Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book
6 6

2,182 posts in this topic

On 8/1/2021 at 11:15 PM, Ross J said:

Mr. Weitzman didn't reveal himself as the owner until the coin was consigned for auction 19 years after he bought it. 

Very true...but he did at that time he decided to sell it, kudos to him.  And he also very generously made it available to the public previously so I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with SW's custodianship of the 1933 Saint from 2002-2021 whatsoever. (thumbsu

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2021 at 11:15 PM, Ross J said:

I personally think it's a good rule of thumb not to blab about one's coin collection for any number of reasons.  You can probably tell I'm not a fan of "registry sets". 

I am afraid I am going to have to fall in with @GoldFinger1969 on this one.  It appears I am the most vocal of 40 active 🐓 collectors and maintain two set registries, a third small compilation consisting of examples that have been superseded and a few raw ones that would likely grade out in the lower MS-60's.  I have a user name, my wife and I are 66 and 70 respectively, live in a high-crime neighborhood, and leave all my windows -- and front door unlocked.  I am content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2021 at 12:14 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

it probably WON'T turn out to be a good investment.

Well Mr. Weitzman's name is now added to the Farouk-Fenton coin, and I would say it was a decent investment, all the while, anonymously!  After all, who want's to be hounded by a bunch of coin dealers because they know you have a trophy coin.  Have you met some of these guys?  Yecch!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 3:59 PM, Ross J said:

Well Mr. Weitzman's name is now added to the Farouk-Fenton coin, and I would say it was a decent investment, all the while, anonymously!  After all, who want's to be hounded by a bunch of coin dealers because they know you have a trophy coin.  Have you met some of these guys?  Yecch!  

That may very well be true, but the rare exception in the furtherance of knowledge should be granted those whose life experience, impeccable credentials, irrrproachable virtue and sterling reputation in all things numismatic, make it all but illogical to deny a simple request.   🐓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 3:59 PM, Ross J said:

Well Mr. Weitzman's name is now added to the Farouk-Fenton coin, and I would say it was a decent investment

5% a year...you would think buying the only 1933 Saint-Gaudens would have generated a better return.  But as many of us have posted here, that is the exception.

And historical returns for most coins going back 50 or 60 or 70 or more years.....are absolutely useless because of the 1-time rise in precious metals in the 1970's and the entire monetary and exchange rate revolution we saw.

The per-annual return just matches that for the MS-67 1908-S Norweb Double Eagle, considered one of the most beautiful Saints existing today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 4:11 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

That may very well be true, but the rare exception in the furtherance of knowledge should be granted those whose life experience, impeccable credentials, irrrproachable virtue and sterling reputation in all things numismatic, make it all but illogical to deny a simple request.   🐓

there r very few such individuals......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 6:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

5% a year...you would think buying the only 1933 Saint-Gaudens would have generated a better return.  But as many of us have posted here, that is the exception.

And historical returns for most coins going back 50 or 60 or 70 or more years.....are absolutely useless because of the 1-time rise in precious metals in the 1970's and the entire monetary and exchange rate revolution we saw.

The per-annual return just matches that for the MS-67 1908-S Norweb Double Eagle, considered one of the most beautiful Saints existing today.

 

P.S.  And let's not forget the antics of the Hunt brothers in '79 or was it '80.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 6:47 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

P.S.  And let's not forget the antics of the Hunt brothers in '79 or was it '80.

It might have exaggerated the move up in silver, and maybe the move down, but longer-term silver still went from $1/oz. in 1969 to $20/oz. in early-1980 on its own.

And the Hunts had no positions in the gold futures market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 2:59 PM, Ross J said:

Well Mr. Weitzman's name is now added to the Farouk-Fenton coin, and I would say it was a decent investment, all the while, anonymously!  After all, who want's to be hounded by a bunch of coin dealers because they know you have a trophy coin.  Have you met some of these guys?  Yecch!  

Mr. Weitzman deserves no special thanks. The new owner of the legal 1933DE has already put it on display next week in Rosemont. I’ve personally gotten to see at least 14 different 1933DE’s. The Langbord 10, the Smithsonian 2, the Farouk/Weitzman one before Weitzman bought it, and the one voluntarily surrendered after the Langbord case. I don’t buy this garbage that they are “lost to us”. Not even a tiny bit. They will be around. You just have to put down the stinking mouse and get on the road a little.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[None of my business, but personally I'd be much more impressed if you were to gain access to the coin that got away.  No, not the Walton "specimen" but that coin @RWB was effectively barred from seeing for unknown reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2021 at 10:00 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[None of my business, but personally I'd be much more impressed if you were to gain access to the coin that got away.  No, not the Walton "specimen" but that coin @RWB was effectively barred from seeing for unknown reasons.

I believe, but do not know for certain, that is the one voluntarily surrendered after the Langbord case was over. The Treasury Department also “knows where another one is”, but it is not within U.S. jurisdiction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 2:38 AM, VKurtB said:

I believe, but do not know for certain, that is the one voluntarily surrendered after the Langbord case was over. The Treasury Department also “knows where another one is”, but it is not within U.S. jurisdiction. 

I thought the coin Roger was not allowed to see was the 1921 Specimen, which we discussed a few posts back and which he referenced not being able to see in his book ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 8:38 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I thought the coin Roger was not allowed to see was the 1921 Specimen, which we discussed a few posts back and which he referenced not being able to see in his book ?

Now I’m totally confused. All I’ve been talking about is 1933’s. Where does 1921 fit in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 9:48 AM, VKurtB said:

Now I’m totally confused. All I’ve been talking about is 1933’s. Where does 1921 fit in?

I posted about the 1921 Specimen's with unique finishes a few posts back, with information drawn from Roger's book.  Roger noted that he wanted to see the Baker/Ghiradelli 1921 "Specimen" with the unique finish in his book.  They would NOT let him see it but the owners of the other 1921 Specimen did.

We were discussing here letting a researcher/numismatist like Roger have access to the coin and be able to see it and also detail the ownership history.  When a rare coin with very few owners changes hands very infrequently, things get lost over time.  That was the gist of it.

Not sure how 1933's got drawn into this -- I don't believe Roger or anybody else asked a secretive 1933 owner about being able to see a hidden 1933 Saint like the one voluntarily turned in.  THAT would be something you'd expect to be kept secret ! xD

The 1921's are completely legal. (thumbsu

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 10:04 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I posted about the 1921 Specimen's with unique finishes a few posts back, with information drawn from Roger's book.  Roger noted that he wanted to see the Baker/Ghiradelli 1921 "Specimen" with the unique finish in his book.  They would NOT let him see it but the owners of the other 1921 Specimen did.

We were discussing here letting a researcher/numismatist like Roger have access to the coin and be able to see it and also detail the ownership history.  When a rare coin with very few owners changes hands very infrequently, things get lost over time.  That was the gist of it.

Not sure how 1933's got drawn into this -- I don't believe Roger or anybody else asked a secretive 1933 owner about being able to see a hidden 1933 Saint like the one voluntarily turned in.  THAT would be something you'd expect to be kept secret ! xD

The 1921's are completely legal. (thumbsu

Okay, Quintus put the two together. I see that now. Yeah, a few unique 1921 finishes out there, including terms that are NOT self-explanatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 11:32 AM, VKurtB said:

Okay, Quintus put the two together. I see that now. Yeah, a few unique 1921 finishes out there, including terms that are NOT self-explanatory.

I find the very thought anyone would say, No! to someone of RWB's caliber unconscionable, and quite frankly, ill-mannered, unacceptable and offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 12:00 PM, RWB said:

I have not requested anything from any owner of any alleged 1933 DE. I speculate that 4 or 5 remain at large.

So we’ve found the point of agreement between RWB and the Mint’s attorney. His estimate was identical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 11:04 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I posted about the 1921 Specimen's with unique finishes a few posts back, with information drawn from Roger's book.  Roger noted that he wanted to see the Baker/Ghiradelli 1921 "Specimen" with the unique finish in his book.  They would NOT let him see it but the owners of the other 1921 Specimen did.

We were discussing here letting a researcher/numismatist like Roger have access to the coin and be able to see it and also detail the ownership history.  

I wish to make clear my remarks denouncing the shabby treatment of RWB, a noted scholar, researcher, published author... refers to the above excerpts, posted earlier, and no other coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 4:11 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

That may very well be true, but the rare exception in the furtherance of knowledge should be granted those whose life experience, impeccable credentials, irrrproachable virtue and sterling reputation in all things numismatic, make it all but illogical to deny a simple request. 

The problem is... going public doesn't only benefit the "sterling characters" you refer to.. it also informs the numismatic low-lifes (and they are out there!)  Chances are some of our erudite brethren know who Mr. or Ms. "X" is.  

As to "furtherance of knowledge"  the identity of the new owner will add little to anyone's knowledge of one of the most photographed and documented coins out there.  

If I bought it (and frankly you don't know that I didn't!), I would sure as hell keep my identity secret...for lots of reasons.   :grin:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 6:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

5% a year...you would think buying the only 1933 Saint-Gaudens would have generated a better return.  But as many of us have posted here, that is the exception.

And historical returns for most coins going back 50 or 60 or 70 or more years.....are absolutely useless because of the 1-time rise in precious metals in the 1970's and the entire monetary and exchange rate revolution we saw.

The per-annual return just matches that for the MS-67 1908-S Norweb Double Eagle, considered one of the most beautiful Saints existing today.

 

Mr. Weitzman is now in the numismatic history books... and he had the pleasure of owning a wonderful coin for 19 years... not a bad addendum to his modest investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2021 at 8:20 PM, VKurtB said:

Mr. Weitzman deserves no special thanks. The new owner of the legal 1933DE has already put it on display next week in Rosemont. I’ve personally gotten to see at least 14 different 1933DE’s. The Langbord 10, the Smithsonian 2, the Farouk/Weitzman one before Weitzman bought it, and the one voluntarily surrendered after the Langbord case. I don’t buy this garbage that they are “lost to us”. Not even a tiny bit. They will be around. You just have to put down the stinking mouse and get on the road a little.

Exactly... I have also seen all of those, except the voluntarily submitted one.  I saw the Weitzman coin at the New York Federal Reserve Bank after he bought it...also got to see the gold down in the "vault" there.  Very cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 5:40 PM, Ross J said:

numismatic low-lifes (and they are out there!)

And some are right here in this very site, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, don't give me that malarkey!

New York is one of those states where claiming a state lottery cash prize -- which has routinely made the most expensive coins ever sold on this planet seem like chump change in comparison -- is subject to the laws of the state and its lottery rules and regulations.  While every ticket sold is a "bearer instrument," it does not explicitly state the bearer cannot claim the prize anonymously or with a modicum of confidentiality.

Billions of dollars have been so dispensed, without incident. (Kindly do not refer to the series of tragedies which ensued after Jack Whittaker won his ill-fated Powerball ticket in West Virginia. That was primarily of his own making.)

There is suspicion which, if left unchecked, may develop into paranoia.  Simple but notable transactions of gems and jewelry in the millions of dollars are conducted routinely every day and concluded with nothing more complicated than a handshake, the equivalent of Paulie giving his brother Toody the nod in the film Goodfellas.

My sincere apologies to my fellow member @GoldFinger1969 for  obliterating his thread much the way the D'autremont brothers wreaked havoc on the Southern Pacific line in 1923.

We're not talking about buying or selling; we're talking about a routine viewing by a qualified member anointed one of the 100 most influential men in Numismatics.  Any suggestion to the contrary alluding to security concerns flies flatly in the face of a need to know and an element of surprise.  What we have here is a wholesome case of carefully crafted hooey.

To My Cousin Vinny:  I hope you recall this column the next time someone tells you, "We have what you want, but cannot let you see it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 3:41 PM, VKurtB said:

So we’ve found the point of agreement between RWB and the Mint’s attorney. His estimate was identical. 

If there are that many, probably the majority are oveseas.

Still can't believe someone voluntarily turned in theirs.  :mad:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 6:44 PM, Ross J said:

Mr. Weitzman is now in the numismatic history books... and he had the pleasure of owning a wonderful coin for 19 years... not a bad addendum to his modest investment.

Like we've said here many times, nobody buys coins -- or should be -- for market-beating investment returns.

Mr. Weitzman realized a childhood dream and I guess that's a fantastic return in and of itself. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 8:04 PM, RWB said:

Wold be interesting to learn what was seen in examining each of the coins.

The 1933's ?  What could be learned, except more details (from high-def pics) on the quality of each ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 7:49 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Still can't believe someone voluntarily turned in theirs.

It’s called being honest. I am troubled with the exact same affliction. It was turned in by a “name most people in the hobby would know”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 7:53 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The 1933's ?  What could be learned, except more details (from high-def pics) on the quality of each ?

What I learned is that none of the 14 I’ve seen are particularly eye grabbing. There are no truly gaudy grades in any of them. Even the Smithsonian pieces are rather “meh”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
6 6