Henri Charriere

In due course, NGC will be observing its 50th anniversary, or jubilee. To mark the occasion, I should like to suggest a modest proposal: an overhaul of its census to revise or reaffirm the accuracy of its number of certifications. Any ideas as to how to go about insuring this monumental, prodigious undertaking can be accomplished economically, expediently and with as near accurate results possible?

The continual repurposing of coins with jewelry -- wristwatches, rings, etc. -- is unstoppable. I have a well-worn 1902 IHC either glued or welded onto a tie clip. Sad, but what are you going to do? Untold millions of gold roosters were melted down. This one survived. Kind of. Melt is close to $400.

UPDATE: I re-wrote the seller and reported the item again and received a terse reply from the seller: "For MS63 a Fair Market Value is $875." Nevertheless, the seller persists in listing his coin at $1900. (The name of the seller is N_Y_Gold_Market. He joined eBay a year ago and his reviews are less than stellar.)

I had a feeling any straight forward black-and-white discussion on a coin exhibiting toning would descend into the maelstrom of likes, dislikes, and prices. The OP only wants to know, is it, or isn't it, i.e., the toning -- and only the toning, natural? Coins, as we know, are graded on strike, state of preservation (wear, or absence thereof) luster, color and overall eye appeal. Idiosyncrasies like errors (doubled-dies) three-legged bison, or even 1943 cents minted on copper planchetes all command added value, but like toning are descriptors which further identify a coin. They are not a part of the formal grade. If anything, they add or detract from a coin's appearance -- and value. This, ideally, would be a topic which would appeal to resident Mad Scientists and chemists, not those who are aficionados of blast whites or psychdelics.

There appears to be a wide chasm in grading skills as illustrated by Akers' cataloging this coin as EF -- the same grade assigned to your "Matron Head" just posted on the Follow the Lead thread. Me thinketh both would make suitable candidates for a side-by-side GTG quiz. 🤣

I bought the 1908 F20FG MS-66 now in my NGC Set Registry from a dealer in Winter Springs, FL for $637.50 in April 2019. I bought the 1908 MS-66+ now in my other set from France for USD 777. in the same year. Re the notation GAD, the 1065 (which appears on certifications made in the Europe office) refers to the original parallel 10-franc roosters (with some years missing). The suffix -a refers to the restrikes. I know nothing about the 10-Franc series. The French 20-franc gold rooster series was assigned the internationally recognized catalogue number: KM: 857. The Originals (1899-1906) bear a classification number developed by Victor Gadoury: GAD:1064. The Restrikes (1907-1914) were classified as GAD:1064-a. Victor Gadoury's name appears on the French Red Book, Monnaies Francaises. Every French coin minted from 1789 to the present has been assigned a catalogue number. I would imagine every world coin has been assigned an identifying world catalog number that is recognized and accepted by all.

VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!... old thread (07/05/20) critiqued. A Guide to selected excerpts: The first paragraph contains the first reply to the first question posed in my first post on a topic posted after becoming a member. Its author was none other than the Grand Master, RWB. Some 3 years later, no "Original," [1899-1906] Gold Rooster has been graded MS-67 by any TPGS and RWB's stance presumably remains unchanged. (The status of top-tier "Restrike" [1907-1914] coins, particularly at NGC, has changed exponentially.) The second paragraph contains the retort of a member who unfortunately hasn't been heard from in awhile. The third and final paragraph, and more particularly its tantalizing reply, remains shrouded in mystery. I have from time to time asked Cowboy to elaborate on "the real reason why", via PM, to no avail. I have two theories spurred by the two certifications of restrikes graded MS-68 ATS. They occurred in a vacuum without advance public notice of availability or subsequent public notice of certification, beyond a census. Their swift cross-grading at NGC suggests the owner(s) is a collector, as opposed to a dealer. The Great Zadok's prognostication that they will not appear on any Set Registry and may not surface again, if ever, remains true. My theory as regarding the top-tier Gold Rooster certification juggernaut ATS I attribute -- without a shred of evidence to support my claim, to my belief that, of the various gold hoards uncovered in Europe recently, one was snapped up by a conglomerate of numismatist-investors who recognized their quality as limited circulation pieces that would make them promising candidates for certification. (I would be curious to know whether they were certified overseas, or state-side.

I agree unequivocally and I have consulted a number of obscure sources. A distinction must be made between "circulation" strikes and what I refer to as "specialty" strikes, which includes various patterns, essai piedforts and those 9,443 matte proofs all dated 1900. Amongst circulation strikes, all fall with the range $1K to $2K. Amongst the specialty coins, none I am aware of exceeded Liberty Coin's [non-auction] sale price of $24,400 for a 1900 PF-67 which languished on eBay for over a year before being either sold or withdrawn from sale a few years back.

If everyone is entitled to an opinion, here's mine. If anyone were to go through all the trouble of toning a coin whose colors blend so subtly so as to make it virtually indistinguishable as to where it begins and ends, I absolutely reject the notion he would allow a black gooey substance (which can be eradicated with a modest application of Pepsi Cola) to mar an expression of his creative instinct. I believe what the viewer is gazing down upon is completely natural, inadvertent and unassisted. [As always, if I am proven wrong by a preponderance of the evidence wielded by anyone, I shall surrender my membership forthwith.]

Note: Following is my original response which had been withheld by Moderation for review pending clearance for posting... The two lowest top pops in the series, for both top grading services, are the 1901 and 1902 (Originals) with nothing graded finer than MS-64. That constitutes the floor, and core, of my set registry ATS. The Great Zadok's overall assessment is spot on. One need only look to Etsy to conclude there is no such thing as overpriced goods. Notably, the NGC World Coin price guide shrinks from the skirmishing that occurs at the MS66 grade, and higher, and therefore offers no ballpark figures. I have never paid 2K for any Gold Rooster, but at least one collector has according to HA records: $2,280 for a 1909 PCGS-certified as MS67 four years ago. As various hoards were discovered abroad, dealers would bid on them and bring in an expert on the series who would cherry-pick the examples that held the greatest promise. If spot gold continues on its hopefully inexorable rise, pricing will rise accordingly and it will presumably become more profitable to take chances with certifying higher grade-looking coins. Do some MS-67's command twice the price of their MS-66 counterparts? Indubitably. But the MS-68's, due to their uniqueness, will ultimately bring in the highest prices ever seen. It is my feeling, having monitored Gold Rooster developments exclusively for nearly 5 years, that many coin emporiums have reverted to the FDC scale with the result being it is up to the individual collector to make the decision as to determine their precise MS status. The finest possible graded set ATS presently is rated 67.375. My set squeaks in at 65.906. My wish is to breach the MS66 barrier with one, two or three more coins. 🐓

No. Why? Perception. If I were to consider mineral oil, which to me seems awfully tame, I might as well move on to castor oil, Vitamin E oil, kerosene, ammonia, turpentine or any number of odd facilitators I have never seen mentioned in association with numismatic activity.

This is one of the finest recitations on the state of the series published to date.

FRANCE 20-FRANC [GOLD ROOSTER - KM: 857] $500.00 -NGC WORLD COIN PRICE GUIDE, as of this writing. NOT $600, $700, $800, $900, $1000, $1100, $1200, $1300, $1400, $1500, $1600, $1700, $1800 or $1825, or $1850, or $1875. The figure given by the Price Guide is in accord with current MA-SHOP listings and prices provided in this thread last Tuesday: MS62 - $472.22 [MS63 - $500.00] MS64 - $725.35 MS-65 - 947.74

....just hadda havit. Now, where have I heard that before? Back in 2019. I was sitting up in bed, minding my own business, recovering from surgery, when I inadvertently happened to glance down and see a 1904 Venezuelan 20 Bolivar coin and, after giving it the once over, thought, not just "I have to get it" but "It's mine!" IT'S MINE!!! I beat out 30-plus bidders, now get this, for a coin I never knew existed, did not need -- and ultimately did not particularly want. I felt sorry for all the other bidders who had no inkling after nearly a week, they were all destined to be losers. [I sold it and actually got more for it than I paid.] As Archie would say to Edith, J.P.... you done good J.P, you done good!

Well, without a single objection from any chat board member, I did the unthinkable: I not only contacted the seller. I confronted him, asking him point-blank: "....what is the Fair Market Value of this item?" With 12 hours remaining on the clock, I received a sugary reply structured more to convince eBay that the sellers -- while keeping the listing intact -- would convene a dealer's sit-down, post-haste, to review the price -- $1900. for a 1906 20-franc gold rooster NGC-certified at MS-63: an unwarranted sum -- grade- and census-wise -- and get back to me. But the seller did what any true certified price-gouger would do: he simply sat back, and let the remaining grains of sand run out of the week-long sand clock. And the 1906 gold rooster? It was apparently re-listed as a fresh new item -- at the same unreasonable price. Now, if I raise the matter again (which I intend to do perhaps regularly, as the mood moves me) the seller with claim he's being harassed or worse, stalked. Let it never be said I don't have the collectors' best interest at heart.

Tokens will continue to get scarcer and rise in value. That's a good sign. It means your collection is becoming increasingly more valuable. And, as Martha Stewart used to say, "that's a good thing."

As the only member on the Forum to champion a return to old classic designs for U.S. coinage -- for one year only -- the 250th Anniversary of the founding of the United States in 1776, I introduced the term sestercentennial. Venerable veteran and seasoned member, VKurtB, was not amused and expressed his displeasure bolstered by ridicule, to that effect. Comes now the latest line-up of proposed coinage designs which will take us right through 2026, only the occasion will not be marked by the term sestercentennial -- nor for that matter Quarter-Millennium or Bicenquinquayenary, or any others that may surface. It seems the term adopted by a blue-ribbon committee authorized by an Act of Congress to review the matter has settled on SEMIQUINCENTENNIAL going so far as to include the term in its formal name. To sum up, even though Wikipedia states Sestercentennial is the proper formal name, Congress has already decided otherwise. I tell you, Kurt's got juice! 🤣

And when that insufficiently_informed buyer decides to sell, then what? We're talking 3- to 4-X the fair market value of an essentially common coin. Unless another member objects strenuously, I am going to report this price gouging attempt now that eBay has restored the space to cite the specifics of what a potential buyer wishes to bring to their attention. I am also going to contact the seller.

I don't think so, but then again none of those comparatively small countries boasted the population or development during the onset of the Industrial Revolution that would justify continual mintage of large denomination gold coins.

For the record... yesterday I regaled members on an item advertised on eBay for a flat $1,900., exclusive of sales tax and shipping costs. Today, simply for viewing the NGC-certified MS63 20-franc gold rooster, I was informed the seller had deducting a whopping 2% off his ridiculous selling price. [To fellow New Yorkers, that amounts to less than 2% of our sales tax. So now the selling price is $1,862.] Moments ago, I checked MA-SHOPS listings and spotted the following which ought to put this matter in perspective: For sale are each of the following 1906 gold roosters, all PCGS-certified, their respective grades and price in USD (exclusive of conversion fees from USD to euros). You the reader can decide for yourself whether my assertion of exorbitant pricing is valid. MS-62 - $471.22 MS-63- (unavailable) MS-64 - 725.35. MS-65 - $947.74. I steadfastly maintain an asking price of $1862., down in the past 24 hrs. from 1,900., is unwarranted.

I don't know which is worse... Banksy's desecration of the Lincoln Memorial, or the army of presumably civilized vandals who descended on the General Grant National Monument (Grant's Tomb) and covered its perimeter walls with colored glass tiles.

Welcome to the Forum! It just so happens I have a recent edition of the Monnais Francais ("The French Red Book") and will see what I can come up with... What you have is listed (in French) under the heading Second Republic - Second Empire - 50 CENTIMES. Second Empire, 1852 - 1870. Napoleon III, 1856 BB 1,195, 698 minted (out of a total of 24, 955, 738 for the series. Argent 900% 2.5 g; 18 mm diameter; Jacques-Jean Barre. The following were prevailing prices (2021) [French] Grades: B (Beau) or from USA - G-6 to F-14; TB (Tres Beau) from F-15 to VF-39; TTB (Tres Tres Beau) from XF-40 to AU-54; SUP (Superbe) from AU-55 to MS-62. PRICES (presumably in euros)...B: €30, TB: €50, TTB: €80, SUP: €200. The highest grade is FDC (fleur de coin) the U.S. equivalent of which is a range encompassing Mint State 65 to Mint State 70. The price listed is €700. Hope this helps. Oddly, it is the only coin book I have [courtesy of distinguished member VKurtB.]

New Yorkers old enough to remember the memorable ad, "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's real Jewish rye bread," featuring a cross-section of people including an American Indian, et al is what came to mind when I viewed an eBay listing today for an 1906 NGC-certified Gold Rooster graded MS-63 for the outrageous and unconscionable price of $1,900., not including NYCs nearly 9% sales tax + shipping. Well, dear members, you don't have to have any expertise in the series to know how to locate mintages and grades and corresponding current prices to realize the price being asked (you may submit your Own Best Offer) is way out of line. Through my discerning eyes, I quickly reviewed the record. The 1906 was the last of the Originals minted and by far and away the most common (and 2d most common when the Restrikes are included). I never gave the matter much thought until the Great Zadok referred to the series correctly as "bullion" and cited the lofty premiums of 500% in the finest grades. The Gold Rooster contains almost a fifth of an ounce of gold and with gold hovering at just below $2,000/oz, we're looking at a melt price of not even $400. I purchased an MS-64 example, one grade higher, certified, for $450. I can assure you gold was not trading at $500/oz. at the time (2019). Any original is hard to come by, no doubt about it. But to see a scam like this being foisted upon the public with the usual flattering descriptors serves to only reinforce my perception that unless you are willing to put in the necessary footwork, commonly referred to as "due diligence" I strongly suggest you be accompanied by a coin chaperone, or someone experienced enough to separate the solid stuff from the fluff.

F W I W: One website, Numista, offers up a wealth of information to Gold Rooster collectors including one little tidbit which states the F20FrGR series was demonetized in 1928 which fits very neatly into your narrative of your Key Fact. Another is the fineness of the gold content which is usually 90%. Numista, apparently sticklers for precision lists it as .9 [followed by 17 zeroes + 2. 🤣

I agree. Accidentally or inadvertently but not intentionally.