Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book
6 6

2,204 posts in this topic

On 8/25/2022 at 10:02 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

May as well show the pics :)....here they are:

Is the Farouk connection certain, I read an article by Julian and he didn't seem convinced it was the same coin? He also seemed pretty certain more '33's will be surfacing in the near future, from overseas sellers. I'll have to go back and reread the article to verify I'm remembering this correctly. 

Sorry if you touch on this already but I'm not going back through 69 pages of posts. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 6:08 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Is the Farouk connection certain, I read an article by Julian and he didn't seem convinced it was the same coin? He also seemed pretty certain more '33's will be surfacing in the near future, from overseas sellers. I'll have to go back and reread the article to verify I'm remembering this correctly. 

Julian is a pretty reputable numismatist, do you have that article ?  It might be dated.

On Farouk....I guess the conjecture is that the current coin owned by our friend EC is NOT the same coin that was actually owned by Farouk.  I guess someone is saying at some point someone "switched" coins which means the real Farouk coin is hidden.  Would someone have done this if the current coin is a higher-quality coin ?  I guess if they had enough foresight to realize only 1 coin would be allowed (and they really couldn't know that at the time), it was a good strategy. xD

I believe someone once said that a picture of the Farouk Saint was different from what is the current coin -- or something like that.  Then there was a question of using stock photos vs. actual ones, etc...etc....etc.  Who the heck knows....all I know is that EC has the 1933 Saint and it's the only legal one and he's convinced it's the Farouk coin so that's it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/25/2022 at 6:08 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

He also seemed pretty certain more '33's will be surfacing in the near future, from overseas sellers. I'll have to go back and reread the article to verify I'm remembering this correctly. 

Sounds like it was from YEARS ago, maybe right after Langbord.  

I heard and read similar stories about overseas 1933's and it MAY be true but I can't see anybody bringing them back now as they would be seized immediately.  We also had 1 domestic U.S. 1933 Saint that was "voluntarily" (!) handed over to the government in 2018. :o

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heritage said this about the 1921 SP Saint:  "We believe the appearance of the 1921 proof double eagle is one of the most important numismatic discoveries of the 21st century."  :o

I know they want to write exciting marketing pieces, but come on....maybe say it's one of the most important Saint-Gaudens numismatic discoveries ??

But the entire numismatic hobby ?  How about the hoards, Wells Fargo to SS Central America ?

I'm not an expert or even an experienced numismatist....and even though I am a Saint fan....I would say that this "discovery" is MAYBE Top 20 of the last 100-125 years.  I doubt it's Top 10.

JMHO....I'm re-reading the HA piece and then will hit Roger's book later this evening for his section on the coins in case we re-visit this (it was talked about over on the CAC Forums). (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 4:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Sounds like it was from YEARS ago, maybe right after Langbord.  

I heard and read similar stories about overseas 1933's and it MAY be true but I can't see anybody bringing them back now as they would be seized immediately.  We also had 1 domestic U.S. 1933 Saint that was "volunarily" (!) handed over to the government in 2018. :o

I'm pretty certain that if another 1933 surfaces the Secret Service won't let it last long in private hands. 

On 8/25/2022 at 5:31 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Heritage said this about the 1921 SP Saint:  "We believe the appearance of the 1921 proof double eagle is one of the most important numismatic discoveries of the 21st century."  :o

I know they want to write exciting marketing pieces, but come on....maybe say it's one of the most important Saint-Gaudens numismatic discoveries ??

But the entire numismatic hobby ?  How about the hoards, Wells Fargo to SS Central America ?

I'm not an expert or even an experienced numismatist....and even though I am a Saint fan....I would say that this "discovery" is MAYBE Top 20 of the last 100-125 years.  I doubt it's Top 10.

JMHO....I'm re-reading the HA piece and then will hit Roger's book later this evening for his section on the coins in case we re-visit this (it was talked about over on the CAC Forums). (thumbsu

Personally, I think the two 1922 Proof Peace dollars were more important, but that's me. I would place the 1921 Saint in the top 50 category. The SS Central America has to be No.1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 12:28 AM, FlyingAl said:

Personally, I think the two 1922 Proof Peace dollars were more important, but that's me. I would place the 1921 Saint in the top 50 category. The SS Central America has to be No.1.

Good points....and yeah, SSCA for the story behind it, the key coins like the 1857-S, the retrieval of the coins from the ocean.....no wonder so many people paid ridiculous prices for the coins 20 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 6:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Sounds like it was from YEARS ago, maybe right after Langbord.  

It was published in this month's Numismatic News, THE 1933 DOUBLE EAGLE by R.W. Julian, in it he references the 2021 sale of the '33 so I believe it to be current, although much of the information contained within is rehashed and maybe this comment is as well. (shrug) From the article "(There is no proof that the Farouk coin was the one handled by Fenton. The true origin of the coin seized in 1996 is still unknown.)".

On 8/25/2022 at 6:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I heard and read similar stories about overseas 1933's and it MAY be true but I can't see anybody bringing them back now as they would be seized immediately.  We also had 1 domestic U.S. 1933 Saint that was "voluntarily" (!) handed over to the government in 2018. :o

Also from the article, "It has been widely speculated that other 1933 double eagles will eventually come out of hiding even though the government will not authorize a sale in this country. There is little that the U.S. Treasury can do with respect to an auction held by one of the major European numismatic firms, and many think that such an event is only a matter of time.", "It still remains to be seen how many more 1933 double eagles will surface over the course of time. The present writer knows of anther specimen that was photographed in the United States in the mid-1980's and then returned to its owner in Europe.". Those quotes bookend the article. I imagine it will be available online soon.

I don't think the speculation of additional '33 DE's and the potential sale/s of such coins overseas is anything new, I just thought it interesting that Julian worded his comments strongly, IMO, and then to see PCGS slap Farouk on the label. Although the export permit for the Farouk coin was used to legitimize this coin, regardless if it was the original one exported. 

EDIT: Maybe the label should read "Farouk Export Permit Used". ;)

Edited by Fenntucky Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've examined one of the two 1921 DE in question. My opinion is in complete disagreement with the "proof" or "specimen" labels. That is fairy tale-driven absurdity.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2022 at 6:44 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

It was published in this month's Numismatic News, THE 1933 DOUBLE EAGLE by R.W. Julian, in it he references the 2021 sale of the '33 so I believe it to be current, although much of the information contained within is rehashed and maybe this comment is as well. (shrug) From the article "(There is no proof that the Farouk coin was the one handled by Fenton. The true origin of the coin seized in 1996 is still unknown.)".

Thanks for the heads-up, Mike....I'll have to see if I can get that article.  (thumbsu

On 8/26/2022 at 6:44 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Also from the article, "It has been widely speculated that other 1933 double eagles will eventually come out of hiding even though the government will not authorize a sale in this country. There is little that the U.S. Treasury can do with respect to an auction held by one of the major European numismatic firms, and many think that such an event is only a matter of time.",

You would think now that anybody overseas who had a 1933 Double Eagle would have had a friend or contact make a public announcement OR contact the Treasury/Mint to feel them out.  Or they can just tell them "American court decisions are not binding on Europeans" -- which is true.

I know nothing about European law, but maybe the U.S. government would have to PROVE that the coins were stolen, not rely on this "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

On 8/26/2022 at 6:44 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

I don't think the speculation of additional '33 DE's and the potential sale/s of such coins overseas is anything new, I just thought it interesting that Julian worded his comments strongly, IMO, and then to see PCGS slap Farouk on the label. Although the export permit for the Farouk coin was used to legitimize this coin, regardless if it was the original one exported.  EDIT: Maybe the label should read "Farouk Export Permit Used". ;)

xD

If we assume an even 25 1933's were swapped out, then it's very plausible if you do a count of all 1933's ID'd to date....that there are some overseas and/or still in the U.S.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 9:02 AM, RWB said:

I've examined one of the two 1921 DE in question. 

Before or after your Saints book was published ?

So you think it was struck on a toggle press and not a medal press ?  But that still doesn't answer why this coin looks different and has a different surface.

Also, what do you mean in the book by "strongly clashed dies" -- what does that mean ?  Anybody ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2022 at 9:02 AM, RWB said:

My opinion is in complete disagreement with the "proof" or "specimen" labels. That is fairy tale-driven absurdity.

I don't think it is "fairy-tale" driven.....I think you could be right but right now WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

What we really need is for all the experts like yourself to list their pros and cons on this coin....participate on a panel discussion or something or on an interactive blog....cross-check each other's arguments and suppositions....and then see if we can eliminate the false from the true and the we're-not-sures.  

JMHO. :)

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 11:04 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I don't think it is "fairy-tale" driven.....I think you could be right but right now WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

What we really need is for all the experts like yourself to list their pros and cons on this coin....participate on a panel discussion or something or on an interactive blog....cross-check each other's arguments and suppositions....and then see if we can eliminate the false from the true and the we're-not-sures.  

JMHO. :)

..."experts"...very ambiguous term...im thinking the answer lies at 221B Baker Street....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 11:57 AM, zadok said:

..."experts"...very ambiguous term...im thinking the answer lies at 221B Baker Street....

Elementary, my dear Zadok....elementary. xD 

I have enormous respect for Roger but Saint experts like John Albanese were also very definitive in saying if you didn't see the date you'd swear it was a 1909 Proof.

I guess the $64,000 question...or rather, the $2,000,000 question is......if we can never conclusively trace the lineage and whether it is a proof or not....should the coin be marketed or sold as such ?

I think Roger says NO, for good/his reasons....others disagree and probably say unless it has been DISPROVEN as a proof, it gets the benefit of the doubt.

That's the debate in a nutshell as I see it. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 12:12 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Elementary, my dear Zadok....elementary. xD 

I have enormous respect for Roger but Saint experts like John Albanese were also very definitive in saying if you didn't see the date you'd swear it was a 1909 Proof.

I guess the $64,000 question...or rather, the $2,000,000 question is......if we can never conclusively trace the lineage and whether it is a proof or not....should the coin be marketed or sold as such ?

I think Roger says NO, for good/his reasons....others disagree and probably say unless it has been DISPROVEN as a proof, it gets the benefit of the doubt.

That's the debate in a nutshell as I see it. (thumbsu

...when all else fails the coin speaks for itself n does not need Roger's vote of approval...similar to his incorrect assumptions on branch mint proofs...the coins r their own approval...the absence of documentation does not negate the evidence in front of u...i go with the DISPROVEN crowd, they use common sense....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 12:46 PM, zadok said:

...when all else fails the coin speaks for itself n does not need Roger's vote of approval...similar to his incorrect assumptions on branch mint proofs...the coins r their own approval...the absence of documentation does not negate the evidence in front of u...i go with the DISPROVEN crowd, they use common sense....

1 thing we can agree on....the coin(s) ARE unique.  They are not just regular business strike 1921's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: This statement, "... Saint experts like John Albanese were also very definitive in saying if you didn't see the date you'd swear it was a 1909 Proof," falls apart in and over itself.

I compared coin detail, striking characteristics, edge and the remaining physical features of one of the 1921s to original 1909, 1910 and 1911 proof DE. I also compared the 1921 to other circulation 1921 DE. The 1921 subject coin had far less detail than any of the proofs, plus lacked the edge, rim and other characteristics common to satin proofs DE. The 1911 comparison demonstrated nothing because of sandblasting. 1921-to-1921 comparison showed detail similar to ordinary circulation pieces; however, the surfaces were abnormal with the appearance of light overall polish. Conclusion: strange looking surfaces, not made on a medal press, nor from satin proof dies, coin not altered.

There are other things discovered, but they must remain unspoken. Interestingly, no one bothered to contact me about the one coin. Owners of the other coin refused to allow independent examination.

Read the DE book. That's the last I have to say on the matter.

Edited by RWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 12:57 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

1 thing we can agree on....the coin(s) ARE unique.  They are not just regular business strike 1921's.

The coins are strange. I don't know if each is unique, never having examined the 2nd one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2022 at 1:07 PM, RWB said:

Read the DE book. That's the last I have to say on the matter.

Going there NOW....just finished the write-up from HA on the coin.

 

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 1:07 PM, RWB said:

There are other things discovered, but they must remain unspoken. Interestingly, no one bothered to contact me about the one coin. Owners of the other coin refused to allow independent examination.

Well, I hope the "unspoken" stuff is eventually published by you somewhere. (thumbsu

Not contacting you was dumb -- I mean, HA knows you wrote a book on DEs and have a few pages on these coins.  Maybe they lost your phone number.......xD

As for the owners of the coin saying no to an examination....thanks for nothing, dorks.  Do you think that Roger's eyes are going to generate heat vision and ruin the coin ?  Some people are just selfish. >:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 6:08 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

 Sorry if you touch on this already but I'm not going back through 69 pages of posts. lol

And the Albanese interviews (yes, plural) pose too much of a challenge for my cataracts. Suffice it to say, per an interview conducted by [I forget who] memorialized by PCGS as Slab Lab 4, a high U.S. Mint official  recognized Fred Weinberg, intercepted him, arranged for a private viewing of the 1933 S-G D.E., and asked him only one question: is this the same coin you saw 25 years ago? F.W. answered honestly: he did not know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 6:08 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Sorry if you touch on this already but I'm not going back through 69 pages of posts. lol

You got something BETTER to do the next 2 weeks ?

Get to reading, FM !! xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 2:09 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

And the Albanese interviews (yes, plural) pose too much of a challenge for my cataracts. Suffice it to say, per an interview conducted by [I forget who] memorialized by PCGS as Slab Lab 4, a high U.S. Mint official  recognized Fred Weinberg, intercepted him, arranged for a private viewing of the 1933 S-G D.E., and asked him only one question: is this the same coin you saw 25 years ago? F.W. answered honestly: he did not know.

I think someone posted that a few pages back.  Maybe Fred will chime in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 12:28 AM, FlyingAl said:

The SS Central America has to be No.1.

[Comment deleted.]  While it was a 19th Century shipwreck, it wasn't until well into the 20th Century that it was located and a percentage of its payload brought to the surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 1:40 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Well, I hope the "unspoken" stuff is eventually published by you somewhere. (thumbsu

Not contacting you was dumb -- I mean, HA knows you wrote a book on DEs and have a few pages on these coins.  Maybe they lost your phone number.......xD

As for the owners of the coin saying no to an examination....thanks for nothing, dorks.  Do you think that Roger's eyes are going to generate heat vision and ruin the coin ?  Some people are just selfish. >:(

...it wasnt an oversight....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2022 at 6:08 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Is the Farouk connection certain, I read an article by Julian and he didn't seem convinced it was the same coin? He also seemed pretty certain more '33's will be surfacing in the near future, from overseas sellers. I'll have to go back and reread the article to verify I'm remembering this correctly.  

Mike, thanks for the article heads-up.  A few points of interest:

  • The article gets the date of 1st striking wrong.  It states March 15, 1933 the long cited date.  But RWB produced evidence in the trial that it was actually March 2nd according to the Mint Super. 
  • Treasury Secretary Woodin's 5 coins have oft-been cited.  For those certain that Switt swapped out 20 or 25 coins, these 5 DEs present a problem.  Unlikely Woodin needed Switt to get coins.  If Woodin was allowed his coins....would they be legal today ?  What if they are in Europe or America ?  Obviously, you can't prove lineage, unfortunately.  But why should one side have to prove that Woodin NEVER owned 1933 DEs ?
  • I can't tell from the Flanagan Catalog picture if that is a picture of the present 1933 Saint -- not enough closeup to ID that leg gash. xD
  • This Leland Howard guy is quite a character.  He just literally determined the coins were "stolen" without any proof, checking facts, checking gold balances, etc.  Incompetent to the Nth degree.  No wonder he worked for the government !! xD 
  • Did Switt and M. Max Mehl BOTH sell King Farouk a 1933 Saint ?  That's what Julian writes, but that implies Farouk had not 1 but 2 Double Eagles.  That could explain some of the switcheroo talk.  But I've not seen any other citations that Farouk bought a 1933 from 2 different dealers.
  • If I were a dealer back then -- or even today -- I wouldn't want the government or the FBI or Treasury or Mint officials being told with whom I bought or sold coins.  When word gets around that you talk, your credibility is shot.  "Hey, be sure to buy your coins from Goldfinger1969...ratted out my purchase to the Feds and I had to spend $15,000 on legal expenses to justify the coins."  Who would want that ?  No wonder they all had selective memory loss. xD
  • Good for Julian for noting the U.S. Government had selective memory loss in the 1947 Barnard case.
  • Langbord attorney's brain was on vacation when he said to send in all 10 for authentication.  You send in 1 coin...maybe 5 coins.  Get those back....then send back the rest.  They lost all leverage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints vs. Liberty DEs:  There are about 3.9 million surviving Saints known today; does anybody have a corresponding total for Liberty DEs ? 

NOT mintages....survivors estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 7:38 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Saints vs. LIBERTY DEs:

NOT mintages....survivors estimate.

This is a tall order. One would have to speculate on intangibles: unknown meltings, overseas internment in safe-deposit boxes, shipwrecked manifests, thefts, losses, etc. You've maintained previously, the number may be incalculable. I am inclined to agree. A significant find may yet turn up at a location not thought up of...

Q.A.:  Here, I found something!

GF1969:  These are all Roosters!  How can you confuse these for full-fledged Saints?

Q.A.:  Shush!  I have been mercilessly upbraided by z [and a member whose name I am forbidden from citing by Law].  🐓 

Edited by Quintus Arrius
Word substitution
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 10:36 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

This is a tall order. One would have to speculate on intangibles: unknown meltings, overseas internment in safe-deposit boxes, shipwrecked manifests, thefts, losses, etc.

Nah, must be a listing somewhere....I can get 2004 estimates from Bower's Red Book and just sum them up.  Off the top of my head I'm going to say 500,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 8:51 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Nah, must be a listing somewhere....I can get 2004 estimates from Bower's Red Book and just sum them up.  Off the top of my head I'm going to say 500,000.

...id say u r off by a factor of 10 prob more....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 9:07 AM, zadok said:

...id say u r off by a factor of 10 prob more....

Actually....I wasn't. xD

I get the total population count from NGC at 768,890 and for PCGS at 749,105.  Clearly, there are cross-overs (double-counts) and while this is above my pay grade I believe a ball park figure is to haircut the total by about 40% from what I have read (correct me if I am way off).

So eliminating about 40% of the PCGS count and summing up gives me just over 1.2 MM coins.

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