David Akers Handbook of 20th Century Gold Coins (1st Edition, Hardcover) 0

[GoldFinger1969]

Does anybody have this book and possibly the 2nd Edition, too ?

I've located a used copy of the 1st Edition but only wanted to buy it if there was material information that got dropped from the 2nd Edition softcover (which I have).  It's not inexpensive.

I've gotten conflicting information so far on whether the 1st Edition contains material information not included in the 2nd.

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[jtryka]

I have both I think, but it's been a while since I've reviewed them but I can take a look and let you know.

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, jtryka said:

I have both I think, but it's been a while since I've reviewed them but I can take a look and let you know.

Thanks, much appreciated.  I know the 1st Edition is fewer pages but it might have bigger pages. 

Just go to 1 or 2 sections on the Saints (I'm really not into the Indian Head Gold Coins) and see how they compare for maybe the 1907 High Relief and/or the 1924 or another year.  If they are essentially the same except for updated information or if the 1st Edition had more of Akers comments (which is what 1 or 2 people alluded to).

Thanks, JT !  

 

[jtryka]

The size of pages is about the same, but the biggest differences I note as follows:

• First edition has all black and white photos vs. color
• There are differences in rankings (I mainly use these as references for Saints, so as an example in the first edition, the 25-D is ranked 16th in "mint state", in the second edition it's ranked 14th "overall" (not sure if the difference in terminology had any impact on rankings).  The ratings for higher graded specimens also changed, with 1st ed. noting ranks in MS-64 or better, 2nd ed. just notes "high grade." These changes may also be due to additional information or discoveries since 1988, though it seems counterintuitive that the 1st ed. considers the Saint Series to have 54 coins while the 2nd ed. considers only 53, which is because the 1st ed. included the UHR in with the overall series, rather than excluding it in the 2nd ed.
• Rarity rankings in 1st ed. uses traditional "R" rating (i.e.25-D in overall mint state is "Very Scarce, R-5") while in 2nd ed. they just have a table with estimated number of coins known.
• Most of the other information is very close between the two, but just different formatting, such as paragraphs vs. bullet points (this is also a reason for more pages since many of the coins in 1st ed. were on one page but with different formatting most are on 2 pages in 2nd ed.).
• The one other big difference (and improvement in the 2nd ed. if you care about them) is the addition of separate pages and rankings for proof coins from 1907-15, while the first edition just includes a notation on the number of proofs for each of those years and a ranking table for proofs in the apendix.

I hope this helps!

[GoldFinger1969]

Thanks, JT !! 

Here's one of the reviews from Amazon on the 2nd Edition:  "This is just a rehash of Akers' original withOUT all the personal wisdom and insight that Akers shared with the reader, which is what made his books the best coin guides around. There's very little in this book that isn't readily available on the internet. Look for the original...it's just a better book." 

I think I misread it.....I thought that the "personal wisdom and insight" comment referred to this book but apparently, if you read the comment above, the person is referencing OTHER books that Akers has written.  Otherwise, he says that this is just a rehash which implies it's basically a carbon-copy of the 1st Edition without stuff taken out.

I guess the only/main difference is the hardcover.

Edited January 6, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[jtryka]

@GoldFinger1969 I think this is not correct for this particularly book, I will admit the format is different with the 1st ed. having paragraphs that cite things like "in 1982 such and such date was sold by some doctor that was really awesome and beautiful" while the 2nd ed. just states more plainly that "the Dr. XX example was sold at auction in 1982, with this description" in bullet point format.  I can see how that might be taken as one being more "Akers' experience and expertise" but the reality is that the information is still there.  I personally prefer the more anecdotal format of the 1st ed. but the information is still there.

[GoldFinger1969]

10 minutes ago, jtryka said:

@GoldFinger1969 I think this is not correct for this particularly book, I will admit the format is different with the 1st ed. having paragraphs that cite things like "in 1982 such and such date was sold by some doctor that was really awesome and beautiful" while the 2nd ed. just states more plainly that "the Dr. XX example was sold at auction in 1982, with this description" in bullet point format.  I can see how that might be taken as one being more "Akers' experience and expertise" but the reality is that the information is still there.  I personally prefer the more anecdotal format of the 1st ed. but the information is still there.

Gotcha....so net-net....there is NOT more/new information in the 1st Edition...it's just 99.9% the same as the 2nd Edition, just written/ordered differently ?

[jtryka]

12 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Gotcha....so net-net....there is NOT more/new information in the 1st Edition...it's just 99.9% the same as the 2nd Edition, just written/ordered differently ?

I can't confirm the percentage, though I would say if I only owned the second edition, I would not purchase the first.

[GoldFinger1969]

17 minutes ago, jtryka said:

I can't confirm the percentage, though I would say if I only owned the second edition, I would not purchase the first.

Yup, seems that the way to go....thanks JT. 

[RWB]

Differences between 1st and 2nd editions are mostly structural, with a little more clarity in the 2nd. The primary disadvantage is age of the material. Mr. Akers did not have access to the immense mass of information now available, nor to the original data that was unknown in his day. The result is that opinions on appearance and relative abundance, which might have been accurate on initial publication, and have now been superseded by more reliable estimates and opinions based on much larger samples of coins. (Readers will see this in the Saint-Gaudens DE book where some of Mr. Akers' comments are accepted as remaining valid and others are not.)

[GoldFinger1969]

3 hours ago, RWB said:

Readers will see this in the Saint-Gaudens DE book where some of Mr. Akers' comments are accepted as remaining valid and others are not.

Those were some of my favorite sections, Roger....your quotations of Akers, Duckor, Kosoff, etc.  Especially recollections from the 1940's and 1950's.

I agree with your other sentiments.  The TPGs had just started operations when the 1st Edition came out but the 2nd Edition (2008) had almost 20 years of data and decent internet resources available.  

A 3rd Edition after 12 years would be something I'd buy in a heartbeat if they updated the data (even though yours is pretty much up-to-date) with new commentary and thoughts on Saints-only collecting.  I'd even buy a slimmed-down version that excluded Indian Heads and was just Saints.  

Guess I'll just have to wait.....

Edited January 6, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

JT, can you see if these comments are in the chapter on the 1908-S Saint in the hardcover book ?  It's part of a larger section based on what I saw on the Heritage website for the sale of a high-end coin.  I can't ID the source:

David Akers Comments:
This issue has the second lowest mintage figure of any regular issue Saint-Gaudens double eagle after the 1907 MCMVII High Relief. This low mintage figure, only 22,000 pieces, undoubtedly contributed to the esteem in which the 1908-S was held throughout the 1940s, 1950s and forward to the present day. At one time it was considered to be at the low end of the fourth tier of Saint-Gaudens double eagle rarity which also consisted of the 1920-S, 1922-S, 1924-D, 1925-S and the late date P-Mints 1929, 1931, and 1932. When offered for sale at auction, all of these issues typically realized only in the $200-$400 price range. Unlike almost all of the double eagle issues minted after World War I, the 1908-S issue was intended and used for general circulation. That is why a much larger percentage of known specimens of the 1908-S are in circulated grades than is the case with other prized dates of the series. Although less rare than the low mintage might imply, choice uncirculated and very choice ones are at least very scarce and gem quality MS65 examples are rare with only about 25-30 known. More superb MS66 and MS67 examples exist of this issue than of most of the other rare dates in the series, but they are still very rare with perhaps 15-18 known.

[GoldFinger1969]

Actually, I now think that it came from an auction catalog based on this sentence later on:

The specimen offered here is, in my opinion, the finest known 1908-S double eagle. I first saw it at the Norweb sale in the fall of 1988 and absolutely fell in love with it. I decided to buy it for myself even though I already owned three other beautiful original gems of the date at the time, including the Eliasberg specimen, also graded MS67 by PCGS.

[jtryka]

Here are the two pages on the 08-S from the first edition.  I hope this helps!

 

[GoldFinger1969]

Thanks JT....I now believe all these extra paragraphs and sections are from auction catalogs, especially when concerning David Akers where it is either from his own firm (which he ran for a while) or when he was hired by HA or another auction house.  I guess he closed David Akers Numismatics sometime in the 2000's.

I've purchased a few relevant catalogs that should have the additional commentary and if I can navigate better around the Newman Portal that will also let me browse without spending any $$$ on stuff that doesn't pan out.  And of course, I do have Roger's book which remains my Bible on Saints. 

At least now I know where to look.  Thanks again !   

Edited January 23, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

Only Type-3 DE were produced at SF in 1908.

[GoldFinger1969]

The secrecy of some collectors, i.e.. "East Coast collector" baffles me a bit.  It's not like someone is going to steal the coins. 

Same thing with the owner of the 1933 Saint who was generous to donate it to public viewing.  Nice guy, generous.....now show your face.