Henri Charriere

Believe it or not, some members enjoy reading the interesting back stories on your tokens. Year? Locality? Etc.

I am by no means qualified to pass judgment on this rare find, but if what you say is true and this thing has been floating around for over a hundred years, undetected, I am qualified to suggest that maybe it's time for the dealer to retire. Rare finds in bargain boxes are, well, rarely found and most dealers are careful to give candidates a good once-over before relegating them to such fates.

Yes, I have. But Ricky [ 🐓 ] somehow got ahold of the very first gold coin I bought, and secretly posted it on this thread after I turned in for the nite!

I can't say this would ever apply to me but I would imagine the strength of one's good looks, at times, would not suffice for formal authentication and certification. The last thing I need is to walk into a reputable firm with an electrum from Lydia in hand and have to submit to a cross-examination administered by a clerk: "So where'd'ja get this from? Got paperwork? ID? Uh huh." Slabs eliminate extended void dires.

I tell you, you've got to admire the rugged individualism of someone who regards an encapsulated coin as a superfluous impediment to viewing a coin up close and personally, in hand.

Unfortunately, this information remains classified for which TOP SECRET clearance is required. Not to be deterred, I have taken the liberty of reviewing the available statistics of two sites. Presently, NGC boasts 1.2 million coins featured in 150,000 registered sets by 17,000+ members from around the world. PCGS boasts 130,829 U.S. coin sets and 156,725 registered sets overall. My discovery of Set Registries was entirely incidental. I had never heard of them and did not know they existed. Do I "give a rip about them"? Not especially. As one TPGS described them, they are a tool for managing one's inventory. I don't know that I need one to keep track of only 16 coins. If I were younger, my perspective would probably be different. As it is I am too old to be a cut-throat now.

Somebody mention Roosters? FWIW: The 20-franc gold roosters from 1907 to 1914, according to Numista, were re-minted between 1951 to 1960 at 37,483,500 copies----nearly 1/3 of the entire Rooster series run.

This is as fine an example as any as to why God created e-mail. There are just some deeply personal matters that should not be permitted to come to light years hence.

@GoldFinger1969: You may recall the story about the Ecuadorian guy who walked off with a bucket of gold taken from the tailgate of an armored car which (contrary to initial news reports) contained two bricks of gold (not a bucket full of gold flakes) weighing about 85 lbs. and worth 1.6M (2006) in New York's Diamond District. Now that he had the gold, exactly what did he have? I believe the USG required that gold certificates be represented by a corresponding standard measurement or weight of gold of a certain purity. The currency to my recollection said "upon demand." That's my wee hours of the morning guess. [Edit: A silver or gold coin would fit the bill nicely.]

The uncomfortable truth is, by definition, coins graded 70 are little more than inadvertent and coincidental sought out by the perfectionist hobbyist much as one would a curiosity, oddity or error though not as rare.

Note: Delay in posting due to moderation. May be inserted by the OP after LemE replied some 6 hours ago. Some highly-irregular topics are being posted, of late. Mine remains among the all-time favorites: Off-Topic. Not to be outdone, a much-esteemed member took a powder recently with "Outta here." He remains greatly missed. Comes now, a gentleman who not only flouts the law and guideline, but violates Q.A.'s much-vaunted exemption No. 9: "nothing here happens in the absence of my knowledge and consent." Today's MS-70s and PF-70s may very well be tomorrow's TENS. And they will be as uncommon then as they are today. Near perfection is a finite universe. The chances of discovering heretofore unknown examples only diminishes with the passage of time. Only membership to the First Strike/First Day of Release club is more restrictive. Accordingly, the very rumor of a virtually perfect example is so suspect that TPGSs will generally view any submissions for that express purpose with skepticism. No need to announce your intentions publicly. In point of fact, though there are those who would disagree, the very existence of a 70, uncirculated or proof, is a form of error, only an avowed errorist could appreciate the true significance of. As a dues-paying member in good standing, do make yourself at home and if there is anything we can do to help broaden your body of knowledge, do not hesitate to let us know. [Thanks and Good-nite Moderation!]

In all fairness, on reflection, MS-66 RD doesn't come close to doing this coin justice. (Remember that scene in "No Time For Sergeants," where Andy Griffith is designated a PLO, or Permanent Latrine Orderly?) Well, this ought to be an EMF, for Electric Molten Finish. PL is too tame for this.

Satin finish. Hmm, where've I heard that before? Why those new centennial Morgans and Proofs! How can I forget? They're the ones I ordered... and never received.

@Cozdred: It gives me great pleasure, my Lord, to announce without further ado, I am in complete accord with both your decision as to the placement of the mark and the historical interlude you've taken me on in support of your action.

As to your first comment, I attempted to address this matter years ago here and was promptly shut down. The charge coming from a member? Bashing. Apparently, it was deemed in some obscure precinct somewhere that PCGS was above reproach. I can say, however, that their "system" for awarding numbers, aside from assigning points for grades, accrue from engaging in activities beyond simple collecting. When I was asked how much a coin had cost me, from whom I had purchased it from, etc., a figure complicated by wire transfers, PayPal conversions, shipping, insurance and postage, I answered truthfully, in euros. That was deemed unacceptable and promptly rejected. It was at precisely that moment that I asked myself, if this information is being withheld from the public, then who is it for? As to the second count in your indictment, I plead guilty, with an explanation. You collect Sovereigns. I collect French 20-franc gold roosters. I began collecting raw and, though I vowed I would never acquiesce to encapsulations, the pros outweighed the cons. Then, the unthinkable happened. I had slabs from NGC, but fully half the series I sought was by far more accessible in PCGS holders. I put the NGC compilation on hold and pursued the more plentiful PCGS slabs--at some point broadening my search abroad. Today, I have a complete short-set of Roosters, known as "restrikes" (1907-1914) here ranked #8, and a complete set of "originals" (1899-1906) there ranked #1. I am, for all intents and purposes, through collecting. If a promising "upgrade" were to become available, I would consider acquiring it. Fact: Despite over 100 million pieces released for circulation, a disproportionate majority of set registrants have great difficulty completing the earlier halves of their sets. I succeeded but simply tired of waiting for the Holy Grail to show up. All sets appear to have stagnated but not for lack of resources. It is simple availability that has stopped most collectors dead in their tracks. There are two reasons why I would re-assemble my collection here. One, the second runner-up at PCGS put forth a monumental effort to compile a letter-perfect, cohesive compilation; he deserves the honor I unwittingly took from him, and Two, if I were to move my collection to NGC, I would achieve the #2 ranking automatically. And, quite frankly, unless the #1 ranked player is playing his cards close to the vest with submissions I am unaware of, I believe I could attain the top ranking and spend a lot less time and money doing so. [There is always the real possibility some of my PCGS slabs would fail to cross successfully here, and if that were to happen, all my efforts will have been for naught.] I consider my options regularly.

To quote the late Joan Rivers, "Can we talk?" What's all this hooey about high and low shields? Is there no other place on the vast nether regions of this coin upon which a mint mark can be placed without upsetting the sensibilities of the public? I take it the obverse is out of the question. (Too bad, had I been the artist I would have placed it directly on the giraffe-like neck of Her Highness.) Barring that, we turn our attention to the collection of synchronized rubble that occupies the entire reverse. Even the most cursory examination reveals unoccupied space on either side of the crown at the top or between the flourish of curlicues at six different points about the shield. The two most promising points are the spaces lying directly above the bifurcated date, at 1 8 and 9 1. [No self-respecting Brit would choose to disrupt the sanctity of a date by vulgarly inserting a mint mark between the center digits.] Worse comes to worse, there is always the ample space available for use between the final 1 in the date and the colon following D E I : None of these remedial actions require the malarkey of much ado about nothing movement or migration of shields, or any other features. IMNSHO.

🐓: This guy sure knows how to drive a hard bargain. He puts pigskin over provenance! He's been here twice as long as we have. What're you going to do? Q.A.: What can I do? Without Ol'hoop I am nothing. [Might be a case of Ol'hoop's revenge.] And to think the Error-guy couldn't get a single star ☆ out of this. Sheesh!

If you would, I would like to have a better understanding of how the importation of a "hoard" is accomplished. Did someone accompany these coins through Customs? What kind of paperwork would he be expected to provide? The coins had to have been declared, but would they be taxed or assessed fees? If it had been me, would I be asked where I had gotten them from and to whom I intended to deliver them? Must someone be prepared to provide documentation as to how and when he had acquired a "hoard"? Must a complete inventory of the cache by date and number be provided? Are we talking something a bit more complicated than Quintus Arrius arriving aboard an airliner in Miami with a passport and CBP forms accompanied by a [reinforced] suitcase?

No, my friend, not so fast! A coin which came into this world as a newly born, uncirculated coin may degrade over time depending on parents, guardians--and a mischievous pet. A proof, on the other hand, has a distinguished provenance. The male of the illustrious, blue-blood species may marry a Camilla Parker Bowles or Meghan Markle, but regardless what happens, it forever maintains its anointed status as a member of a highly-coveted class of coins. An uncirulated coin displaying any hint of wear can only aspire to be "almost" unciculated. Not so the proof. There is no such grade as "almost" proof. "Prooflike," perhaps, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But once a Proof, always a Proof. Only a numerical suffix need attach, as necessary, to acknowledge extracurricular chatter.

Proof coins may be found in circulation. They may even exhibit signs of excessive wear, but that does not detract from the fact that they were minted as proofs and remain as proofs, forever.

I do not know that proof coins are graded any differently from circulation strike coins, but whereas an uncirculated coin can lose its fresh from the Mint status continually, throughout its projected service life, a proof coin remains a proof, forever.

[Gentlemen: Here's my entirely speculative guess on how that hole on the 1928 bag came to be... These bags were made of heavy-duty canvas which are flexible but have little give. One end is over twice the length of the other. To carry a "sack" like this, you can use two hands, or make do with one. With one hand, you would very likely fold up the long end twice and your forefinger and other fingers will do most of the work digging into the fabric the better to maintain a grip, with your thumb and palm acting as a vice-like back-stop. Look at the position of the hole. You can rule out mice; there's no food to be had, only metal. The bag is not so much "worn" as it is "used," The printing on it is still legible and strong. Shrinkage/pilfering/theft was not a factor. A small slit, not a hole, made elsewhere at a far less conspicuous location would have had a better chance of escaping detection if theft had been the motive. If these bags had handles like golf club carriers, there would be no holes. If this the probable cause of the hole? Only the U.S. Mint----and Ol'hoop, would know.]

Haven't seen one in the past,... let's see now... 3,640 weeks.

No? Then how 'bout from your right aye, yi, y'eye.

🐓: Hey, Q! He didn't mention, the unmentionable, in the same sentence hyphenated with dog, did he? Q.A.: Strictly off the record? Yes, he did. Miracles do happen, but it's best not to bring it up.