• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Graded MS-65....no holder !!
1 1

237 posts in this topic

21 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I believe it's "solid for the grade" or better. If so, that's not quite the same as "strong for the grade". And I don't know why you think thy weren't ever in a bag.

I misspoke.  I meant in a bag and then moved around, like bank-to-bank or overseas.

It's also possible they were taken direct from the Mint....maybe assay coins....and never put in a bag to stay with the Coiner or in a vault at the Philly Mint -- I'm just speculating, I admit. 

But since these coins were taken by someone with the intention of re-selling them to collectors....you'd think they'd want blemish-free coins....and that they'd use care to handle them once struck and in possesion of them.  Of course, we don't know WHEN they possession took place....right after being strruck (1933)....when with the coiner....or maybe after being bagged and kept with the coiner....or bagged and in a vault (1937 most likely).  We really don't know.

Mark, you are right on "solid for the grade" -- I meant that just used "strong" instead.(thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

Anything to do with a CAC sticker on this coin is a pure CAC marketing gimmick. Zero value added. Zero necessity.

Just like the guy who wanted his 1927-D given a LOWER grade so it would CAC sticker.xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I misspoke.  I meant in a bag and then moved around, like bank-to-bank or overseas.

It's also possible they were taken direct from the Mint....maybe assay coins....and never put in a bag to stay with the Coiner or in a vault at the Philly Mint -- I'm just speculating, I admit. 

But since these coins were taken by someone with the intention of re-selling them to collectors....you'd think they'd want blemish-free coins....and that they'd use care to handle them once struck and in possesion of them.  Of course, we don't know WHEN they possession took place....right after being strruck (1933)....when with the coiner....or maybe after being bagged and kept with the coiner....or bagged and in a vault (1937 most likely).  We really don't know.

Mark, you are right on "solid for the grade" -- I meant that just used "strong" instead.(thumbsu

If they had been taken from among the assay pieces, I believe their absence would have been noticed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

If they had been taken from among the assay pieces, I believe their absence would have been noticed. 

Also could have been among the 43 coins used to complete a bag of 1932 Saints that were with the coiner. 

My point was that the there was a chance to get coins (1) straight from the mint press (possible but unlikely) in early-1933 (2) from the coiner either via the bag of 1932's or other issued 1933's in March/April 1933 (3) from a bag in the vault (in 1937, and these coins would be a bit more bagmarked and beat up).

I'll defer to Roger or other Philly Mint experts on 1930's coin protocol for the trail of the coins after they were struck.  I just thought it was strange that even if bagged and retrieved from Vault F at the Philly Mint that the overall condition/grades of the coins weren't higher.  Recall how great the 1908 Wells Fargo No Motto's were....and they were bagged and round-tripped from Central America.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DWLange said:

There was no incentive to squirrel away 1933 20s at their time of coining. It wasn't until after the gold recall order in 1934 that they became desirable to collectors.

Dave, wasn't there a growing expectation that "something" was going to happen with gold in 1931 and 1932 -- and most people knew "something" meant no more gold coins struck or limits on ownership (I don't think many people thought an outright ban was coming) ?  That was one reason why so many people direct-ordered the 1932 Saints (as Roger showed the purchase order list in his book).

My understanding was that by 1931 the government was increasing the tracking of gold shipments overseas and any person following gold developments here and with other countries (i.e, the U.K.) knew or should have known that change was a foot.  The election of FDR should have been the ringing of the bell.

And there were newspaper reports -- which admittedly didn't have the impact today of 24/7 cable TV and social media -- in late-1932 and early-1933 that the incoming FDR administration (taking office in March 1933, not January 1933) was contemplating changes in gold.

1 hour ago, DWLange said:

The coins certainly were bagged and vaulted for a few years before a Philadelphia Mint employee swapped out the 33s for common-date 20s to keep the bag weight correct. This work would have had to be done quickly, so there was no time to cherrypick the best pieces. In addition, the employee who has been tentatively identified as the miscreant was not a numismatist, so his discriminatory ability would have been questionable.

I would say this makes sense.  We don't know with 100% certainty, but it is probably very likely.  I still think the mixing of 1933's with 1932 Saints was also a chance to grab some.

And I still believe that McCann or anybody else at the Philly Mint may have had an "understanding" with higher-ups to be allowed to get a few 1933's after the April 12th deadline to exchange coins.  The higher-ups were always helping themselves to perks, why would a supervisor not tell a close friend at the Mint that if they were short $100 for 5 Double Eagles in March 1933 that they could get them anytime before they got melted, no problem (assuming they used the $100 to buy 5 other Saints of a different year) ?

Who would know ?  Who would care ?  The 1907 High Reliefs popped 50-75% and most probably thought the 1933's would appreciate that amount, if that.  They were ordinary coins and who knew if they'd be the last ones struck -- maybe coinage would resume like after WW I.  Nobody foresaw the coins being worth $1,000 or more a few years later. 

The value of the 1933's was probably THE REASON why the Secret Service/Treasury/Mint wanted them back --  coins that they had worth $20 each were now being sold by FDR opponents and gold bootleggers for 4-figures.  In the 1930's when they were worth a few hundred (or less), nobody cared.

And don't get me started on the whole bag of 1928 Saints getting swiped from the Philly vault.   An outright theft they couldn't figure out, but a few dozen coins circulating among coin collectors and dealers they put a hold on fighting Nazis to worry about. :mad:

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DWLange said:

There was no incentive to squirrel away 1933 20s at their time of coining. 

Difficult as it may be to fathom a rank amateur challenging @DWLange on matters numismatic, and yet here I an doing just that taking exception to his opening line.

There are a multiplicity of reasons why anyone would engage in such conduct. Access, opportunity -- obsession. The world of collecting is as complicated as 

(Sorry, the boss, my wife beckons. To be continued....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Difficult as it may be to fathom a rank amateur challenging @DWLange on matters numismatic, and yet here I an doing just that taking exception to his opening line.  There are a multiplicity of reasons why anyone would engage in such conduct. Access, opportunity -- obsession. The world of collecting is as complicated as 

(Sorry, the boss, my wife beckons. To be continued....) 

It clearly wasn't definitive that the 1933's would be the last Saints struck at the time.  They could have been....could have been an interruption before resuming (like WW I)....or maybe we just strike fewer DEs each year.

Certainly, as the Mint was striking them -- even after April 12th -- the expectation was probably that they all would be used at some point and/or that some had already been released or obtained.  Without a definitive statement from the Mint -- "the coins will NOT be released until we get authorization from the Secretary or President" -- the public and even astute coin collectors were probably just guessing.  

And let's face it, in 1931 and 1932 and into 1933....most Americans were probably just worrying about how to survive, not about the release or non-release of gold coins.  I doubt it was even covered extensively in BARRON'S or The Wall Street Journal or NY Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GoldFinger1969  We can put a man on the moon but with all the unlicensed mad scientists out there and all the advances made in metallurgy and space age technology -- not to mention plastic surgery :whistle: a bear-clawed leg restoration, in the 88 years since is insurmountable and beyond the ability of forensic reconstruction specialists.  Sorry, if I offend my learned brethren, but you could not pay me to take possession of this unique carastrophe.  There's nothing special about the properties of this defective, damaged merchandise

. It should be sent back, melted, reminted as a Restrike, and then we'll talk money.  About the only person on the Forum who would probably offer a similar opposing view is World Colonial.  Where are all the fine, upstanding, dues-paying members who urged owners of coins with far less damage to throw them in the gutter, or contemptuously dismiss their very existence with the four-letter word, Yuck!?  Would the Louvre display the original Mona Lisa with a gash across her chest large enough to accommodate the Complete Works of William Shakespeare?  

I believe the outcome ought to fall far lower than expectations on principle alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those gashes are very noticeable....but they are NOT "rub" -- they're gashes/dents/strikes. 

You wonder if a few 1933's or other Saints were loose in a bag and this 1933 got the worst of it.  ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2021 at 1:16 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And let's face it, in 1931 and 1932 and into 1933....most Americans were probably just worrying about how to survive, not about the release or non-release of gold coins.  I doubt it was even covered extensively in BARRON'S or The Wall Street Journal or NY Times.

I presume there was sufficient coverage of FDR's executive order, leading it up to it and the announcement.  Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that hardly anyone gave a hoot about whether any of these coins where available as a collectible. 

Not actually knowing, my suspicion is that a noticeable proportion (if not majority) of Americans at the time (before and during the Depression) never even saw a DE in their entire life, much less owned one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@World Colonial I frequently run into people my age today who've never seen a Silver Certificate, a two-dollar bill, a new dollar like the Ike, a "roll" of coins, a Kennedy half, or a proof coin.  But, then again, I met a woman younger than me who has never been off the slum block she was born on. Empire State Building or Statue of Liberty? She's seen them, but only in pictures. Unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Not actually knowing, my suspicion is that a noticeable proportion (if not majority) of Americans at the time (before and during the Depression) never even saw a DE in their entire life, much less owned one.

But they probably had smaller denomination gold coins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

@World Colonial I frequently run into people my age today who've never seen a Silver Certificate, a two-dollar bill, a new dollar like the Ike, a "roll" of coins, a Kennedy half, or a proof coin.  But, then again, I met a woman younger than me who has never been off the slum block she was born on. Empire State Building or Statue of Liberty? She's seen them, but only in pictures. Unbelievable.

Yes, I would have thought that mostly everyone who is old enough to have used your examples when it was in circulation would have seen it..  

With the $20 gold, not sure how widely it actually circulated.  My assumption is, not much.  It was more than most people (the vast majority) made in a week or however often they were paid.  I'd also guess that at least a noticeable minority didn't even have this much in savings at the time, whether they used banks or not.  It also wasn't practical for most purchases, just as a near $2000 coin wouldn't be now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

But they probably had smaller denomination gold coins. 

Yes, I'd guess most would have had QE and half eagles at some point but it wouldn't surprise me if a noticeable minority did not and most did not have any most of the time either.

There were a lot of poor people at the time, even as US income and living standards to my knowledge were (among) the highest on earth, on average.

I believe the minimum wage was 25c when first instituted in 1938 (?).  That's $10 a week, or less.  Earlier though do not remember when, typical daily wage was $1, I think late 1800''s or early 20th century.  Second is a vague recollection and might not be fully accurate.

Edited by World Colonial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

reflections from conversations with my grandfather (1898-1983), lifelong coal miner, wages during the 1920s-1930s, 50 cents/per day to $3.50/per day (ironically received $5 per day when playing for the mining company baseball team)...saw gold coins up to $20, seldom had occasions to use them, usually only received as gifts or during major transactions i.e. selling a piece of land or timber etc n then quickly converted to smaller denominations as most rural merchants couldnt make change etc...non-utilitarian in most of rural america...owned no gold coins at time of his death but had numerous whitman holders with coins from circulation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zadok... let me take a guess, it was your father, to whom your grandfather passed on his modest collection, that piqued your own life-long interest in numismatics.  Incidentally, considering your grandfather's remarkable longevity considering his line of work, had he suffered any of the effects of what we now commonly call "coal miner's disease," or was he immune the way George Burns was, unaffected by cigar smoking, even going so far as boasting at the age of 100 that he outlived the doctor who advised him to stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandmother was born in 1889. My uncle, her son, was born in 1916. My father was born in 1922. Both boys were serial entrepreneurs. There were very few businesses they did not try. None of the three of them ever used even a single gold coin in commerce in their entire lives, of any denomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

@zadok... let me take a guess, it was your father, to whom your grandfather passed on his modest collection, that piqued your own life-long interest in numismatics.  Incidentally, considering your grandfather's remarkable longevity considering his line of work, had he suffered any of the effects of what we now commonly call "coal miner's disease," or was he immune the way George Burns was, unaffected by cigar smoking, even going so far as boasting at the age of 100 that he outlived the doctor who advised him to stop?

my father never collected coins, received coins directly from my grandfather...father was coal miner as well, both he n grandfather worked in mining 50 plus years each, he outlived grandfather by 10 plus years, grandfather had "black lung disease" as called then but died from heart failure....neither owned any gold coins at time of their deaths....guess my kids will do better upon mine.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Methinks a few people are getting carried away with romantic notions of a time when gold circulated widely, a time which actually didn’t exist other than during the Georgia, Carolina, and California gold rushes, and even then only locally. Most gold coin very quickly got salted away in vaults as “backing” (whatever that means) for most issues of paper money. This idea that people used gold coins regularly in commerce is a myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VKurtB said:

This idea that people used gold coins regularly in commerce is a myth.

I think books like Roger's disabuse that notion.  I do think many more people had a few coins (including DE's) salted away because of mistrust in banks.  It was much more than those that used DE's or collected them....but still a very small % of the U.S. population, agreed.

Roger's sources and numbers are detailed (and somewhat confusing because the data isn't definitive) but it appears that about $7 MM in gold coins was turned in by American citizens from 1934-41, then another $250K per year into the 1950's for a grand total just over $9 MM (another $12.5 MM came back into the country from overseas).

The government estimated just over $300 MM in gold coin in circulation in 1933 but $279 MM lost/in collections/exported with no records.  $25.6 MM came from banks by December 1933 and it was estimated that $18 MM came from American citizens.  That probably included tens of thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands -- of DE's unless you think the skew was to even smaller denominations.  While Americans were allowed to hold $100 in coins, the fine print was lost on many and most probably thought they had to turn in everything or spend it quickly.

It's tough to get detailed numbers on American gold holdings by citizens in the 1930's, let alone the denominations.  We can only guestimate.  Back then, you couldn't survey people anonymously and NOBODY wanted to tell a government questioner or pollster or numismatist how much and what kind of gold coins they had hidden underneath a mattress or in their glass trophy case.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I am going to copy my post above in the RWB Saints Book thread so we don't go back-and-forth for days on this topic and run into the actual Sotheby's auction next week.

https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/420099-roger-burdettes-saint-gaudens-double-eagles-book/page/39/#comments

Let's keep this thread clear for stuff specific to 1933 Saints and the upcoming auction. (thumbsu

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member: Seasoned Veteran

The use of gold coins as a general circulating currency ended after 1861 in most of the nation. It continued in the West as late as 1917, until the Treasury's restrictions on its distribution forced even westerners to accept paper money. As other Americans had discovered decades earlier, paper is a lot easier to carry around than gold. After about 1920 gold coins could be obtained upon request, but individuals and most businesses wanted little to do with them, except as special gifts at births, graduations, Christmas/Hanukah, etc. By the late 1920s they became more difficult to obtain at face value, as they were already bringing over that for the export market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly boilerplate and a rehashing, but an article on the forthcoming sale from R.W. Julian:

https://www.coinagemag.com/1933-saint-gaudens-double-eagle-for-sale/

DWLange, I copied-and-pasted your last post onto the Roger Burdette Saint Book thread so we could respond to it there -- I felt it had some good information, and didn't want anybody to be forced to respond here.  Hope that is OK with you.

Edited by GoldFinger1969
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Mostly boilerplate and a rehashing, but an article on the forthcoming sale from R.W. Julian:

https://www.coinagemag.com/1933-saint-gaudens-double-eagle-for-sale/

DWLange, I copied-and-pasted your last post onto the Roger Burdette Saint Book thread so we could respond to it there -- I felt it had some good information, and didn't want anybody to be forced to respond here.  Hope that is OK with you.

That’s an excellent article, which makes a logical, easy to understand and compelling case that all of the 1933 Saints should be legal to own.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2021 at 10:08 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

  (That knock on the door is VKurtB.  He wants to see the coin up close and personally.)

I already have, at the New York sale where it last sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 6:17 PM, MarkFeld said:

That’s an excellent article, which makes a logical, easy to understand and compelling case that all of the 1933 Saints should be legal to own.

 

 

 

 

Except they’re not. And they’re not going to be.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 7:17 PM, MarkFeld said:

That’s an excellent article, which makes a logical, easy to understand and compelling case that all of the 1933 Saints should be legal to own.

The OBSESSION of the government towards these coins borders on the absurd.  Wished they showed as much concern for financial and monetary integrity when Russian cyberwarriors or Chinese counterfeiters were polluting our shores.

And that 1996 sting operation at the Waldorf was ridiculous.  It's a coin, for crissakes, not a plutonium trigger for a bomb. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 12:13 AM, VKurtB said:

I already have, at the New York sale where it last sold.

You blew it, Kurt.....should have said loudly "Hey, it's Ginger Grant from GILLIGANS ISLAND !!" and pointed towards the door....grabbed the coin....and RAN !! xD

Edited by GoldFinger1969
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
1 1