Saudi gold discs - comment from ATT (across the tracks) 0

[RWB]

This was posted on another forum by member Zoins.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1089903/the-roger-burdette-collection

It's a fun thread (and a surprise to see!), but I mention it because of the good reference to NGC's authenticity comments about these, and the completely inaccurate history of the gold pieces. (Check the links in the post.)

The incorrect history originated with a short US Mint press release, a brief listing in the US Mint publication Domestic and Foreign Coin Made at U.S. Mints, and an article written by Harry X. Boosel. The article combined the two sources with speculation, guesses, rumors, and some incomplete history of ARAMCO. At the time, there was so little information available that ANY attempt to tell the story behind these gold discs was condemned to be wrong. I can't really fault Boosel or the hobby for "adopting" the fake story -- it was, from a simple view, plausible. Plus the Treasury Dept./Mint did nothing to present what actually occurred.

Anyone who'd like an interesting experience, or who might question the numismatic value of good factual research, should compare Mr. Boosel's article, with the chapter on this subject in my new book Saudi Gold and other Tales from the Mint.

Edited April 6, 2023 by RWB

[RWB]

The piece was graded MS 64 by PCGS before I bought it. But the real challenge for anyone grading this kind of item is reconciling flat, almost 2-dimensional relief, broad unstruck planchet areas, and crude mechanical inscriptions. Some of these are also problems in grading Indian $2.50 and $5 coins, certain classic commemoratives, and territorial gold pieces.

Relief --- Raised design elements are flat on the top surface of the eagle (rev) and will clearly show every tiny scratch, nick or ding. Where there are recessed details there is very little transition between top and bottom. Obverse lettering is barely rounded on top, but only slightly canted to facilitate release from the die. How does a grader evaluate this kind of surface.

Planchet --- Except for relief and the depressed areas surrounding obv letters, the planchet is largely untouched. That is, the original planchet with all its scratches and marks is clear and obvious. The grader has to separate marks that were on the planchet to start (as struck) with damage acquired in shipping or use. This is analogous to the field on Indian $2.50 and $5.

Mechanical inscriptions --- Reverse hubs were cut with a cheap mechanical cutter, the the standard Janvier reducing lathe. There was no plaster or bronze model. Digits were punched with items from the cutter set.

So, a grader has to separate pre-strike marks, from post-strike marks, then assess their severity and visual impact, and finally determine the overall quality. That's a tough job on these pieces and similar coin and medal designs.

Give it a try and see what you come up with. Then try your skill at grading some of those Indian QE and HE.

Edited April 5, 2023 by RWB

[EarlyUS.com]

I have only ever owned two purported pieces and sent them both in for certification at NGC.  They both came back as "questionable authenticity" so apparently, there are plenty of fakes to go around.  Incidentally, each of my fake pieces was taken off of a different die!

[RWB]

Sorry to hear that.

There are two groups of counterfeits - those made to take advantage of the authentic pieces' market premium in the late 1940s; and ones made to cheat collectors and tourists. The first group will be approximately correct weight and gold content, but sloppy execution. The second will have correct to debased gold and much better prepared. None are all that great once you know what to look for. (On this, Boosel is incorrect.)

[Henri Charriere]

Slightly off-track but I would be curious to know if any TPGS threw its doors open to the press the way the U.S. Bullion Depository did years ago for cursory examination of its inner workings?  I envisioned an assembly line at work with coins which stumped all the experts shunted off to a resource center for referral to senior consultants.  Two more questions:  a). Was an exception made by PCGS to grade this based solely on historical records, and b). Does the edge bear traditional milling?

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/7/2023 at 9:48 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Slightly off-track but I would be curious to know if any TPGS threw its doors open to the press the way the U.S. Bullion Depository did years ago for cursory examination of its inner workings? ....

As to my opening comment/question, recently posted above, it appears it was answered by an item I inadvertently came across checking out the latest "NGC News & Announcements" which revealed the recent visit to Sarasota's headquarters of former congressman Mike Castle who championed the State Quarters program and was honored with the recent release of the New Legacy Label.  He was shepherded about by NGC's project manager, Ronnie Abberzhon, and the news submission contained several interesting tidbits including the former legislator's relation to a distant relative, Benjamin Franklin, as well as the fact that the State Quarters program attracted the interest of 100 million people many of whom were drawn to other aspects of the hobby.  An interesting read!

[RWB]

On 4/7/2023 at 9:48 PM, Henri Charriere said:

a). Was an exception made by PCGS to grade this based solely on historical records, and b). Does the edge bear traditional milling?

A) To my knowledge, PCGS had only the Boosel article information. "Grade" is a categorization of the state of preservation and has little to do with historical information.

B) The edge is reeded. However, it has flattened upper surfaces and thus is not as sharp as on most coins. These were not coins and never circulated except among currency dealers.

[7.jaguars]

I am not sure how these are not coins, even if they did not reach commercial channels. They certainly are not medals.

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:57 AM, 7.jaguars said:

I am not sure how these are not coins, even if they did not reach commercial channels. They certainly are not medals.

I associate coins with dates and denominations. This is one of the famed Bullion family's stepchildren which are related to the Bars and Ingots.  🤣

[7.jaguars]

Was I misinformed?These most clearly do have purposeful denominations though not struck on coin. Perhaps you will recall the British sovereign series which similarly lacks denomination. These 1 and 4 sov pieces were meant at those values, and remind me of other issues without date or "wrong" date.

So, no, I will go for coin still and absolutely not bar or ingot.

[Zebo]

On 4/9/2023 at 9:46 AM, 7.jaguars said:

Was I misinformed?These most clearly do have purposeful denominations though not struck on coin. Perhaps you will recall the British sovereign series which similarly lacks denomination. These 1 and 4 sov pieces were meant at those values, and remind me of other issues without date or "wrong" date.

So, no, I will go for coin still and absolutely not bar or ingot.

I view modern sovereigns (1817-1916) as coins as they did circulate and had a universally known value. They did not need a demonization on them. Circa 1916 for all practical purposes, they became bullion and is currently valued in that manner.

The early hammered sovereigns starting in 1489 is for another discussion. 

Many English Crowns also did not have a denomination - they are also coins.

as for the Saudi discs, I’m torn on what to call it - Bullion?

[Henri Charriere]

Well, gentlemen, one sure way to put this matter to rest is to cross-examine the OP directly...

To @RWB:  Et tu, Brute?  What is the formal name for these gold pieces you had earlier stated, "were not coins and never circulated except among currency dealers"?

 

[zadok]

...the US Gov't thru the US Mint classified these items as "discs" the mint correspondence clearly indicates that the official position of the US was they were bullion n not coinage....Altz n Barton referred to them as "discs" n alternatively as "weights"...normally, coinage is items intended to circulate the US gov't never clearly indicated the intended purposes of these items....

[J P M]

On 4/9/2023 at 12:07 PM, zadok said:

...the US Gov't thru the US Mint classified these items as "discs" the mint correspondence clearly indicates that the official position of the US was they were bullion n not coinage....Altz n Barton referred to them as "discs" n alternatively as "weights"...normally, coinage is items intended to circulate the US gov't never clearly indicated the intended purposes of these items....

So they were promissory disks. Kinda like a guarantee of payment.  

[GoldFinger1969]

I believe Roger said they were specially made to meet the needs of Middle East/Saudi royalty types for concession payments.

[RWB]

On 4/9/2023 at 11:54 AM, Henri Charriere said:

What is the formal name for these gold pieces you had earlier stated, "were not coins and never circulated except among currency dealers"?

They were commonly called "gold discs." Here are two excerpts from documents. Notice the denomination in the upper clip and "fine gold discs" in the letter extract.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by RWB

[RWB]

On 4/9/2023 at 12:59 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I believe Roger said they were specially made to meet the needs of Middle East/Saudi royalty types for concession payments.

No. That is incorrect. The gold discs were not prepared or used for petroleum concession payments.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 4/9/2023 at 1:02 PM, RWB said:

No. That is incorrect. The gold discs were not prepared or used for petroleum concession payments.

Really.....not at all ?  Then what kind of payments were they used for ?

[RWB]

On 4/9/2023 at 9:46 AM, 7.jaguars said:

Was I misinformed?These most clearly do have purposeful denominations though not struck on coin. Perhaps you will recall the British sovereign series which similarly lacks denomination. These 1 and 4 sov pieces were meant at those values, and remind me of other issues without date or "wrong" date.

So, no, I will go for coin still and absolutely not bar or ingot.

They were bullion, not coins and not used as money in commerce. The full story cannot be explained in these small on-line spaces, so I refer you to the book shown on the Marketplace forum.

[RWB]

On 4/9/2023 at 1:05 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Really.....not at all ?  Then what kind of payments were they used for ?

The gold discs were not payments. Forget all the previous stories and guesses. All are wrong. You'll have to refer to my book Saudi Gold and other Tales from the Mint for the complete story.

[7.jaguars]

So the fact they were struck to an exact SOVEREIGN standard has nothing to do with it  (somehow that does not seem by chance or how one would strike a medallion)? I have a hard time believing that. Also, were they then struck as playthings? They were never used in commerce of any sort? Hmmm, also a hard time believing that.

Another issue is that these do not bear insignia or markings directly relating to Saudi Arabia so there may have been technicalities in just what was represented on legends on such a piece. 

 

[Henri Charriere]

Oddly, the one objection that could reasonably have been raised, that each disc be imprint[ed] on one face with the weight "1/4 oz. fine," per type-written letter dated October 3, 1946, never was. (Instead, each clearly bears the mark: .2354 TROY OZS., clearly short of the required .2500 TROY OZS.)  But to paraphrase Shakespeare,  I darest not wag my tongue in noise so rude against he who on occasion, purportedly speaketh ex cathedra, but not necessarily for formal attribution.  

[RWB]

Please don't "overrun" the letter extract. There is a long chain of correspondence leading to the final gold discs.