Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book
6 6

2,095 posts in this topic

On 7/5/2022 at 9:51 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Without paying attention to the specifics, criticism should certainly be allowed.  I'm not sure if bringing in the government to evaluate hobby standards is wise.  They have better things to do and we can self-police through the market.

My experience is that there are a lot of business entities that will pay no attention to persistent problems unless an oversight agency or entity such as the PNG take some actions for its members.  Complaints with state consumer rights organization can be quite helpful.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 5:53 PM, Nutmeg Coin said:

My experience is that there are a lot of business entities that will pay no attention to persistent problems unless an oversight agency or entity such as the PNG take some actions for its members.  Complaints with state consumer rights organization can be quite helpful.  

For fraud, yes...but you're talking about coins that an owner might believe are misgraded, right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 11:39 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

For fraud, yes...but you're talking about coins that an owner might believe are misgraded, right ?

No, I was referring to large businesses that ignore customer complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2022 at 2:21 AM, Cat Bath said:

Soooo...

Possible candidates???

Judd 1776 PR

Judd 1778 PR 

Judd 1778

Judd 1779 PR

Quoting myself :insane:

We all know what the J1776 is and I suspect the J1779 is the "checker" (double thick eagle)

WTH are the 1778 PR & 1778a?

And why would they list a coin in the registry that is uncollectable (J1779)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2022 at 2:21 AM, Cat Bath said:

They are giving Eliasburg credit for the 33 & we know Elite has one. The only other coins are the patterns. (Elite still private for obvious reasons)  See my curiosity? Possible candidates??? Judd 1776 PR Judd 1778 PR  Judd 1778

Judd 1779 PR

I must have missed that:  so they gave Eliasburg credit for the 1933 Saint.  But how did they score it not knowing the grade ?  Maybe default to an MS-65 where most of the survivors tended to be ?

I have to look at those patterns, but the fact that no "coins" were distrubuted as with the 1907 Ultra High Relief makes these almost experimental patterns.  Do we even have the population numbers for these "patterns" ?  I'm sure it's in RWB's book but these patterns are so rare and since not widely struck/distributed you almost consider them like a 1st Draft or something on the way to the final Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 10:43 AM, RWB said:

Pattern pieces are not coins and never were.

Right, but the 1907 UHR is a pattern even though they made a small number which were distributed and it was pretty much the final version before becoming the MCMVII High Relief.  These are also patterns but usually only 1 copy and no distribution and they didn't become the model for an actual released coin like the MCMVII HR).

They're closer to experimental models or die experimentations in a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 11:39 AM, Cat Bath said:

I am not curious enough to inquire but, as I am sure you are aware, the top two TPGS use different classifications in their respective Set Registries. How does NGC classify them? What descriptors do they use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 12:00 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The 1907 UHR is considered a coin ?

To both a colleague formerly from Alaska...:facepalm::slapfight:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 11:27 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

but the 1907 UHR is a pattern even though they made a small number which were distributed and it was pretty much the final version before becoming the MCMVII High Relief.

Not quite.....The high relief MCMVII circulation coins were based on Saint-Gaudens's 2nd EHR set of models. Reductions and five pattern pieces were made from these, they were again rejected as impossible to coin, and the patterns were destroyed. In August 1907, with TR demanding to see coins, Barber made the greatest relief reduction he could from these 2nd EHR models and those were used to make the MCMVII HR hubs and one pair of working dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 11:39 AM, Cat Bath said:

The UHR is not listed as a pattern.

MCMVII extremely high relief pieces are patterns. Period. If a TPG wants to look both ignorant and foolish, that is their option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 10:29 PM, DWLange said:

UHRs come under the same situation as gold Stellas---declaring them patterns may reduce their perceived value. There are going to be times when numismatic fact is subordinate to marketing. One doesn't have to agree, but it isn't likely to change anytime soon.

It's a coin to the layman but to us professionals we call it a pattern. :)

I guess the main thing that distinction results in is that you do NOT have to have the 1907 UHR to have a complete set of Saint-Gaudens.  You do need the MCMVII HR but not the 1907 UHR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 2:16 PM, RWB said:

MCMVII extremely high relief pieces are patterns. Period. If a TPG wants to look both ignorant and foolish, that is their option.

I guess the reasoning ATS is that because there were so many made & they were passed out, that they are proofs (shrug)

On 7/12/2022 at 1:51 AM, Elite Collection said:

So the 1933 is a coin, but it's not part of the complete set of Saints.

 

And that is another mystery. Probably because it went dark for so long that they didn't know if it was collectable anymore (shrug)

Either way, the registry needs a bit of a rethink now that we have someone making a serious run at a complete set.

My thoughts are that a complete set should include the 8 proofs (1908-1915) plus the collectable patterns as well as major varieties etc.

BTW...If the UHR is a proof then why is it not listed as necessary in the collection of proofs (9 would then be necessary)

Edited by Cat Bath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 1:51 AM, Elite Collection said:

So the 1933 is a coin, but it's not part of the complete set of Saints.

What defines "complete" I guess is in the registry keepers definition.  Cleary, the 1933 is a coin but with only 1 available (for now xD) it's essentually uncollectable.  The next rarest Saint has at least 10-12 speciments available (the 1927-D) so while it is tough it is not impossible.

If for whatever reason you decided to keep the 1933 and give it to your heirs, EC, then NOBODY could have a "complete set" of Saints.  I guess the registry people didn't want to create that conundrum. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/12/2022 at 5:13 AM, Cat Bath said:

BTW...If the UHR is a proof then why is it not listed as necessary in the collection of proofs (9 would then be necessary)

I'm going to say because while it was struck like a proof and looks like a proof, it was never segregated from another coin with the same year and strike characteristics that was available for general circulation.

The annealing process that RWB has detailed along with the 7-9 strikes of the huge metal press create the proof look.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 7:58 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

What defines "complete" I guess is in the registry keepers definition.  Cleary, the 1933 is a coin but with only 1 available (for now xD) it's essentually uncollectable.  The next rarest Saint has at least 10-12 speciments available (the 1927-D) so while it is tough it is not impossible.

If for whatever reason you decided to keep the 1933 and give it to your heirs, EC, then NOBODY could have a "complete set" of Saints.  I guess the registry people didn't want to create that conundrum. (thumbsu

A lot of registry sets include unique coins. They sometimes even include coins that only exist in the Smithsonian. So that's not a good reason not to include the 1933 with the Saints sets. The reason why it's not included in the PCGS set registry is likely because at the time PCGS set registry was created (2001), none of the 1933 saints were legal to own. This 1933 wasn't monetized until 2002. Stuart Weitzman didn't collect other coins, so it didn't matter to him. I might petition PCGS to include the 1933 with the other Saints sets, but I bet it will be quite political because it's going to make it impossible for anyone else to beat my sets. But I am trying to be the #1 set without including my 1933 Saint, so that this is a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 9:08 AM, Elite Collection said:

A lot of registry sets include unique coins. They sometimes even include coins that only exist in the Smithsonian. So that's not a good reason not to include the 1933 with the Saints sets. The reason why it's not included in the PCGS set registry is likely because at the time PCGS set registry was created (2001), none of the 1933 saints were legal to own. This 1933 wasn't monetized until 2002. Stuart Weitzman didn't collect other coins, so it didn't matter to him. I might petition PCGS to include the 1933 with the other Saints sets, but I bet it will be quite political because it's going to make it impossible for anyone else to beat my sets. But I am trying to be the #1 set without including my 1933 Saint, so that this is a moot point.

...just as an addendum to the registry set discussion...if u look at the ngc registry for British West Indies 1/2 D set, as an example...u will see how ngc has n can treat unique coins...the 1821 Prf coin is considered non-collectible but is included in the registry as display only n does not enter into the competitive arena...no idea how pcgs mite address this issue as i dont consider their registry sets on the same level as ngc sets....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 10:29 PM, DWLange said:

There are going to be times when numismatic fact is subordinate to marketing.

Then they are promoting a lie out of greed and deserve nothing but condemnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 9:08 AM, Elite Collection said:

A lot of registry sets include unique coins. They sometimes even include coins that only exist in the Smithsonian.

I didn't know that, that seems odd.  I mean, include coins that are only in a museum ?  What are you supposed to do, hire Tom Cruise and the IM team and break in ? xD

On 7/12/2022 at 9:08 AM, Elite Collection said:

I might petition PCGS to include the 1933 with the other Saints sets, but I bet it will be quite political because it's going to make it impossible for anyone else to beat my sets. But I am trying to be the #1 set without including my 1933 Saint, so that this is a moot point.

Good luck, regardless of what PCGS decides and you pursue, I'm looking forward to seeing your expanded collection. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/12/2022 at 12:00 PM, RWB said:

Then they are promoting a lie out of greed and deserve nothing but condemnation.

Maybe theoretically...but not morally  xD(I've been meaning to use that phrase I picked up from "Sanford and Son," the 1970's sitcom with Redd Foxx).

Seriously, as long as they are TRANSPARENT in what they do, I could live with it in very limited circumstances.  Not saying it is right or wrong....just that as long as something is DISCLOSED it is different than if you just sold the marketing without the true facts.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 1:51 AM, Elite Collection said:

So the 1933 is a coin, but it's not part of the complete set of Saints.

 

Interesting, but realistically 99.9999% of all collectors would then never be able to compile a "complete" set. A "best" set is all they could hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 12:41 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Maybe theoretically...but not morally 

Yes, morally and ethically on the UHR patterns. There is nothing to debate. Including ANY pattern piece in a set of coins produced as legal tender for circulation is a travesty. Go head, add the 1882 Liberty nickel patterns to Liberty 5-cent collections. Make 1849 DE required in the Liberty DE set. Lets add some splashers and other bastardizations. 1896 metallurgical trials -- must be a coin series into which they can be squeezed.

As for the 1933 DE is was produced as a coin and so has almost as much claim as 1932-D to be part of a set. However, since there is only one "legal" example, there can be only one truly complete set. The difference becomes one of strict academic completeness and practical completeness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 4:35 PM, RWB said:

....The difference becomes one of strict academic completeness and practical completeness.

 

In that case, let's not overlook the three distinctions made for just the 1922-D Lincoln Head cent:  "standard," "Weak D" and "No D, Strong Reverse."   :whatthe:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 7:39 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

In that case, let's not overlook the three distinctions made for just the 1922-D Lincoln Head cent:  "standard," "Weak D" and "No D, Strong Reverse."   :whatthe:

...there for a minute i thought id been transporterized into a bra commercial....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2022 at 4:35 PM, RWB said:

As for the 1933 DE is was produced as a coin and so has almost as much claim as 1932-D to be part of a set.

1932-D ??  Did Denver almost decide to mint DE's in 1932 ?

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