Henri Charriere

There are those who would beg to differ, but I feel this fits me to a T, at times. I don't know if I would go so far as to suggest ""Q.A." would be a suitable synonym though.

Pardon my impertinence, but I should like to know what, if known, would cause such a surface as this to develop on a coin? The overall features of the coin appear to be incredibly detailed--in short--fully struck. The coin suggests encapsulation at some point. The autumnal touch on the left side of the wreath, also apparent to a lesser extent elsewhere, suggests exposure and/or contact with a foreign agent or gas. But what of the date and legends? The numerals exhibit traces of kwashiorkor, a protein deficiency. I am not so interested in the grade which would not begin to explain the phenomena observed here. Granted, the detail is extraordinarily precise and very well-defined, but it is the multi-colored fields that interest me. Don't get me wrong! I like the coin but it raises many more question than it answers. Since we are not talking proof or traces of original mint luster--or even evidence of wear in the usual sense, I would like you to describe what it was that not only drew your eye to this coin, but prompted you to reach for your pocket and purchase it. I cannot recall ever seeing another coin like it.

It takes extraordinary courage to speak out as you have. Don't get me wrong, I cannot say what was wrong though it was a clear violation of one of my precepts that you are not to engage in de-capsulation, regardless of motive, as it runs afoul of one of my unwritten laws concerning willfully committing a sacrilege. But who's to say? This is what happens when graders are unwilling to straddle the 58/60 demilitarized zone and, palms open, suggest yea (an elevation) or nay (a de-escalation) whether deserved or not. My take is the member is pleased as he took a risk, placed his coin on the line, and prevailed. Who can argue with success? As most members know by now, an opinion written by a Federal judge is engraved in granite and speaks for itself. There are no invitations to discuss what went into its decision-making on any talk shows. Reconsideration are less formal--can go either way--as long as a fee is paid. I do not know if jimbo27 conferred first with his 26 other brothers and sisters, but what the heck? It's almost Christmas and everybody loves a happy ending! Nice going, jimbo27!

I am afraid I am eminently unqualified to expound upon the final dispositions of this beloved coin series.

PART B. NGC CERTIFICATION BREAKDOWNS FRANCE 1870 TO DATE Of the 77 denominations specified in the NGC census, the Gold 20-Franc piece by far reigns supreme with 7,493 authentications and certifications, as of this writing. With respect to the G20F Rooster, while only 5 have been graded MS-50 (two originals; 3 restrikes) a curiosity may be noted at the MS-58 grade: 62 (My theory supported by both intuition and experience is collectors submitted these examples uncertain---- notwithstanding claims by eBay or other sellers' to the contrary----as to whether what they had purchased were Mint State, or not.) While NGC does not provide certification totals for originals and restrikes, I should like to bring to the attention of members and lurkers alike, a few select observations... As readers can attest, I have consistently maintained compiling a complete set of originals (1899-1906) irrespective of desired condition, is challenging. None have been graded MS-67. Only two have been graded MS-66: 1899 and 1906; and only two have been graded MS-65: 1900 and 1905. As in the case of PCGS, both the avid collector and participants in the Set Registry (64 at NGC; 9 at PCGS) have encountered an invisible wall at the MS-66/MS-67 demarcation line. The number of restrikes graded at MS-66, presently, stands at: 666. The number of resrikes graded at MS-67, presently, stands at: 203. I am obliged to take note of one other rather astonishing, though little noted development... Two restrikes, dated 1908 and 1912, initially graded at an unprecedented MS-68 at PCGS in the past year, without notice or fanfare, were submitted to NGC where both cross-graded successfully, and promptly disappeared. They do not, and have never, appeared in any Set Registry. To my knowledge, neither have been offered for sale. A highly-esteemed member I have been told I may no longer refer to as The Great One has proclaimed I, nor anyone else, shall ever set eyes upon them in my lifetime. If his prognostication holds true, I may be said to be the current and all-time Rooster meister, but absent those two coins, I can never truly be the best. This concludes my year-end review of the state of certifications of the French 20-franc gold rooster as undertaken by NGC and PCGS. 🐓

Following is a complete list of the FRENCH 20-FRANC GOLD PIECE series, 1802 - 1914, which was introduced not long after the storming of the Bastille (1789) the French Revolution and the birth of the French Republic. 1. Bonaparte Premier Consul (1802 - 1803) 2. Napoleon I (1803 - 1813) 3. Louis XVIII (1814 - 1824) 4. Charles X (1825 -)? 1830) 5. Louis Philippe (1830 - 1848) 6. Genie (1848 - 1849) 7. Ceres (1849 - 1851) 8. Louis Napoleon (1852) 9. Napoleon III (1853 - 1870) 10. Genie (1871 - 1898) 11. Marianne (Coq) (1899 - 1914) a/k/a "Gold Rooster," released in two series, as follows: "Dieu Protégé la France" (God Protect France) 1899 - 1906, commonly referred to as the "Originals." "Liberte Egalite Fraternite" (Liberty Equality Fraternity) (1907 - 1914), commonly referred to as the "Restrikes." PART A. PCGS CERTIFICATION BREAKDOWNS. As of today, 12/12/22, 430 originals (1899-1906) have been authenticated and certified. Interestingly, 1 has been graded MS-45; 7 @ MS-55 and 28 @ MS-58. To date, no original has been certified MS-67, or higher. Only 7 have been certified as MS-66; some 38 @ MS-65. As of today, 12/12/22, 2,744 restrikes (1907-1914) have been authenticated and certified. Interestingly, 5 have been graded MS-55 and 17 @ MS-58. Notably, 637 have been certified as MS-66 while 66 have been certified as MS-67. For some time now, and particularly following a recent rooster-dump, I have maintained that set registrants encounter an invisible wall at the 66/67 demarcation line. These stats bear out my contention, whatever the reason. In addition, the compilation of a low-ball set, either now or in the near future, appears highly unlikely for two reasons: it would not be economical (current melt: $335.) and few of these essentially bullion coins bear wear and tear. [Stay tuned for PART B of my survey: NGC CERTIFICATION BREAKDOWNS, to be released shortly.]

I hope I am saying this right. If your slab reads (S) it denotes a dollar that emanates from Philadelphia and, for reasons I no longer recall, was minted in San Francisco, w/o the customary mint mark.

As a matter of law, this is true. Certiorari denied is very often misconstrued to mean "the Court upholds or agrees with one side over the other" and simply decides to let a decision stand without comment. There are, however, rare instances where the Court revisits an old case and a decision whose time had come. As Justice Louis D. Brandeis used to say, "the most important thing we do is not doing." In short, the Court must sit and wait for issues to be presented to it in lawsuits. In two notable instances, the Court reconsidered previous decisions--and changed its mind. Thus, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) overruled Betts v. Brady (1942) and Powell v. Alabama (1932) regarding the right of a defendant to be represented by counsel in all criminal matters, and more recently, Brown v. Board of Education... (1954) overruled the separate-but-equal doctrine as set forth in Plessy v. Ferguson (1976). As Justice Robert H. Jackson said, [The U.S.S.Ct.] is a substantially passive instrument to be moved only by the initiative of litigants.... It's jurisdiction--the reach of the Court's power--is limited by the Constitution itself, by statutes and by the Court's own precedents. The first question to be asked is whether this case is within the Court's jurisdiction. The decisions which the Supreme Court can and does reexamine are those involving federal law. What such law lies in the balance here were cert. to be granted and appealed to the High Court, which could conceivably become the Supreme Law of the Land? My understanding is this was a civil matter. Unless some heretofore unanticipated evidence were to suddenly emerge resulting in a cataclysmic shift in the trajectory of this matter, I view the matter as closed. I have no opinion on the matter one way or the other.

The one and only set of special postage stamps I ever purchased at a post office came in sealed envelopes (you could not view the stamps prior to sale) and I knew why. They were the "Inverted Jennies," originally released in 1918. In a creative twist, the U.S.P.S. reproduced them in 2019, error intact, but within the limited run were similarly sealed envelopes, released at random, with the featured inverted air mail plane printed right side-up--and it was those issues, unlike the earlier ones, which were more valuable. I would guess the post office sealed the envelopes to discourage rummaging. [Would I have purchased a sealed box or envelope of coins from a coin dealer? To be honest, yes. Why? Because to insist otherwise would be akin to impugning the character and good name of a reputable dealer. Suppose he were to turn the tables on me and say, "If I open it, I can't sell it!" Then what? Ol' Q is not the confrontational type. Just ask Moderation.

Note: Up a few posts on this thread, member VKurtB has posted an exterior of a 1951 box with the same penciled marking that were present on mine for 1952 and 1954.

Great piece! I seriously doubt you could duplicate this esthetically pleasing toning if you tried.

And all this time you labored under the illusion you were a legend only in your own mind!

Not enough hours in the day to review the entire historical timeline on these coins, but I believe the referral by the family attorney was made in good faith, possibly by a family attorney was made after conferring with a TPGS (which reviewed the cache years later). Frankly, I do not believe there was any around it. I am sure there are those who are incensed they had chosen that route but if the entire lot was declared contraband, maybe they should have hit the USG auction block. After all, what good does sitting in a vault, in perpetuity, do anyone? There are two schools of thought attendant to their disposition. If they are not legal to own, they should be exhibited. Throwing then into a depository serves no useful purpose. If that is the USGs posture, then they should be melted down and the gold either thrown into a cauldron, containing a similar fineness of gold, or used to Mint a new, smaller, Limited Edition gold coin dated 2033. Everybody in favor, say aye!

[In fact, I do not believe the assasination of the President was a Federal crime until after J.F.K.]

🐓: 1965? That's a typo! Shouldn't that have read 1865? Q.A. Surely, you don't suggest I tell him that!

Is it fair to say no one ever knows what the FMV of this coin is until it is sold?

I do know there were 100 Franc coins, but none featured the Rooster. The one minted in 2000 (without a Rooster) reproduced just the obverse of the visage of Marianne and bore a wreath with "100 Francs 2000" in the center, "Republique Francaise" splayed across the top half, and "Liberte- Egalite-Fraternite" splayed across the bottom. The gold was .920 fine, weighed 17 grams, was 31 mm wide, available in only Belle Epreuve [BE] or Proof condition, in an edition of only 846 copies. Note: 100 Gold Francs were minted intermittently from 1855 on (.900 fine, 32.25 g, 35 mm width, through 1914 (extending the Genie, or Angel theme concurrently with the Roosters, through 1914.) Interestingly (and I was unaware of this) the coin was downsized to the size and near-weight of the Rooster (.900 fine, 6.55 g*, 21 mm) and were minted intermittently in the 100 Franc denomination (1929, 1932, 1933, 1935 and 1936) for a grand total of only 13,791,116 pieces. As I am unfamiliar with these series, I am unable to provide a clue as to their final disposition and the French Red Book (which features photos by Heritage) makes no mention of it though the pricing and grading runs higher as would be expected. * This figure is not further defined. In the 20-franc gold rooster the weight of the gold is usually given as 0.1867 tr oz, or 5.805 gms of pure gold. The gross weight, with Cu alloy is usually cited as 6.45 gms. If I am interpreting this correctly, the size and weight of the gold 100-franc pieces minted 1929-1936 were virtually indistinguishable from the size and minor weight difference of the gold Rooster series, 1899-1914. Gratuitous postscript: I can only hope this contribution to the body of knowledge as referred to by highly-esteemed member Ol'hoop has helped redeem myself in his eyes.

As regarding gold Roosters, absolutely! But that may very well be true for other comparatively short series as well.

I am deeply ashamed to say I own two of these (because years ago I criticized a fellow member for intimating the intentional damage of any coin was somehow permissible.) One ring I have turned out to be an 1881 Morgan, and the second, a ring I requested be made from a 1937-S Walker which the artist assured me had in stock. I foolishly assumed both would be the same size (obviously, they could not be) but was even more disappointed the artist failed to inform me the mint mark would not appear in the final product. As it turns out, I no longer wear either not because I never liked rings to begin with, but because they interfere with locomotion whether by cane or walker. Finger bones do not yield easy to the unrelenting pressure of hard word, plastic and metal. It appears to me your photo depicts a Morgan ring that has been finished with a black enamel. Not that it is any consolation, but though Morgan and Peace dollars were widely available from banks in any quantity at their face value in the earlier 1960's, they were generally shunned because of their weight and the potential damage they caused in wear and tear on pockets.

No one knows the number of survivors. (I lack the security clearance to access that still classified information. ) What I can say is roughly 117.5 million were minted. The coins from 1907-1914 were re-minted between 1951 to 1960 at 37,483,500 copies; they are popularly known as "restrikes." The 1914 was re-minted in 1921 at 202,359 copies. [And 9,443 matte proofs were minted in 1900, the rarest date in the series--though no mention of this mintage is made in the French Red Book.] I have never heard of the 1900 referred to as the "only....collectible date," but it is the rarest in the 16-coin series (total mintage 615,000 copies) notoriously difficult to acquire, with only the 1898 Prototype and 1899 Matte blank commanding higher prices. In cannot be stated with any degree of certainty exactly what happened to the 100+ million Roosters minted, i.e., how many were melted down, how many left the country, or how many ultimately survived.

From my vantage point, with decimalization, a 9 would equal 6.3, but that would defeat the whole purpose of developing and implementing a new scale. I fail to see how this would appeal to a broader base of new collectors generally unacquainted with any scales. If we are talking moderns, we need to dispense with the micro-distinctions entirely. But the engine powering financialization is thirsty and insatiable. I guess we will have to wait to see how this all plays out in the new year.

Two things this thing's got going for it: 1- the coin, all other things being equal, is of a purer persuasion: .999 fine vs. .900 fine, and 2- the seller has "100% positive feedback. Unfortunately, its eye appeal, to me, is negative three. I fail to see the point in "minting" anything that requires you to manually cross-score (gouge out) a side. Why wouldn't a counter-punch suffice? Why would it even be necessary to do anthing at all if the reverse is blank? I have never found desecration to be charming.

Ideally, no... but who's to know? It's still too early to predict acceptance. If it is applied to moderns, it's do-able. (Just as a scale of 5 works fine with ancients.) With decimalization of the scale, wider applications are possible. But the line between an Edsel, and an Apple, is fine. [I have to admit the choice of scarlet to hype NGCX was a clever, eye-catching marketing choice.]

I take the liberty of quoting Conder101 who, in replying to a Aug. 11, 2021 query posed by edG_Ohio on a related matter, stated... "... other than for some coins on cultural heritage restriction lists (or counterfeits) there are no restrictions or duties on coins being imported into the U.S." (Empasis mine.)

True, unless you are afflicted with an ailment the cure for which has not as yet been attempted, much less developed: "Setregistritus," which causes the collector to lose all sense of proportion in his otherwise inexplicable quest to assemble the highest rated set.