FlyingAl

Man, the mint was raking in the seigniorage! 

On 9/7/2022 at 7:26 PM, RWB said:

You know when you have completed revisions when your keyboard becomes sticky with coagulated blood from your bleeding fingers.

I believe I did something to the effect of 20+ revisions before the final product was complete, with about a month and a half of research and putting it all together. The help with revisions both here and ATS was amazing to see. Looking at my original post here, I find that even my original assumptions were woefully wrong. I'm certainly happy with it and the work put into it, but we will see if the editors like it as much as I did . 

On 9/7/2022 at 1:48 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@RWB:

[And to think schools dispensed with teaching kids how to write! No penmanship is being taught at all. The newer generation produces chicken scrawls much like doctors. Very likely these records were made with a fountain pen and sepia ink. Marvelous!]

The charts shown here are the best of the best for NARA documents. I assure you there are pieces out there that are downright unreadable. Sometimes the writing seems to be better or worse for the same person, perhaps based on how they felt that day or how much work they had to do. 

On 9/6/2022 at 11:37 PM, CaptHenway said:

Any news?

Yes! I was able to compete a long and arduous revision to this piece and it was sent off to the editor of The Numismatist in July. At that point, I was informed that article review takes longer than PCGS regular grading, that is to say 4-6 months. Should the article be published I will update this thread with those details. 

On 9/6/2022 at 10:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Nothing there should be offensive to anyone. It's history. 

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. 

On 8/29/2022 at 6:02 PM, RWB said:

FMTM-2 is in slow preparation --- it won't be out for a while...possibly late 2023. The goal remains machinery, mechanics, processes and operations - not specific coins. It's How and Why.

Two of the segments are largely finished. One explains how coins were issued and distributed in the U.S. before there was a Federal Reserve Banking system. A second explains why the U.S. Mint did not move to Washington City in 1800 with the rest of the Federal government. (Also explains why the "pressure to close the mint" did not really happen to the extent many claim.) Others are going to answer questions raised by collectors including some members right here.

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

On 8/25/2022 at 4:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Sounds like it was from YEARS ago, maybe right after Langbord.  

I heard and read similar stories about overseas 1933's and it MAY be true but I can't see anybody bringing them back now as they would be seized immediately.  We also had 1 domestic U.S. 1933 Saint that was "volunarily" (!) handed over to the government in 2018. 

I'm pretty certain that if another 1933 surfaces the Secret Service won't let it last long in private hands. 

On 8/25/2022 at 5:31 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Heritage said this about the 1921 SP Saint:  "We believe the appearance of the 1921 proof double eagle is one of the most important numismatic discoveries of the 21st century."  

I know they want to write exciting marketing pieces, but come on....maybe say it's one of the most important Saint-Gaudens numismatic discoveries ??

But the entire numismatic hobby ?  How about the hoards, Wells Fargo to SS Central America ?

I'm not an expert or even an experienced numismatist....and even though I am a Saint fan....I would say that this "discovery" is MAYBE Top 20 of the last 100-125 years.  I doubt it's Top 10.

JMHO....I'm re-reading the HA piece and then will hit Roger's book later this evening for his section on the coins in case we re-visit this (it was talked about over on the CAC Forums). 

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.

On 8/17/2022 at 9:25 PM, Cat Bath said:

Check out Elite's proof set of saints.  (New owner of the Koessl set)

https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/20-gold-major-sets/st-gaudens-20-gold-basic-set-proof-1908-1915/101

Also check out the consecutive cert. numbers (XXXXX908-XXXXX915) 

The 1913 has a different number

 

Not jealous at all... 

Ok ok I'm REALLY REALLY JEALOUS!

On 8/14/2022 at 10:43 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's counterintuitive, but when the premium is HIGH and the gold price LOW...that tends to be when it is best to buy numismatic gold.  However, you still might make more money on a big sustained rise in gold by buying pure bullion coins.  You still make $$$ with the numimsatics, just not as much. 

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. 

On 7/28/2022 at 3:26 PM, RWB said:

Sandblasted coins are each unique - the abrasion pattern cannot be duplicated. Matte cents and nickels will be almost identical subject to slight changes in the dies imparted by metal fatigue/stress. But matte proof nickels will never have the same kind of surface as a sandblasted coin -- die hardening and tempering always moderate the die surface.

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. 

On 7/28/2022 at 2:05 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Is it possible, just possible, that because we are talking about at least three different metals, of varying fineness, and industrial strength usage utilized by different people at different times, 100% uniformity in results is perhaps expecting too much? Maybe with the advances that have since been made, a more precise definition can be arrived at. The technology, I assume, is available and, with so many variables to consider, a departure however minute, would be ascertainable and acceptable to everyone's exacting standards.

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. 

On 7/28/2022 at 5:31 AM, MarkFeld said:

For those of you who aren’t real familiar with 1908-1915 Proof gold coins - in addition to their beauty, original examples of each year offer their own distinct color/appearance/texture. My personal favorite is 1911, which typically displays - as I have seen it described - “crystalline, nearly diamond-like facets”.

Numismatists who have examined enough original survivors of each year can determine the date of the coin, just by looking at the reverse. Sadly, so many of these coins have been messed with over the years, that a lot of them have lost their distinctive appearance. That makes Mr. Koessl’s set all the more special.

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? 

On 7/27/2022 at 3:16 PM, MarkFeld said:

They do to me. That said, maybe if I sat down with a couple examples of each and compared them I’d have a different answer. If/when I can do that, I’ll do so and report back.

Thank you!

On 7/27/2022 at 2:51 PM, MarkFeld said:

Are you asking about the difference - granular vs. lack of texturing - between Matte and Satin Proof cents and nickels, Proof gold or both groups of coins?

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. 

On 7/25/2022 at 3:41 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Wizard is stating the book is hardbound, is that accurate?

Yes, it's a hardcover book. 

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

On 7/20/2022 at 5:39 AM, RWB said:

The complete Franklin half dollar story is in my book "Saudi Gold" which is currently being printed.

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

On 7/20/2022 at 8:43 AM, RWB said:

In includes a lot of the outrageous - and plain stupid - coinage ideas put forth in the 19th century. It contains a lot of new information about these projects and corrects many past errors.

 

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

On 7/19/2022 at 8:08 PM, RWB said:

Indoor cats can be comforting pets. Outside, all should be destroyed....just like any other invasive and harmful species. Think Japanese beetles, "frankenfish," pythons in Florida, on and on....

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. 

On 7/16/2022 at 9:15 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Thinking more of Fred Weinberg's encounter with a 1933 Saint Double Eagle in 1977...he must have had very little time to look at it (or maybe he's just not familiar with Saints in general) because one thing I've been told here and on other forums is that experts can look at a coin like that in seconds and determine the grade.

In his case, he didn't see a very distinguishing mark on the obverse.  It's too bad. 

I believe he is now retired or retiring so maybe he'll be a guest speaker at some big coin shows and elaborate further on this.  Would love to hear about stories like this and other interesting coins he encountered over the decades. 

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. 

On 7/17/2022 at 1:34 PM, Oldhoopster said:

Gold (and metal)  deposits are formed from melted rocks solidifying deep underground over long periods of time.  There's a lot of other stuff in the melt that will solidify at different times, sometimes staying separate, but most times forming oxides (think of granite).  Over time, extremely hot, highly pressurized water (because its deep underground) may circulate through the solidified rock and concentrate the metals. 

This happened over millions of years.  Since the composition of the original rock varied depending on the location, the trace minerals will vary as well in the metal.  That's why gold deposits are different.  

It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the general idea.  Hope this helps

Edit to add:

So if you know the trace element characteristics of the coin, you can match those concentrations with the metal in the ore body and get a general idea where the gold is from.  

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.