Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book 4 4

[Henri Charriere]

@GoldFinger1969:

As you may or may not be aware, P--- runs a series of Slab Labs, under Errors, Varieties and Coin Collecting Ideas.  One featured, Episode 11, Part 2, in which Fred Weinberg is interviewed for approximately 19+ minutes. He makes a startling number of revelations including the time, years ago, he observed a 1933 D.E. at Sotheby's for $250,000. Chief of Security (who he claimed can access Ft. Knox, at will) William "Bill" Daddio, recognized and approached him to ask him a single question: could he identify the 1933 D.E. as being the same offered at Sotheby's years earlier. Mr. Weinberg was afforded access to the coin at a secure location and admitted he was unable to state with any degree of certainty if it were one and the same. The exchange with an interviewer (whose name I did not catch) lasted roughly half the recorded Slab Lab episode. He readily offered up a sizeable number of precise observations on errors and varieties anyone, including myself, would find interesting.

But I have a question: if you were afforded the opportunity to scrutinize that coin, would not your focus be the leg wound caused by a misfired rocket-propelled grenade? I mean, what else is there to look for?

[Sorry I do not know the link. (PCGS Newsletter, info@p---.com).]

[RWB]

Bologna unless proven. Where's the evidence?

[RWB]

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."   

One coin is needed for a set of coins. The "No D" filled and abused dies should be an individual option -- just like all the thousands of trivial doubled dies and errors.

On 7/12/2022 at 10:15 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

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

Nope.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/13/2022 at 2:17 PM, RWB said:

Bologna unless proven. Where's the evidence?

The r.p.g. diagnosis or the distinct gash on her left leg?

[RWB]

Any of the above...or below...or on the side....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:58 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

The r.p.g. diagnosis or the distinct gash on her left leg?

OK, I'm a bit confused....for those who joined late...you are saying that the gash on the leg of the 1933 Saint is the identifying mark that will trace its lineage going back in time, right ?  I forgot what we were discussing as multiple topics got introduced.

The problem -- aside from it not being sold publicly at auction past 1940 -- is that stock photos of coins were often used which wouldn't show particular identifying marks.

 

[Henri Charriere]

@GoldFinger1969:

I will have to locate that Episode and Part, and re-read it to determine when the examination occurred.

[Henri Charriere]

@GoldFinger1969:

Okay, I found it. Maybe, just maybe, the following will help you locate it:

PCGS Slab Lab Episode 11 Fred Weinberg Part 2 (on YouTube)

Fred Weinberg had seen the 1933 D.E. in 1977. The next time he saw it was in 2002 at a Sotheby's (Wilshire & Bedford) auction at which time Bill Daddio, Chief Mint Officer, approached him, read his name tag, recognized him as a foremost error expert and asked him the question as posed (a few posts up). He told him he would not be able to give him a definitive answer without viewing the holdered coin, raw. Mr. Daddio (my guess as to correct spelling) told him that was no problem and arranged to have a special viewing performed at Sotheby's Safe Deposit Room. He viewed the coin raw but was unable to state conclusively whether that coin was the same one he had viewed some 25 years earlier.

The video is 19:20 minutes long. All of what I described followed a brief discussion on errors and how leakage had occurred at the Philadelphia & S.F. mints, but not so much Denver's, after which he addressed the matter of the 1933 D.E.-- a short anecdotal recollection which transpired within the first 8:30 minutes of the episode -- before again returning to the discussion of errors.

Hope this helps.   (Hopefully, one day I will learn how to set up a link.)

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

(Hopefully, one day I will learn how to set up a link.)

3:45 in. 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Fred Weinberg had seen the 1933 D.E. in 1977. The next time he saw it was in 2002 at a Sotheby's (Wilshire & Bedford) auction at which time Bill Daddio, Chief Mint Officer, approached him, read his name tag, recognized him as a foremost error expert and asked him the question as posed (a few posts up). He told him he would not be able to give him a definitive answer without viewing the holdered coin, raw.

If he's using the gash as the identifying mark, it shouldn't matter if it was holdered or not.  It's CLEARLY visible.

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Mr. Daddio (my guess as to correct spelling) told him that was no problem and arranged to have a special viewing performed at Sotheby's Safe Deposit Room. He viewed the coin raw but was unable to state conclusively whether that coin was the same one he had viewed some 25 years earlier.

That's strange....I can't believe someone as skilled as FW wouldn't remember a noticeable gash on a prominent device like a leg.  It's not like you're trying to remember and compare luster 25 years apart.

It's almost like you are saying -- or this story is implying -- that Weinberg saw 2 different 1933 Saints.

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

The video is 19:20 minutes long. All of what I described followed a brief discussion on errors and how leakage had occurred at the Philadelphia & S.F. mints, but not so much Denver's, after which he addressed the matter of the 1933 D.E.-- a short anecdotal recollection which transpired within the first 8:30 minutes of the episode -- before again returning to the discussion of errors.

Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

On 7/13/2022 at 11:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Hopefully, one day I will learn how to set up a link.

If you are watching YouTube and want to copy the link.....highlight the URL address.....hit CTRL-C....then put your cursor in the space you want it to appear and hit CTRL-V.  On these pages, the link shows up as a YouTube image with a play button in the middle, as Mike showed above.  Thanks, Mike ! 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/14/2022 at 6:45 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

3:45 in. 

 

This is Slab Lab Episode 11, Fred Weinberg Part 1; the pertinent one I was referring to was Part 2. There are a dozen episodes and parts featuring a number of mumismatic experts. But the one I was referring to where Mr. Weinberg dwells on the 1933 D.E., occurred in EPISODE 11 PART 2..

It is well worth finding as Mr. WEINBERG refers to an incident I do not believe is widely know. (I would be very curious to know what you and others who've heard it  have to say about it. [The interview is comparatively short and references are made to things your average collector may be unfimiliar with.]

[Henri Charriere]

FWIW:  Before I go, I am much obliged to @Fenntucky Mike and @GoldFinger1969 for your interest.  One last intriguing tidbit... Fred Weinberg took a calculated risk and showed Bill Daddio, C.M.O., the contents of one of his own safe-deposit boxes which contained some of the things Mint workers should have screened out and melted, including "clusters," or coins that were stuck together in columns which never should have been allowed to leave one of the two Mints, P or S. Mr. Daddio told him the "leakages" had been identified, had since been plugged up after ascertaining who was involved, how and why they were able to accomplish them and assured Mr. Weinberg his accumulation was compiled from years past and were of no concern. It is present untoward activity that now concerns Mint security. So, in short, he was allowed to keep his collection of oddities. I may be wrong but I believe Episode 11, Part 2, was the last of the entire Slab Lab series. I am guessing I continue to receive their notifications because I am still a Set Registrant. To @Oldhoopster, have I contributed to the "body of knowledge," or what?  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:53 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Mr. Daddio told him the "leakages" had been identified, had since been plugged up after ascertaining who was involved, how and why they were able to accomplish them and assured Mr. Weinberg his accumulation was compiled from years past and were of no concern. It is present untoward activity that now concerns Mint security. So, in short, he was allowed to keep his collection of oddities. I may be wrong but I believe Episode 11, Part 2, was the last of the entire Slab Lab series. I am guessing I continue to receive their notifications because I am still a Set Registrant. To @Oldhoopster, have I contributed to the "body of knowledge," or what?  

Surprised that the Mint would care about "oddities" and the like unless they had high monetary value.

I assume FW's contacts "paid" for whatever they took out.  You know, gave a dime back for 2 nickels stuck together, that sort of thing.

[GoldFinger1969]

Very interesting interview with Fred Weinberg (I've never met him, sounds like a great guy).....so $250,000 for a 1933 Saint DE in 1977.

They only were concerned with CURRENT "leaks" of good or "odd" currency getting out of the Mint.  Old stuff was OK; current year was not.  That doesn't answer how the "thiefs" were treated if it was in the past and/or if they had reimbursed the Mint.

So...if you posses errors from 2022 and a few years before, you might have a problem with the 2022 (current year).  However, while Fred or you can keep your pre-2022 stuff.....does the "thief" have criminal liability (I would guess he/she does) for the current and/or prior years ?  What if they were TOLD it was OK and they took 2 stuck nickels and gave a dime in return (they paid up, in other words) ?

Also, the current vs. prior year principle doesn't seem to apply to the 1933 Saint.  If what Daddio said applied back then, you couldn't own the 1933 Saint in 1933 but in 1934 or later it was OK.  But maybe that current vs. prior year thing only applied recently and to "odd" stuff.

[GoldFinger1969]

Looks like Fred only got to look at the Saint in 1977 for a few seconds....so he may not have even noticed the leg gash.  You wonder though....it stands out on the obverse....maybe he was looking at a non-Farouk coin. 

[Henri Charriere]

Honestly, I do not know. But FW, to the apparent disappointment of the CMO who thought he was onto something, held the coin in his hand and his answer was credibly inconclusive. (There are a few other Slab Lab episodes I will check out when I get a chance.)

Edit:  The interview conducted by Seth Chandler, took place a few weeks ago. The episodes aired on YouTube last last than a minute. I believe your instructions for creating a ink requires a computer. My wife has an Android cell and "my new and improved" 4G cell does not have internet access, period. (I do not believe you have to become a member to access P--- stuff.  I let my membership lapse long ago.)

Edited July 14, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
(Self-explanatory.)

[Oldhoopster]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:53 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@Fenntucky Mike@GoldFinger1969

 

.........To @Oldhoopster, have I contributed to the "body of knowledge," or what?  

QA - Not sure the purpose of this last comment unless it's to stir things up since I haven't been part of this thread.

I believe the members of this forum are perfectly capable of determining if you've contributed to the "body of knowledge" and have provided accurate and credible information, and to call out and correct any misinformation.

[Henri Charriere]

@Oldhoopster...  

[zadok]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:53 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

 

 

On 7/14/2022 at 2:53 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

 

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by zadok

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/14/2022 at 10:06 PM, zadok said:

 

 

I certainly agree..........

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/14/2022 at 10:06 PM, zadok said:

 

 

[This is the harshest criticism I have received from anyone since I became a member.]

[zadok]

On 7/15/2022 at 8:14 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

[This is the harshest criticism I have received from anyone since I became a member.]

...read between the lines....

[GoldFinger1969]

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. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

Try, try  try to find that video. I knew you would be interested; that's why I mentioned it to you.  He's a very likeable guy.

One more interesting, somewhat subtle suggestion: if I heard it right, he is in the process of selling.parts of his collection(s). Does that mean oddities? Coins that have since been upgraded? Lesser errors?  I don't know.  You have to be an attentive listener; don't allow an adorable cat with white paws to distract you. Mr. Weinberg speaks at an uninterrupted conversational pace. (Why the 1933 D.E. coin appeared interspersed among Errors and Varieties, etc. is still a mystery to me--but it's there for all to hear.)  🐓 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Die polishing: adding closing parenthesis.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/16/2022 at 12:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Try, try  try to find that video. I knew you would be interested; that's why I mentioned it to you.  He's a very likeable guy.

I listened to the Saints part (about 3 minutes)...will listen to the rest this weekend.

On 7/16/2022 at 12:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Why the 1933 D.E. coin appeared interspersed among Errors and Varieties, etc. is still a mystery to me--but it's there for all to hear.  🐓 

I think because it's a coin that was not supposed to be released and yet some got out and now 1 -- and only 1 -- is out there (safely guarded by our friend EC ).  That's why it's in his circle aside from being the most famous illicit coin or gold coin every produced by our country.

[RWB]

On 7/16/2022 at 12:29 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

being the most famous illicit coin or gold coin every produced by our country.

Not illicit.

1913 Liberty nickel is dated after the new design was accepted in Dec 1912.

1884-85 Medallic Trade dollars also come to mind.

[VKurtB]

Asking Fred to recall enough details about the DE seen 25 years previously is asking A LOT. Keep in mind that ALL of them were illegal to have at that time, even the Fenton/Farouk specimen. That one had just been put into the special status by legal agreement. No one was even slightly concerned with “which one” in 1977. They were ALL contraband. 

[Henri Charriere]

There is evidently more to this than meets the eyes--and ears. Whatever the real reason may be, it should be fairly obvious the "gashed leg" example was not involved. I know nothing about the series beyond their exceptional beauty but the damage to the right leg would be my first and last point of departure. I don't know what was or was not of concern in 1977, but clearly it was on the mind of the Chief Mint Officer some 25 years later. Any gentleman involved in numismatics who is willing to disclose he has property which was apparently surreptitiously removed from a U.S. Mint facility knowing the risk of forfeiture is a consideration, only adds credibility to the observation he made with no axe to grind. A most satisfying answer which only encourages more questions.

[RWB]

On 7/18/2022 at 3:42 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

only adds credibility

Edit to read: "...only adds incredulity..."

[FlyingAl]

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.