Hey NGC: Highest Priced MCMVII Saint-Gaudens Is NOT in HA Archives 0

[GoldFinger1969]

Hey NGC....congratulations on this press release, it was a great coin and a great price. 

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/8577/double-eagle-realizes-660000-at-heritage-september-2020-sale/

For some reason, however, the coin doesn't show up in the Heritage Archives database.  It's 7 months after the sale, usually it takes a day or two to be listed (if not instantly).  The sale is $100,000 more than the next-highest priced PR69:

https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=790+231+51+403&Ntk=SI_Titles-Desc&Nty=1&Ntt=%2420+MCMVII+wire+rim+&ic4=KeywordSearch-A-K-071316

DLange, maybe you can reach out to HA ?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

14 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Hey NGC....congratulations on this press release, it was a great coin and a great price. 

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/8577/double-eagle-realizes-660000-at-heritage-september-2020-sale/

For some reason, however, the coin doesn't show up in the Heritage Archives database.  It's 7 months after the sale, usually it takes a day or two to be listed (if not instantly).  The sale is $100,000 more than the next-highest priced PR69:

https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=790+231+51+403&Ntk=SI_Titles-Desc&Nty=1&Ntt=%2420+MCMVII+wire+rim+&ic4=KeywordSearch-A-K-071316

DLange, maybe you can reach out to HA ?

 

 

I found it in the archives. https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?Nty=1&Ntk=Description&Ns=Price|1&N=51+403+790+231&Ntt=Proof&ic4=SortBy-071515
It appears that you looked under under business strikes, rather than Proofs.

Edited April 20, 2021 by MarkFeld

[GoldFinger1969]

4 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I found it in the archives. https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?Nty=1&Ntk=Description&Ns=Price|1&N=51+403+790+231&Ntt=Proof&ic4=SortBy-071515
It appears that you looked under under business strikes, rather than Proofs.

I stand corrected, thanks Mark.   Spot-on !!

 

[RWB]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

It appears that you looked under under business strikes, rather than Proofs.

That search would make sense, since there were no "proofs" made. All the MCMVII were made the same way with the same dies and the same equipment by the same people in the same place, etc., etc. There is not a shred of proof any are/were prepared as "proofs." (The designation was invented several decades ago - long before we had today's depth of facts.

Edited April 20, 2021 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

49 minutes ago, RWB said:

That search would make sense, since there were no "proofs" made. All the MCMVII were made the same way with the same dies and the same equipment by the same people in the same place, etc., etc. There is not a shred of proof any are/were prepared as "proofs." (The designation was invented several decades ago - long before we had today's depth of facts.

It's interesting then -- and commendable -- that you gave Equal Time to the "pro-proofs" and "anti-proofs" sides in your book, Roger.  I also liked how you treated it -- you let each advocate speak for themselves rather than you doing it for them.

Was this your approach or Heritage's, since you seem to feel that the case for Proofs is weak ?

How would you feel about calling those "proof" High Reliefs "proof-like" instead ?

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

55 minutes ago, RWB said:

That search would make sense, since there were no "proofs" made. All the MCMVII were made the same way with the same dies and the same equipment by the same people in the same place, etc., etc. 

Since "proofs" back then didn't have the dark mirror-like black fields we see today on gold coins.....and since the Proofs a few years later were disliked by the coin community (and didn't look like "proofs," either, according to the critics)....can we say that maybe the 3 strikes, metal press, annealing, fast replacement of dies.....all created that "proof-like" appearance on the High Reliefs that were freshly struck with new dies among other factors ?

What was done differently with the UHRs such that they are correctly called proofs -- but not the HRs ?

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Was this your approach or Heritage's, since you seem to feel that the case for Proofs is weak ?

How would you feel about calling those "proof" High Reliefs "proof-like" instead ?

The editorial content in the book is mine. Heritage supplied pricing, notable examples, variety numbering. They did not tinker with the other content, but checked it.

The pattern pieces can reasonably be called "proof" since that was the format of nearly all pattern/experimental pieces. They got 7 blows from the large medal press.

[RWB]

9 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What was done differently with the UHRs such that they are correctly called proofs -- but not the HRs ?

More blows from the press and their status as patterns and thus not technically coins.

RE:"....can we say that maybe the 3 strikes, metal press, annealing, fast replacement of dies.....all created that "proof-like" appearance on the High Reliefs that were freshly struck with new dies among other factors ?"

The first 500 MCMVII were made from the same trio of dies: obverse, reverse collar. A second trio was introduced in November and both sets were in use through the first days of January. There were no replacement dies. The first 500 had potential for being the "best possible" coins, but virtually all had the objectionable fin which marred the coin's appearance.

[MarkFeld]

10 hours ago, RWB said:

That search would make sense, since there were no "proofs" made. All the MCMVII were made the same way with the same dies and the same equipment by the same people in the same place, etc., etc. There is not a shred of proof any are/were prepared as "proofs." (The designation was invented several decades ago - long before we had today's depth of facts.

That search would not make sense. Because even though you obviously strongly disagree with the Proof designation, it exists and shows as such in the population reports and auction archives.

 

 

 

[GoldFinger1969]

54 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

That search would not make sense. Because even though you obviously strongly disagree with the Proof designation, it exists and shows as such in the population reports and auction archives.

You mean that we have coins being CALLED Proofs, right Mark ?  NGC classifies proofs, PCGS does not.  I am unaware of any other coin or type where one TPG recognizes its existence and the other doesn't (but feel free to correct me, anybody).

It's a very interesting debate.  I'm sure you saw the sections in Roger's book with an advocate on both side.  Other books on gold coins and proofs and Roger's own RoAC have more details to share.

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[MarkFeld]

4 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

You mean that we have coins being CALLED Proofs, right Mark ?  NGC classifies proofs, PCGS does not.  I am unaware of any other coin or type where one TPG recognizes its existence and the other doesn't (but feel free to correct me, anybody).

It's a very interesting debate.  I'm sure you saw the sections in Roger's book with an advocate on both side.  Other books on gold coins and proofs and Roger's own RoAC have more details to share.

Yes, NGC and some others believe that some High Reliefs were produced as Proofs. Roger and some others disagree. 
 

If I remember correctly, NGC has designated some 1921 Peace Dollars as Satin Proofs, while PCGS does not recognize any as such.

[GoldFinger1969]

2 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Yes, NGC and some others believe that some High Reliefs were produced as Proofs. Roger and some others disagree. 

The debate is above my paycheck, as they say , so I'll just keep reading both sides and learning.

3 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

If I remember correctly, NGC has designated some 1921 Peace Dollars as Satin Proofs, while PCGS does not recognize any as such.

Interesting, didn't know that as I have next-to-nothing with Peace Dollars.

[RWB]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

That search would not make sense. Because even though you obviously strongly disagree with the Proof designation, it exists and shows as such in the population reports and auction archives.

It was an attribution error - or wishful thinking - made absent any solid information. There were no "proofs" made of MCMVII coins. That is simply a fact and does not change if one wants to cop-out with a bit of word-play. As more and better information becomes available, we, as both hobby and business, must learn how to deal with the inevitable changes. Sticking one's head in the sand and invoking stasis, does not work.

[RWB]

59 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

If I remember correctly, NGC has designated some 1921 Peace Dollars as Satin Proofs, while PCGS does not recognize any as such.

Interesting, didn't know that as I have next-to-nothing with Peace Dollars.

Mark's comment is correct. This opinion was adopted by PCGS long ago before we had accurate and more nearly complete information. Their present policy on this subject parallels that of NGC on "proof" MCMVII coins: neither is supported by facts and research.

[GoldFinger1969]

35 minutes ago, RWB said:

It was an attribution error - or wishful thinking - made absent any solid information. There were no "proofs" made of MCMVII coins. That is simply a fact and does not change if one wants to cop-out with a bit of word-play. As more and better information becomes available, we, as both hobby and business, must learn how to deal with the inevitable changes. Sticking one's head in the sand and invoking stasis, does not work.

There's a clear distinction today between biz strikes and proofs.  Back 110 years ago, the distinction might not have been as clear.

What specific process or addition did Proofs have in 1907 that the biz strikes did not have ?

If special proof dies needed to be used -- but then replaced very frequently -- how do we know that they weren't proof dies that were used for longer periods of striking ?

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

20 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

There's a clear distinction today between biz strikes and proofs.  Back 110 years ago, the distinction might not have been as clear.

What specific process or addition did Proofs have in 1907 that the biz strikes did not have ?

Beginning in the 1840s "Master coins" were made from deliberately polished dies and circulation coins were not. That became a clear point of distinction along with greater detail imparted by using the large medal press to strike proofs for collectors, and for patterns and sample coins (so-called branch mint proofs). Those distinctions were still in use in 1907. In 1908 sandblasting, as often used for medals, was tired. The rest is the Mint's attempt to make something as distinctive as mirror proofs but with dies of uneven basins. In 1936, after uniform basins had been adopted for the 1909, 1913, and 1916 designs, mirror proofs again became standard.

Edited April 20, 2021 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Beginning in the 1840s "Master coins" were made from deliberately polished dies and circulation coins were not. That became a clear point of distinction along with greater detail imparted by using the large medal press to strike proofs for collectors, and for patterns and sample coins (so-called branch mint proofs). Those distinctions were still in use in 1907.

But maybe because the 1907 High Reliefs were "special coins" -- they knew they wouldn't make millions and probably not even hundreds of thousands -- they knew they could increase the quality because dies would be striking less coins.  And maybe they were polished or given other special treatment ?

If you know you are going to strike 10,000 - 15,000 coins you probably prepare differently than if you need to make 2 million, right ?

You say they used the large medal press for proofs -- they used that for the HR's and UHRs, right ?

1 hour ago, RWB said:

BegiIn 1908 sandblasting, as often used for medals, was tired. The rest is the Mint's attempt to make something as distinctive as mirror proofs but with dies of uneven basins. In 1936, after uniform basins had been adopted for the 1909, 1913, and 1916 designs, mirror proofs again became standard.

It's probably just me and what I am accustomed to...but if it doesn't looke mirror-like, it doesn't ring "proof" to me even though I know early proof coins didn't have the mirror look. 

[RWB]

The definition of a "proof coin" was subject to fluctuation from 1908-1916 due to artist's objections to mirror polishing of their medallic-style coin designs, and the Mint's search for something distinctive for coin collectors. Products included "satin" proofs, "sandblast" proofs, and "matte" proofs (made by sandblasting dies not the finished coins). Nothing was done between 1917 and 1936 when the Mint reintroduced proofs for collectors. These were indented to be mirror proofs for silver and satin proofs for minor coins, but all soon became mirror proofs later in the same year. (See my book U.S. Proof Cons 1936-1942.)

Early (pre-1840) Master coins (aka proof coins) are a different matter and we have to examine multiple features of the coins and literature to make a reasonable assessment of whether a coin was supposed to be a Master coin or merely a sample specimen for review. Much of the time the word "specimen" in old documents refers simply to a sample or example and not something prepared for a special purpose.

[GoldFinger1969]

Roger....so let's get down to the nitty-gritty....if the 1907 HR's are made on a medal press....and if they have special dies...and if they get multiple strikes (3) and annealing....even if we don't have "special" polished dies....can't we say that there is some overlap with then-current or later proof minting processes ?

I think this confusion is because in the past and in the future you clearly had Biz Strikes and Proofs -- 2 distinct striking processes and coins.   The MCMVII High Reliefs seem to combine elements of both.

JMHO.

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

19 minutes ago, RWB said:

Mint's search for something distinctive for coin collectors

See correspondence between Dir. Andrew and William Woodin in 1910 concerning gold proofs.

[GoldFinger1969]

I can see tonight I'll be re-hitting the 2 proof arguments in the Double Eagle book......

[RWB]

3 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Roger....so let's get down to the nitty-gritty....if the 1907 HR's are made on a medal press....and if they have special dies...and if they get multiple strikes (3) and annealing....even if we don't have "special" polished dies....can't we say that there is some overlap with then-current or later proof minting processes ?

Yep. As I've commented many times: they were all made the same way so they are all "proofs" or all "not proofs." They cannot be divided.

Edited April 20, 2021 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

1 minute ago, RWB said:

Yep. As I;ve comments many times: they were all made the same way so they are all "proofs" or all "not proofs." They cannot be divided.

OK, I think we're making progress.....so you are saying you'd have less objections if ALL the MCMVII High Reliefs were all called "proofs" instead of some YES and some NO......is that it ?

Clearly, some of the High Reliefs looked spectacular and those are the ones getting the NGC Proof designation...and others that don't look quite as "proof-like" aren't getting that treatment.

Makes you wonder how they could tell proof from non-proof in later years when you had those Proof Saints that were sandlbasted or satin and neither really looked that distinct from Biz Strikes (at least from the pics I've seen; maybe they look different in-hand).

[RWB]

Normal variation in coinage. Some Lincoln cents look spectacular, some are ordinary and some are inferior. Those are individual opinions. Nothing more. It is similar to some TPGs calling early strike coins "SMS" or "Specimens" or other such nonsense - the expansion of ignorance. With every MCMVII coin being handled by multiple people a minimum of five times each, the range would be expected to be greater than single-strike coins. Further, after manufacture the coins were inspected, counted, weighed and baged. The bags shipped to sub-Treasuries -- lots of routine handling, fingering, poking, etc. The first 500 were likely to have received LESS of this because they were made to please President Roosevelt, and thus kept in one place until later distribution.

If NGC has a clear, reliable means of distinguishing these first 500 from the rest, that would be a nice addition to our knowledge about these coins. And I feel it would be reasonable to mention that on a label -- but the criteria MUST be clear, repeatable by others, and verified by comparison with known pieces from the first 500. (Also -- must be before they met the Persians at Thermopylae...or any film producers.)

Edited April 20, 2021 by RWB

[RWB]

Neither Solomon nor Schrodinger could resolve the paradox by cutting the baby in half or sawing the cat-in-the-box in half.

MCMVII’s, like the baby or the cat, was a single indivisible entity.

Edited April 20, 2021 by RWB

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

OK, I think we're making progress.....so you are saying you'd have less objections if ALL the MCMVII High Reliefs were all called "proofs" instead of some YES and some NO......is that it ?

Clearly, some of the High Reliefs looked spectacular and those are the ones getting the NGC Proof designation...and others that don't look quite as "proof-like" aren't getting that treatment.

Makes you wonder how they could tell proof from non-proof in later years when you had those Proof Saints that were sandlbasted or satin and neither really looked that distinct from Biz Strikes (at least from the pics I've seen; maybe they look different in-hand).

NGC hasn’t attributed certain examples as Proofs because they “looked spectacular”. If you do a search of auction archives, you should be able to find the characteristics, that in the words of NGC, the coins display.

And both the sandblast and satin/Roman Finish Proofs from 1908-1915 look markedly different from business strikes,

[GoldFinger1969]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

Neither Solomon nor Schrodinger could resolve the paradox by cutting the baby in half or sawing the cat-in-the-box in half.  MCMVII’s, like the baby or the cat, was a single indivisible entity.

In the picture, I see King Solomon, the 2 mothers, and the baby....but where are the High Relief coins ? 

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

NGC hasn’t attributed certain examples as Proofs because they “looked spectacular”. If you do a search of auction archives, you should be able to find the characteristics, that in the words of NGC, the coins display. And both the sandblast and satin/Roman Finish Proofs from 1908-1915 look markedly different from business strikes,

I think you are right on both counts, Mark....I need to re-hit the relevant chapters in Roger's book since it's been almost a year since I read it.  

Edited April 20, 2021 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

3 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think you are right on both counts, Mark....I need to re-hit the relevant chapters in Roger's book since it's been almost a year since I read it.  

There are no "Roman finish" proofs - that was Breen's imagination. They are satin proofs, nothing more or less.

The criteria to create a proof MCVII are present on many of the coins -- after all, there were only two die pairs and two collars, and they were evidently mixed indiscriminately (although probably not intentionally) during production beginning in November.

[GoldFinger1969]

13 minutes ago, RWB said:

There are no "Roman finish" proofs - that was Breen's imagination. They are satin proofs, nothing more or less.

The criteria to create a proof MCVII are present on many of the coins -- after all, there were only two die pairs and two collars, and they were evidently mixed indiscriminately (although probably not intentionally) during production beginning in November.

I'm confused....you were dismissive about proofs in an earlier post, here you say that the die pairs could be consistent with proofs.  You seem more concerned that the pairs were mixed during striking, not sure why that matters.

2 die pairs....2 collars....pretty small number of mix-and-match possibilities, right ?

Is there a special combination of the dies and collars you would want to see for a proof ?