same way.