1907 Wire rim High Relief Saint

[CSdot]

What would be a good bid range for a 1907 Wire rim High Relief Saint? The dealer is still negotiating the purchase, but is putting out the word to possible buyers for a quick flip. PCGS just graded it MS65.

 

I don't have pictures yet, hence the request for a range rather than a specific figure for this exact coin.

 

Thanks.

[BillJones]

The fact that PCGS graded it MS-65 makes the fact that it might be an MS-64 almost irrelevant. If it were to get a CAC sticker it WILL BE irrelevant.

 

The current Gray Sheet bid numbers are $26,600 for MS-64 and $42,500 for MS-65. That is quite a price jump for most people.

 

I would not get too hung up on buying this particular coin unless the price is right. These things are quite common, and they are available at every large coin show. If you have the cash, you can buy one, usually for slightly over the bid price.

 

 

I bought this one with the flat edge, which is supposed to be a bit better, for the "bid" price, if memory serves. It is in an NGC holder so that might have knocked a few bucks off the price. The coin is as nice as anything PCGS has slabbed for the MS-65 grade.

 

[RWB]

The variety with the fin rim (not "wire rim") seems to be a little more difficult to find in excellent preservation. The normal rim pieces are usually better struck, however.

[MarkFeld]

A reasonable price to pay for an average quality MS65 example would be approximately $45,000.

 

I would not assume the one in question is below average quality, based just upon the remark by the dealer.

[CSdot]

Very nice coin. Thanks Bill and RWB.

[MJ]

I would personallly pay 50K for an above average PCGS 65 with the right look. I would also not buy a gold coin without a CAC sticker at this level.

 

MJ

[BillJones]

A reasonable price to pay for an average quality MS65 example would be approximately $45,000.

 

I would not assume the one in question is below average quality, based just upon the remark by the dealer.

 

The same post ATS prompted a citation for Heritage auction sales that went has high as $67,500 for a PCGS MS-65. I think that is way too much money, even if the coin is a crack-out candidate.

[CSdot]

A reasonable price to pay for an average quality MS65 example would be approximately $45,000.

 

I would not assume the one in question is below average quality, based just upon the remark by the dealer.

 

Thanks for the intel on the price. I make decisions based on having the coin in hand, so no worries. The dealer is a good guy, so I suspect he was just being honest with his assessment. Maybe I should delete that part of the post so it doesn't confuse people.

 

I will add that I live in a small southern town, so this is not a coin that local dealers come across often.

[GoldFinger1969]

I hope to be able to buy a coin like this in the future....still waiting on my Lotto strategy.

 

Do you guys/gals think that when buying a 5-figure priced coin you are more likely to get a better deal from a local dealer, online auction, or small/regional coin show (Westchester, Parsippany)...or do you think a Big Coin Show (FUN, ANA, Baltimore) is better ?

 

At big shows, are dealers more likely to price stuff to move or do they realize they have more well-heeled buyers who are looking to spend and don't have to cut prices as much ?

[RWB]

The "best" deal is when you can examine lots of coins and purchase the nicest one for the least money. The source of the coin you buy does not matter.

[BillJones]

I tend to think that you will get a better deal at a large show like FUN, or maybe in a major auction. I purchased the piece I posted earlier at a summer FUN show. Despite the fact that the summer FUN show is far smaller than the winter show there were at least five or six pieces offered on the bourse floor including two piece that NGC had graded as Matte Proofs. PCGS does not recognize and 1907 High Relief $20 gold coins as Matte Proofs.

 

Like I said earlier, these coins are not rare.

[MarkFeld]

I tend to think that you will get a better deal at a large show like FUN, or maybe in a major auction. I purchased the piece I posted earlier at a summer FUN show. Despite the fact that the summer FUN show is far smaller than the winter show there were at least five or six pieces offered on the bourse floor including two piece that NGC had graded as Matte Proofs. PCGS does not recognize and 1907 High Relief $20 gold coins as Matte Proofs.

 

Like I said earlier, these coins are not rare.

 

I'm not sure what was meant in reference to proofs in the post above. However, for purposes of clarity, NGC certifies proofs, while PCGS does not. And, if you accept them as proofs, the ones I have seen would be more accurately described as satin, rather than matte proofs.

[BillJones]

I tend to think that you will get a better deal at a large show like FUN, or maybe in a major auction. I purchased the piece I posted earlier at a summer FUN show. Despite the fact that the summer FUN show is far smaller than the winter show there were at least five or six pieces offered on the bourse floor including two piece that NGC had graded as Matte Proofs. PCGS does not recognize and 1907 High Relief $20 gold coins as Matte Proofs.

 

Like I said earlier, these coins are not rare.

 

I'm not sure what was meant in reference to proofs in the post above. However, for purposes of clarity, NGC certifies proofs, while PCGS does not. And, if you accept them as proofs, the ones I have seen would be more accurately described as satin, rather than matte proofs.

 

Since I have only handled one U.S. Matte Proof gold coin in my lifetime, I don't really think much about the distinctions between them. At any rate PCGS does not recognize the 1907 High Relief in Proof; NGC does. From the two examples I have seen, I would not be willing a pay a premium for a piece that has been called a Proof.

[RWB]

All MCMVII double eagles were struck the same way, hence all are "satin proofs" or none

[CSdot]

I have never inspected one of these in hand, and if I have seen one, it was in plastic. How thick are the 1907 High Relief Saints? Said another way, how thin must they be at certain points of the coin to enable it to have such high relief?

 

When the US Mint remade the UHR Saints in 2009 they utilized the smaller diameter checker sized version rather than the normal 34.1 mm diameter size used for the rest of the Saint series. Presumably that smaller diameter helped to avoid having thin spots. What is your experience or thought about the thickness or thinness of the1907 High Relief Saints like those discussed in this thread?

 

This is a rarer higher relief version, but here is a profile view:

 

[jtryka]

When the Mint made the 2009 UHR Saints they were not modeled after the 1907 HR Saints at all, but rather a pattern 27-mm strike made on two eagle planchets stacked together. The mint later realized they had no authority to strike a 27-mm double eagle (I believe there is a 27-mm version in the Smithsonian collection), so they went back to the 34-mm diameter that was standard. Of this diameter, the we don't know how many UHR coins were struck as proofs but there are 19-20 known that were distributed to dignitaries. The remaining ones, 12,000 or so HR Saints were not proofs, though NGC has designated some as such. These coins would have been thicker on the rims and high points than a low-relief coin, but the difference would not have been as dramatic as with the 27-mm patterns and 2009 coins.

[BillJones]

Although I have been a collector for over 50 years, I did not have the financial means to own a High Relief $20 gold during the raw coin (pre 1985) era. My guess is the High Relief coins have thicker edges than the low relief coins. Our hosts could answer that question because they have place the coins in slabs.

 

The small diameter (34.1 mm) double eagle patterns were produced as an experiment to see if the smaller diameter would be easier to strike as a high relief coin. The mint personnel were looking for some way to produce a high relief coin from one blow of the dies. Otherwise it took multiple blows from the dies which required that the planchets had to be annealed (heated red hot) between each strike. (The regular 1907 High Relief $20 gold pieces required three blows from the dies to bring up the design completely.) I don't think that there was solution to the problem even using today's technology.

 

It would have taken an act of Congress to have made the smaller diameter coin legal for general circulation. I don't think that there any way that would have been feasible for a couple of reasons. First you can't have two coins with different values with the same diameter. Second, the new coins would have been compatible with the old, larger coins which was one of the key requirements for the High Relief design.

 

The 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 gold was made from scans of one or both of the surviving pieces that are in the Smithsonian. The scans were used to guide the cutting of the hubs with a laser. I don't have the photos available, but the 2009 coins are faithful reproductions of the 1907 pattern coins.

[RWB]

Original small diameter MCMVII $20s feel like lumps of gold when held....they don't have the characteristics associated with coins. Plus, they don't have a coin-like ring.

 

The mint was advised to use the 1906 original models of Saint-Gaudens design, but decided to scan a struck piece instead. To me, it did not make sense to go to a 3rd generation product when you have the original available. (The reductions and hubs made in early 1907 by Barber and Henry Weil were destroyed in 1910 on orders from mint director Andrew.)

 

The 2009 bullion imitations are rather crude when compared to Saint-Gaudens original.

 

If you want to learn about the origin and design of these critters, buy a copy of Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908. This covers the Saint-Gaudens and Pratt gold designs in detail.

[GoldFinger1969]

The 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 gold was made from scans of one or both of the surviving pieces that are in the Smithsonian. The scans were used to guide the cutting of the hubs with a laser. I don't have the photos available, but the 2009 coins are faithful reproductions of the 1907 pattern coins.

 

The book that came with the 2009 UHR goes into this in some detail and has pictures of the digital means used to produce the coin.

 

I have a few extra copies I've acquired, if anybody wants/needs one, let me know.

[PRosconi-migration]

When the Mint made the 2009 UHR Saints they were not modeled after the 1907 HR Saints at all, but rather a pattern 27-mm strike made on two eagle planchets stacked together. The mint later realized they had no authority to strike a 27-mm double eagle (I believe there is a 27-mm version in the Smithsonian collection), so they went back to the 34-mm diameter that was standard. Of this diameter, the we don't know how many UHR coins were struck as proofs but there are 19-20 known that were distributed to dignitaries. The remaining ones, 12,000 or so HR Saints were not proofs, though NGC has designated some as such. These coins would have been thicker on the rims and high points than a low-relief coin, but the difference would not have been as dramatic as with the 27-mm patterns and 2009 coins.

 

How can you even make a proof of a high relief or an ultra high relief coin

[RWB]

PRosconi --

 

Most of the section you quoted is incorrect...better to ignore it.

 

[PRosconi-migration]

Thank you for the clarification RWB. I do still wonder how proofs can be made of high relief coins. Aren't you already striking the coins multiple times anyway?

[RWB]

No "proofs" were made. All of the pieces were prepared the same way, with the same equipment and the same pairs of dies. There was no post-striking alteration as was later done in making sandblast proofs.

 

The authentication services try very hard to be accurate, but sometimes errors are made or mistakes (usually from lack of information) become ingrained. To tell the fellow who paid $100,000 for a "proof" HR $20 that "No, it's not really special - it just looks nicer than many," is to beg for legal action.

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

Above average eye appeal as most of these HR coins I have looked at do not have sun orange color as this one does. The hairlines jumped out at first look though.

 

As a matter of popular collector coins, reluctance, risk, anxiety, etc. go up exponentially for me as you go up the pricing scale, thus I have never owned a coin over $13K. Divisibility in economics and assets is highly desirable, hence the uber-rich's collector coins are of no interest for me, even if I were a billionaire. It would be interesting to see how many of the richest people would want to own a bunch of extremely expensive coins, anyway.

[BillJones]

Years ago $13 grand could buy a lot of great coins. Today it's almost like a down payment. The market is bifurcated between the average collector and the wealthy collectors more than I have ever seen it in 50+ years of collecting.

[jtryka]

PRosconi --

 

Most of the section you quoted is incorrect...better to ignore it.

 

Care to elaborate on what I said that was incorrect?

[RWB]

OK.....Your statement comes first, then the correction in blue italic.

 

When the Mint made the 2009 UHR Saints they were not modeled after the 1907 HR Saints at all, but rather a pattern 27-mm strike made on two eagle planchets stacked together.

The original small diameter pieces were not struck on “two eagle planchets stacked together.” Further, the reductions were made by Barber and Henri Weil in January 1907. In 2009, the Mint could have used the original models from Dec 1906, but instead worked from a scan of the experimental pieces.

 

The mint later realized they had no authority to strike a 27-mm double eagle (I believe there is a 27-mm version in the Smithsonian collection), so they went back to the 34-mm diameter that was standard.

Nope. The mint had authority to make whatever experimental pieces and in any material or size they wanted. It was up to the Sec of the Treasury to approve any proposed design/size change for production as legal tender.

 

Of this diameter, the we don't know how many UHR coins were struck as proofs but there are 19-20 known that were distributed to dignitaries.

All Extremely High Relief (aka UHR) pieces were struck exactly the same way: 7 blows on a medal press and annealed between each blow. Same for the High Relief MCMVII circulation strikes. There were no “proofs” or they were all “proofs.” Also, some the EHR pieces were paid for by the Mint director and assistant Director, and a few others went to Treasury officials and one to the President. Almost half of those struck were purchased by Charles Barber and were in his personal collection at his death in 1917./i]

 

The remaining ones, 12,000 or so HR Saints were not proofs, though NGC has designated some as such.

This is true, although the phrase “remaining ones” seems to imply some sort of difference.

 

These coins would have been thicker on the rims and high points than a low-relief coin, but the difference would not have been as dramatic as with the 27-mm patterns and 2009 coins.

The differences in edge thickness are noticeable for all three and quite dramatic when viewed together. The eagle-size gold pieces are very thick and feel more like chunks of metal than coins.

 

If you read Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 you will find this and much more information based on documents and events, not Wally Breen’s imagination.

 

[jtryka]

No "proofs" were made. All of the pieces were prepared the same way, with the same equipment and the same pairs of dies. There was no post-striking alteration as was later done in making sandblast proofs.

 

The authentication services try very hard to be accurate, but sometimes errors are made or mistakes (usually from lack of information) become ingrained. To tell the fellow who paid $100,000 for a "proof" HR $20 that "No, it's not really special - it just looks nicer than many," is to beg for legal action.

 

I believe I said that none of the HR coins were proofs though NGC has designated some as proofs, was that the part where I was "incorrect"?

 

As for the UHR coins, Akers asserts that all specimens were struck as proofs, and that they were all better classified as patterns.

 

Again, just trying to find out from you where I am in error, thus justifying my posts being ignored.

[jtryka]

OK.....Your statement comes first, then the correction in blue italic.

 

When the Mint made the 2009 UHR Saints they were not modeled after the 1907 HR Saints at all, but rather a pattern 27-mm strike made on two eagle planchets stacked together.

The original small diameter pieces were not struck on “two eagle planchets stacked together.” Further, the reductions were made by Barber and Henri Weil in January 1907. In 2009, the Mint could have used the original models from Dec 1906, but instead worked from a scan of the experimental pieces.

 

The mint later realized they had no authority to strike a 27-mm double eagle (I believe there is a 27-mm version in the Smithsonian collection), so they went back to the 34-mm diameter that was standard.

Nope. The mint had authority to make whatever experimental pieces and in any material or size they wanted. It was up to the Sec of the Treasury to approve any proposed design/size change for production as legal tender.

 

Of this diameter, the we don't know how many UHR coins were struck as proofs but there are 19-20 known that were distributed to dignitaries.

All Extremely High Relief (aka UHR) pieces were struck exactly the same way: 7 blows on a medal press and annealed between each blow. Same for the High Relief MCMVII circulation strikes. There were no “proofs” or they were all “proofs.” Also, some the EHR pieces were paid for by the Mint director and assistant Director, and a few others went to Treasury officials and one to the President. Almost half of those struck were purchased by Charles Barber and were in his personal collection at his death in 1917./i]

 

The remaining ones, 12,000 or so HR Saints were not proofs, though NGC has designated some as such.

This is true, although the phrase “remaining ones” seems to imply some sort of difference.

 

These coins would have been thicker on the rims and high points than a low-relief coin, but the difference would not have been as dramatic as with the 27-mm patterns and 2009 coins.

The differences in edge thickness are noticeable for all three and quite dramatic when viewed together. The eagle-size gold pieces are very thick and feel more like chunks of metal than coins.

 

If you read Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 you will find this and much more information based on documents and events, not Wally Breen’s imagination.

 

Thanks for the information. I own your book, though based on your smug arrogance I'm quite tempted to put it in the kindling pile.

[illini420]

Just wanted to add that RWB's three-volume Renaissance of American Coinage are probably the best coin books I've read in the past few years. Tons of great info on some of the greatest coins ever. Including everything you ever wanted to know (and more) about the high relief Saints.

 

If you can't afford to buy them for your library, you should borrow them from the ANA Library.