Link to: Koessl Collection of Sandblast Proof Gold on Display at Great Collections' ANA Table 3 3

[RWB]

This link goes to another message board where there is considerable information posted. Happy bidding.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1079109/ana-koessl-collection-of-matte-proof-gold-on-display-at-greatcollections-ana-table

Edited July 27, 2022 by RWB

[MarkFeld]

I first had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Koessl when I worked for David Hall, more than 30 years ago. In the ensuing years, I occasionally saw him at shows, viewed/assessed a small number of coins for him and spoke to him on the phone. Two things have always struck me about him: 1) He is easily among the most dedicated, particular and focused collectors I've ever met and 2) He is a most gracious gentleman.

I'd love to be able to view his complete (former) set and I congratulate both him and the new owner.

Edited July 27, 2022 by MarkFeld

[GoldFinger1969]

Interesting...so he only collected proof gold (all of them matte ?). 

Very impressive Saints. 

[FlyingAl]

Impressive for sure. What a collection, and it paid off for him in the end! This is the epitome of buying eye appeal, based on the comments about the collection. 

[Zebo]

Wowsa

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 9:28 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Interesting...so he only collected proof gold (all of them matte ?). 

Very impressive Saints. 

Please use the term "sandblast" rather than "matte" or this thread's originator might (sand)blast you.

If Mr. Koessl collected other types of coins, I'm unaware of it. But either way, not all of his Proof gold coins are either of the above - the ones dated 1909 and 1910 are typically referred to as "Roman Gold" or "Satin". 

[RWB]

On 7/27/2022 at 11:20 AM, MarkFeld said:

the ones dated 1909 and 1910 are typically referred to as "Roman Gold" or "Satin". 

"Roman gold" is a completely meaningless piece of krap invented/regurgitated by Wally Breen.

[VKurtB]

On 7/27/2022 at 11:54 AM, RWB said:

"Roman gold" is a completely meaningless piece of krap invented/regurgitated by Wally Breen.

How about Roamin’ Gold?

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 11:54 AM, RWB said:

"Roman gold" is a completely meaningless piece of krap invented/regurgitated by Wally Breen.

Whatever you think of it, that's the way the large majority of numismatists refer to such coins.

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 9:34 AM, FlyingAl said:

Impressive for sure. What a collection, and it paid off for him in the end! This is the epitome of buying eye appeal, based on the comments about the collection. 

To "eye appeal", I'd certainly add quality and originality.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/27/2022 at 12:56 PM, VKurtB said:

How about Roamin’ Gold?

Romaine Gold....a very exotic lettuce. 

[VKurtB]

On 7/27/2022 at 11:57 AM, MarkFeld said:

Whatever you think of it, that's the way the large majority of numismatists refer to such coins.

The large majority of numismatists are irrelevant. All must genuflect to Roger the Dodger. 
 

“May the peace of Roger’s preferred Terminology be with you.”

”And also with you.”

Edited July 27, 2022 by VKurtB

[zadok]

On 7/27/2022 at 12:54 PM, RWB said:

"Roman gold" is a completely meaningless piece of krap invented/regurgitated by Wally Breen.

...sayeth the grasshopper to the master....

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/27/2022 at 1:46 PM, VKurtB said:

The large majority of numismatists are irrelevant. All must genuflect to Roger the Dodger.   

“May the peace of Roger’s preferred Terminology be with you.”  ”And also with you.”

I'm of a different faith...I belong to Jim Cramer's "The Church of What's Happening Now" ?? 

[VKurtB]

On 7/27/2022 at 2:03 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I'm of a different faith...I belong to Jim Cramer's "The Church of What's Happening Now" ?? 

I’m of the faith of science, but I have studied many faiths, all “Western”. One of my most treasured gifts was a Tanakh given to me by a long-standing member of the PA General Assembly. It was the last one with which she was sworn in to her last term. We agreed on quite little politically, but I did help her get a bill passed into law, and I helped her favorite candidate for Philadelphia City Commission learn the intricacies of the PA Election Code. Oh, and by the way, what went on in Philly in November 2020 was blatantly illegal. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by VKurtB

[RWB]

On 7/27/2022 at 12:57 PM, MarkFeld said:

Whatever you think of it, that's the way the large majority of numismatists refer to such coins.

It is completely false and misleading. Better to get back on better and historically accurate terminology than to encourage continued confusion.

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 2:44 PM, RWB said:

It is completely false and misleading. Better to get back on better and historically accurate terminology than to encourage continued confusion.

The terminology seems to give an indication of what the coins look like. How is it false, misleading, inaccurate and confusing? 

[FlyingAl]

Well, since we have quite a few experts gathered here, I recently re-read an article in The Numismatist that stated that Satin proof dies were actually sandblasted, rather than having no treatment at all as previously stated. This would make the Satin proofs no different from the Matte proof cents and nickels of 1909-1916 and 1913-1916. The basis for this was the Liberty Nickels series and the etch change from acid to sandblasting (no conclusive evidence was given to prove that sandblasting was ever used on proof Liberty Nickel dies), as well as a wear pattern from the dies. 

Here's my opinion - based on the high resolution images from coinfacts, the Matte proofs (cents and nickels) have an obviously granular surface. The Satin proofs have no such texturing of the fields at all. I believe that the article must have been in error based on this, but I don't have an in hand reference point. Can anyone comment on the differences between a Matte and Satin proof in hand? 

Personally, I see no reason to claim that the Satin proof dies were ever sandblasted. I'm not sure why such a statement was made, so I'm trying to figure it out. Really, I would want any in hand opinion anyone has to offer. Thanks!

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 3:21 PM, FlyingAl said:

Well, since we have quite a few experts gathered here, I recently re-read an article in The Numismatist that stated that Satin proof dies were actually sandblasted, rather than having no treatment at all as previously stated. This would make the Satin proofs no different from the Matte proof cents and nickels of 1909-1916 and 1913-1916. The basis for this was the Liberty Nickels series and the etch change from acid to sandblasting (no conclusive evidence was given to prove that sandblasting was ever used on proof Liberty Nickel dies), as well as a wear pattern from the dies. 

Here's my opinion - based on the high resolution images from coinfacts, the Matte proofs (cents and nickels) have an obviously granular surface. The Satin proofs have no such texturing of the fields at all. I believe that the article must have been in error based on this, but I don't have an in hand reference point. Can anyone comment on the differences between a Matte and Satin proof in hand? 

Personally, I see no reason to claim that the Satin proof dies were ever sandblasted. I'm not sure why such a statement was made, so I'm trying to figure it out. Really, I would want any in hand opinion anyone has to offer. Thanks!

Are you asking about the difference - granular vs. lack of texturing - between Matte and Satin Proof cents and nickels, Proof gold or both groups of coins?

[VKurtB]

I know what “Matte” looks like. I know what “Sandblast” looks like.

I know what Brilliant and Cameo proof looks like. I even know what “antiqued” looks like. 
But I’ll be darned if I know what “Roman” looks like. 
Do they wear togas and speak Latin?

Edited July 27, 2022 by VKurtB

[FlyingAl]

On 7/27/2022 at 2:51 PM, MarkFeld said:

Are you asking about the difference - granular vs. lack of texturing - between Matte and Satin Proof cents and nickels, Proof gold or both groups of coins?

What I really want to know is if in hand the proof gold (Satin) looks different from the Matte proof cents and nickels. I'm trying to find a basis for why the authors of the article mentioned would state that they were made in the exact same way if they look entirely different. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by FlyingAl

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 3:58 PM, VKurtB said:

I know what “Matte” looks like. I know what “Sandblast” looks like.

I know what Brilliant and Cameo proof looks like. I even know what “antiqued” looks like. 
But I’ll be darned if I know what “Roman” looks like. 
Do they wear togas and speak Latin?

Look at 1909 and 1910 Proof gold coins and you’ll know what “Roman” looks like. They’re not brilliant in the traditional sense but they are highly vibrant and glow. And they look different from 1936 Satin Proof cents and nickels.

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 3:59 PM, FlyingAl said:

What I really want to know is if in hand the proof gold (Satin) looks different from the Matte proof cents and nickels. I'm trying to find a basis for why the authors of the article mentioned would state that they were made in the exact same way if they look entirely different. 

They do to me. That said, maybe if I sat down with a couple examples of each and compared them I’d have a different answer. If/when I can do that, I’ll do so and report back.

Edited July 27, 2022 by MarkFeld

[FlyingAl]

On 7/27/2022 at 3:16 PM, MarkFeld said:

They do to me. That said, maybe if I sat down with a couple examples of each and compared them I’d have a different answer. If/when I can do that, I’ll do so and report back.

Thank you!

[VKurtB]

That could be interesting. The dealers who specialize in special 1936 cents and nickels tend NOT to be the same guys who specialize in 20th century gold pieces. Angel Dee’s for the 1¢ and 5¢. Or Charmy Harker. 

[MarkFeld]

On 7/27/2022 at 4:26 PM, FlyingAl said:

Thank you!

I just checked and based on the lot offerings, I’ll have the opportunity to look (at our August 22-28 sale sale) and compare some of the coins we’ve been discussing. I’m guessing I’ll be able to do so sometime the week after next.

[Henri Charriere]

On 7/27/2022 at 12:54 PM, RWB said:

"Roman gold" is a completely meaningless piece of krap invented/regurgitated by Wally Breen.

Breen, cats, pedigree... do Norway rats fit into any of this?

[RWB]

On 7/27/2022 at 4:59 PM, FlyingAl said:

I'm trying to find a basis for why the authors of the article mentioned would state that they were made in the exact same way if they look entirely different.

Primarily because the authors of the article are ignorant about what the Philadelphia Mint did in both coin and medal making, and the use of analogous processes for each. They are merely repeating discredited assumptions. This type of ingrained fossilization is only another reason why numismatics - as approached in the US  - is not an academic area and there are no degrees by quality institutions on the subject. Rather than explore, investigate, correlate and change, they cling to the old false-familiar, thus promoting yet another generation of mindless copying.

The processes used to make satin and matte proof coins are the same, except - matte proof dies were sandblasted before final hardening and tempering. Otherwise, the coins were all struck on medal presses and without further alteration. This method allowed many coins to be struck as proofs but with virtually identical surfaces - no degredatio and luster development as would happen with untreated dies..

Edited July 28, 2022 by RWB

[VKurtB]

What are the 1994 and 1997 C&C Set Jefferson nickels? They are “matte” (my choice of word) and fantastically well struck. The TPGS call them “SMS”. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by VKurtB