FlyingAl

While it is indeed history, it doesn't make the actions committed any less wrong. History is there so that we may perhaps avoid the tragedies that have already occurred, and hopefully learn enough to avoid more. I thought this had to be acknowledged, though I have not doubt you likely knew this.

Any chance you are looking for proofreaders? I can hope, right!

I'm pretty certain that if another 1933 surfaces the Secret Service won't let it last long in private hands. Personally, I think the two 1922 Proof Peace dollars were more important, but that's me. I would place the 1921 Saint in the top 50 category. The SS Central America has to be No.1.

Not jealous at all... Ok ok I'm REALLY REALLY JEALOUS!

I have to disagree with this, because you just proved this statement false unfortunately. If you look at your scenario, this best time to buy was the mid 1970s (gold low premium low) and the worst time to but was 1989 (premium high gold low). The best time to sell is 1989 (premium high and gold low) and the worst time to sell is 1976-77 (gold low premium low). So the best time to buy numismatic gold is when the gold price is low and the premium is low.

Of course. Let me clarify what I'm asking here - I read an article that I believe has a false statement - it said that Satin proof gold dies were sandblasted. This has never before been said - usually the statement is that the Satin gold proof dies received no pre-striking treatment. This second statement I agree with. To prove the article correct, the Matte proof cents and nickels (1909-1916) - the ones that had their dies sandblasted, must look exactly like the proof gold that correlates to those years (09-10). If not, the article is incorrect. Basically, my comments regarding my question have nothing to do with Sandblast gold. Those are clearly created by an entirely different process, which we know is a post strike sandblasting of the coin.

I'm not expecting 100% uniformity, far from it. I expect distinct and undeniable variation in the results, and I expect that the Matte proof cents and nickels (1909-1916) will look nothing like the Satin proof gold (1909-1910). That is why I believe the author's claims are false.

If I may add to this - I believe the set is even more special than almost any other set because the coins are all undipped - and since dipping changes the surfaces of these proofs to not display the original surfaces (the texture appears different on a dipped sandblast proof), it seems these are becoming exceedingly scarce from what I've heard. @GoldFinger1969 I believe this is what @MarkFeld meant when he stated "messed with", although as he mentioned above it could be other forms of doctoring. I'd love to see a piece of undipped sandblast gold one day, but this show will not be the place unfortunately. Hopefully the set is preserved in its original state.

For the record, I'll admit that Roger's view makes the most logical sense. However, I'd like to see what Mark has to say about the coins in hand. If they are distinctly different, then the article is wrong. If not, perhaps we have to re-evaluate. Saying that you are right without proving it can lead to just the thing that we are trying to avoid - incorrect information being passed on for decades, until it becomes almost unstoppable. After all, all numismatic propositions must have time to be refuted, right?

Thank you!

What I really want to know is if in hand the proof gold (Satin) looks different from the Matte proof cents and nickels. I'm trying to find a basis for why the authors of the article mentioned would state that they were made in the exact same way if they look entirely different.

Well, since we have quite a few experts gathered here, I recently re-read an article in The Numismatist that stated that Satin proof dies were actually sandblasted, rather than having no treatment at all as previously stated. This would make the Satin proofs no different from the Matte proof cents and nickels of 1909-1916 and 1913-1916. The basis for this was the Liberty Nickels series and the etch change from acid to sandblasting (no conclusive evidence was given to prove that sandblasting was ever used on proof Liberty Nickel dies), as well as a wear pattern from the dies. Here's my opinion - based on the high resolution images from coinfacts, the Matte proofs (cents and nickels) have an obviously granular surface. The Satin proofs have no such texturing of the fields at all. I believe that the article must have been in error based on this, but I don't have an in hand reference point. Can anyone comment on the differences between a Matte and Satin proof in hand? Personally, I see no reason to claim that the Satin proof dies were ever sandblasted. I'm not sure why such a statement was made, so I'm trying to figure it out. Really, I would want any in hand opinion anyone has to offer. Thanks!

Impressive for sure. What a collection, and it paid off for him in the end! This is the epitome of buying eye appeal, based on the comments about the collection.

Yes, it's a hardcover book.

Rampage ATS thanks you for your response and explanation, and I thank you for the press release.

Is there a press release that I can read to see what topics are being discussed?

It was a good read, I throughly enjoyed it, particularly the goloid section.

How do you feel about wolves? I think I have a hunch here....

I think the only possible way to persuade the TPGS to adopt this is perhaps better counterfeit detection. I doubt this would ever be a selling point, so I think the idea is dead in the water unless someone funds the TPGS to do it for them, likely at a hefty sum.

I doubt he would remember it. Grading a coin is something simple, you just calculate all of the marks and how they detract from the perfect 70 grade, with a few added nuances like color or luster. You don't remember those marks, particularly after decades have passed. For example, I have seen a picture of multiple NGC slabbed 1933 double eagles. All I could tell you was that they all looked very similar. I would not remember a single one from another based on that few second glance.

Ironically, I watched a very good History channel video that explained this almost exactly as you said. In California in particular, seismic activity pushed plates of the earth's crust into buckled ridges forming shelfs with long cracks running though these bucked plates, like this /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\. The heat of the below mantle and the force of rock crushing rock created intense heat that pushed extremely hot liquid (liquid quartz essentially) that collected particles of gold that went into the cracks between the buckled plates. The liquid cooled, and so did the newly concentrated gold. What was left over is quartz gold veins. The difference in gold come from the different impurities contained within (platinum, silver, etc.) @Quintus Arrius, I could send you a link to the video if you wished. The visual would probably make more sense than my description.

This is exactly correct, and this is exactly why the hobby has chosen to adopt the TPG standards. They are more up to date and more correct. In essence, what grading comes down to is assigning a value to a coin, because grade is the main part of that. The old grading standards fell short on some levels, so they were revamped so that the grade more accurately reflects the coin's value by including attributes like colors, luster, strike, etc. This is how I see it anyways.

Roger, one could easily argue that since the industry has completely adopted the TPG standards without any second thought that input was given. The industry accepting the standard could easily be that input. Just my opinion.

I like the cat! I've grown up with cats my whole life and they just bring something new to enjoy and laugh at every day. I think perhaps dog people are a bit touchy when they realize what they missed out on

Plain and simple for this coin I think: The owner and buyer thought it was a 66+, for which the price would be in the ballpark.