Copper spots on gold

[Conder101]

How large an area does the device examine? If its testing area is a significanr portion of the coins area it may not tell you enough without using a mask. If a mask of a lead plate thick enough to stop the x-rays with a small hole through it would allow for the testing of different specific areas on the coin. Normal areas and copper spot areas. That would allow you to determine whether or not the spot truly was higher in copper content than the rest of the coin.

[RWB]

Yep. We'd have to establish the testing protocol so the results are repeatable by others.

[BCoinman15]

Three weeks ago maybe a month I went into a pretty reputable coin dealer and bought a 1997 American Gold Eagle 1 oz coin. The man who sold it pointed out a copper stain on the coin on libertys knee area . I decided to buy the coin anyway and I only was charged 3 percent over spot at the time. When I got home and looked at it I noticed some additional little tiny looking rust spots unlike the copper stain by the knee of liberty . I wanted to know if I should send this coin to get graded or is it not worth it because of the stains? I will post a pic as soon as I can figure out how to . Thanks

[RWB]

It's bullion - nothing more.

[BCoinman15]

How do I post a picture can someone help this newbie out? Thank you

[BCoinman15]

Ok thanks for your help TN

[BCoinman15]

Are all American gold Eagles just bullion ? What about the proofs? Thanks

[PerryHall]

Are all American gold Eagles just bullion ? What about the proofs? Thanks

 

Most are just bullion. Some of the MS70's are worth a significant premium if they are in the right slab.

[PerryHall]

It's bullion - nothing more.

 

Don't forget that US Mint made silver and gold coins were just bullion in the late 18th century.

[Matt_dac]

American Eagles essentially copy great designs from pre-1933 US gold coins so they are just modern bullion. A bullion coin in an NGC or PCGS holder with a grade of PF70 Ultra Cameo would sell for a premium but even brand new examples from the mint may not earn that grade. Most would not risk the cost to try to find out if a bullion coin would earn that grade.

[RWB]

It's bullion - nothing more.

 

Don't forget that US Mint made silver and gold coins were just bullion in the late 18th century.

 

All U.S. gold coins were nothing more than controlled quantities of bullion. However the coins had commercial use and a nominal monetary value related to content. The modern bullion pieces are just measured lumps of gold whose nominal value is only there for anti-counterfeiting purposes.

[Nutmeg Coin]

It's bullion - nothing more.

 

Don't forget that US Mint made silver and gold coins were just bullion in the late 18th century.

 

All U.S. gold coins were nothing more than controlled quantities of bullion. However the coins had commercial use and a nominal monetary value related to content. The modern bullion pieces are just measured lumps of gold whose nominal value is only there for anti-counterfeiting purposes.

 

If you go back in various price guides, the red book, Yeoman, etc., it would be interesting to see how the prices have evolved over the last 50 years. Dates now considered highly desirable, many who have been at this hobby for 50 years or more know that most dates and grades were available at small premiums.

 

On the gold coins this seller has listed he accentuates that they have "no spots". http://www.libertycoins.com/coin.php?type=gold

 

NCS removes them for around $20 which is a good deal.

[BillJones]

It's bullion - nothing more.

 

Don't forget that US Mint made silver and gold coins were just bullion in the late 18th century.

 

All U.S. gold coins were nothing more than controlled quantities of bullion. However the coins had commercial use and a nominal monetary value related to content. The modern bullion pieces are just measured lumps of gold whose nominal value is only there for anti-counterfeiting purposes.

 

I think that they are a bit more than "just measured lumps of gold." For the most part I think they are attractive. You can't give this any points for design innovation, but it does look nice.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It's bullion - nothing more.

 

Don't forget that US Mint made silver and gold coins were just bullion in the late 18th century.

 

All U.S. gold coins were nothing more than controlled quantities of bullion. However the coins had commercial use and a nominal monetary value related to content. The modern bullion pieces are just measured lumps of gold whose nominal value is only there for anti-counterfeiting purposes.

 

I think that they are a bit more than "just measured lumps of gold." For the most part I think they are attractive. You can't give this any points for design innovation, but it does look nice.

 

 

I agree, it does look nice, except the 1 OZ. .999 Fine Gold thing.

Yes, I understand the reasons it has to be there, but it sort of gives it a late night TV shopping look.

[RWB]

Looking nice is fine, but that does not change its nature: a measured lump of gold. My argument is about wasting time and money on something commonplace and utilitarian.

 

Bullion coins are fine for accumulating gold if that's what one wants to do. No hassles later with assays and sample drilling as with bars.

[RWB]

Now about those "copper spots" -- what are they made of? (PS: Can't have "copper spots" if there's no copper available in the alloy or as surface contamination.)

[Nutmeg Coin]

Just curious as to the type of copper toning on this certified gold coin? http://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-double-eagles/1897-s-20-ms63-pcgs/a/1208-4229.s

[GoldFinger1969]

If you go back in various price guides, the red book, Yeoman, etc., it would be interesting to see how the prices have evolved over the last 50 years. Dates now considered highly desirable, many who have been at this hobby for 50 years or more know that most dates and grades were available at small premiums.

Not even that far....look at my posts on the 1922 Saint, how it is basically a common in the 2014 Red Book up through MS-63 but you and others are saying it's not a common and apparently the price 'takes off' once you hit MS-65. For non-commons and hard-to-get Saints, the prices diverge from commons well before MS-63.

 

 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

Roger, in your opinion what is the greatest improvement today vs. 100 years ago in making UNC/proof coins of higher quality ? Finer tolerances....improved metallurgy....better refinement of the metal (gold)...."better" presses ?

[GoldFinger1969]

All U.S. gold coins were nothing more than controlled quantities of bullion. However the coins had commercial use and a nominal monetary value related to content. The modern bullion pieces are just measured lumps of gold whose nominal value is only there for anti-counterfeiting purposes.

It was all based on the Gold Standard @ $20.67/oz.

 

The monetary debates -- gold vs. silver -- dominated the economic thinking for the country from the founding up through 1900.

[RWB]

"Roger, in your opinion what is the greatest improvement today vs. 100 years ago in making UNC/proof coins of higher quality ? Finer tolerances....improved metallurgy....better refinement of the metal (gold)...."better" presses ? "

 

Most of today's mechanical and metallurgical processes are substantially better - more robust and able to produce acceptable coinage for more strikes.

 

Vastly improved understanding of die degradation and the use of special coatings, has also improved the quality of products.

 

The biggest losses - to me - are in the aesthetics of designs and the final coin presentation. Modern minting results in mushy coins - and that comes from the complete reliance on mechanical reductions -- and now on computer reductions. The first big "mess" was the Peace dollar.....muddy, fuzzy, indistinct product was accepted as "satisfactory" and it went down from there. No modern coin has had the character and detail since then.

 

Stepping off soap box and into the frying pan.

[GoldFinger1969]

The biggest losses - to me - are in the aesthetics of designs and the final coin presentation.

Artwork on the ASEs doesn't impress you......Reverse Proofs, Proofs ? No other regular coin minting or special printing (i.e., 2009 UHR)?

 

Modern minting results in mushy coins - and that comes from the complete reliance on mechanical reductions -- and now on computer reductions.

I read a bit about the lathes used at the time of Saint-Gaudens in the booklet acompanying the 2009 UHR. You think using a Janvier lathe today would be best ?

 

If digital is done right -- 2009 UHR ? -- maybe it's the QUANTITY of the coin that's the problem ?

 

The first big "mess" was the Peace dollar.....muddy, fuzzy, indistinct product was accepted as "satisfactory" and it went down from there. No modern coin has had the character and detail since then.

Since BEFORE the Peace Dollar, right ? So you must mean the era of SLQs, Saints, and Morgans.

 

[RWB]

Drawings of silver eagles. Obverse: a poor copy of a first rate original; reverse: muddy, indistinct and commonplace.

 

Platinum. Often had good compositions and semi-fresh designs. Sloppy perspective and again, muddy die work.

 

The 1916 designs were made using Janvier reductions and then they were manually retouched to clean up the work and sharpen features. For example, compare the 1917 Ty 1 SLQ with the 1917 Ty 2 for detail and sharpness. The Ty 2 went from reduction to master die with little strengthening.

 

Neither the Janvier cutters nor the modern Micron cutting tools are as finely edged as the gravers a real die cutter uses.....the micron could do better work, but the mint wants fuzz because that extends die life. Of course, there is no reason to compromise on short-run commemoratives, but "why bother" when the mint doesn't even care enough about its product to hire a real ART DIRECTOR...as recommended by the CCAC 4 years ago!

 

As for "reverse mirror proofs" -- ugly ducklings, with snakeskin frost.

[GoldFinger1969]

Drawings of silver eagles. Obverse: a poor copy of a first rate original; reverse: muddy, indistinct and commonplace.

I don't get this....I'm looking at a modern ASE with Lady Liberty and you're saying the artwork/picture is NOT as nice as the originals on the Liberty Walkers ??

 

Platinum. Often had good compositions and semi-fresh designs. Sloppy perspective and again, muddy die work.

Don't have any platinum coins, but I suspect that they don't worry as much about quality control with their smaller volume items, right ?

 

The 1916 designs were made using Janvier reductions and then they were manually retouched to clean up the work and sharpen features. For example, compare the 1917 Ty 1 SLQ with the 1917 Ty 2 for detail and sharpness. The Ty 2 went from reduction to master die with little strengthening.

I'll try, this is above my pay grade.... My 2009 UHR booklet says that the Janvier Reduction Lathe was used in 1907 when Saint Guadens was creating the original (EHR) Saints.

 

Neither the Janvier cutters nor the modern Micron cutting tools are as finely edged as the gravers a real die cutter uses

Am I reading this correctly....you're saying modern cutting-edge technology ISN'T as good as what engravers used 100+ years ago ?

 

the micron could do better work, but the mint wants fuzz because that extends die life. Of course, there is no reason to compromise on short-run commemoratives, but "why bother" when the mint doesn't even care enough about its product to hire a real ART DIRECTOR...as recommended by the CCAC 4 years ago!

I'll take your work on the fuzz thing and agree 100% on hiring an art director....maybe they couldn't find anyone ?

 

As for "reverse mirror proofs" -- ugly ducklings, with snakeskin frost.

Not as big a fan on gold but on the 2013 ASEs they look nice contrasting with my 2013 Enhanced Finish.

[orifdoc]

Poor RWB is sure having a hard time getting his question answered..... Sorry, I can't help with the materials analysis, but it sure would be worth sacrificing a melt-value coin to find out.

 

As for the artistic merit of "classic" vs. "modern" designs, that's worthy of an encyclopedia.

 

For me it comes down to the difference between the buffalo nickel and the modern spaghetti-hair Washington. The buffalo and even the mushy Peace dollar show evidence of the human touch. Imperfections were imparted by the Janvier and subsequent die work, but it was a skilled craft "back in the day". Any fool can design a cartoon on a computer screen and impart it to CNC machine.

 

Certain modern mint stuff is OK, but they're missing the mark when they try to reproduce old designs. Real die work is becoming a lost art (the ancients understood it), and is probably impractical on the current scale of our coinage production. The charm of amassing a thousand small imperfections into a whole artistic masterpiece is gone.

[RWB]

Drawings of silver eagles. Obverse: a poor copy of a first rate original; reverse: muddy, indistinct and commonplace.

I don't get this....I'm looking at a modern ASE with Lady Liberty and you're saying the artwork/picture is NOT as nice as the originals on the Liberty Walkers ??

 

Platinum. Often had good compositions and semi-fresh designs. Sloppy perspective and again, muddy die work.

Don't have any platinum coins, but I suspect that they don't worry as much about quality control with their smaller volume items, right ?

 

The 1916 designs were made using Janvier reductions and then they were manually retouched to clean up the work and sharpen features. For example, compare the 1917 Ty 1 SLQ with the 1917 Ty 2 for detail and sharpness. The Ty 2 went from reduction to master die with little strengthening.

I'll try, this is above my pay grade.... My 2009 UHR booklet says that the Janvier Reduction Lathe was used in 1907 when Saint Guadens was creating the original (EHR) Saints.

 

Neither the Janvier cutters nor the modern Micron cutting tools are as finely edged as the gravers a real die cutter uses

Am I reading this correctly....you're saying modern cutting-edge technology ISN'T as good as what engravers used 100+ years ago ?

 

the micron could do better work, but the mint wants fuzz because that extends die life. Of course, there is no reason to compromise on short-run commemoratives, but "why bother" when the mint doesn't even care enough about its product to hire a real ART DIRECTOR...as recommended by the CCAC 4 years ago!

I'll take your work on the fuzz thing and agree 100% on hiring an art director....maybe they couldn't find anyone ?

 

As for "reverse mirror proofs" -- ugly ducklings, with snakeskin frost.

Not as big a fan on gold but on the 2013 ASEs they look nice contrasting with my 2013 Enhanced Finish.

 

 

Ahhhh...where to start....

 

There is a photo of Weinman's WL model in "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921." Compare that, or a BU 1916 half with the silver eagle -- not very close.

 

Yep. The Janvier lathe was used for the EHR reductions in 1907. The work was done by Henri Weil because the mint engravers didn't know how to control the machine. SG did not approve of the reductions made by the mint, but he had been told not to send models to Paris, as he had done in the summer of 1906. See "Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 for all the details."

 

The manual gravers that were used to touchup and sharpen designs were/are finer than the ones used on the Janvier lathe or on the mint's Micron. The Micron can do better cuts than at present, but that creates sharp, clear edges that also result in reduced die life (50,000 to 200,000 vs 500,000 to 1 mm/die).

[RWB]

"Poor RWB is sure having a hard time getting his question answered..... "

 

Yep. Guess I asked a "forbidden" question.

[GoldFinger1969]

Roger, how much does a die cost ? If purists like you want them discarded earlier, how much extra cost would it be if they dumped them sooner for a run of say 40,000,000 ASEs ?

[RWB]

A modern working die costs about $100 to cut. If there are no crisp details it will not need hand finishing (i.e., all normal coin dies). Some dies, such as the large 5-oz silver things, require a day or more to clean up the machining burrs and that increases the cost substantially.

 

When making billions of coins, $100 here and there mounts up.

 

My argument is that commemoratives should be made to a higher standard -- just like Hebrew National hot dogs.

[coinman_23885]

"Poor RWB is sure having a hard time getting his question answered..... "

 

Yep. Guess I asked a "forbidden" question.

 

NCS didn't have anything interesting to say?