1849 pattern double eagle gold coin smithsonian private issue 2016 1/10 999 fine 1 1

[716to509to562]

Could someone please assist in determining the worth of this 1849 pattern double eagle gold coin? It's a privately issued piece from the Smithsonian, dated 2016, weighing 1 oz with a fineness of 999. There's no certification number.

Edited Saturday at 07:38 PM by 716to509to562

[Coinbuf]

On 6/22/2024 at 12:15 PM, 716to509to562 said:

Could someone please assist in determining the worth of this 1849 pattern double eagle gold coin? It's a privately issued piece from the Smithsonian, dated 2016, weighing 1 oz with a fineness of 999. There's no certification number.

 

First it is a 1/10 ounce coin not a 1oz coin.   The melt value at this moment is $233, that is the value I would pay for it.

[RWB]

It's literally worth its weight in gold.

Just a piece of fluff -- a small medal struck off to con the suckers. "Smithsonian" reference is highly misleading.

[ldhair]

Double Eagle? Private Issue? Pattern? Interesting label. 

[Henri Charriere]

Just a moment, gentlemen!

Can't you see the Waving Hand?  He is a Newbie!  I know he's posted before, but let's mind our manners here. (Ricky, go out and see if you can locate that Red Carpet.)

He has posted a slab with a familiar mark... NGC. All the gratuitous editorial criticisms of the coin, not to mention superfluous commentary, reflects poorly on our host. 

No need to be cruel. It appears to be an authentic, authorized rendition of the larger coin now in the custody of the Smithsonian. What's wrong with that? Its small bullion size makes the coin affordable to anyone who cannot dream of owning a unique pattern. 

To the OP:  Speaking from personal experience, examples like this usually sell for a small premium over spot gold value with other considerations taken into account such as fabrication and, of course, the costs of encapsulation. 

I do not recall similar criticism being leveled against the Mercury dime centennial, issued the same year in the same 1/10 oz. denomination. 

A new member should be able to post a simple query without being ambushed by long-time members who've apparently forgotten what it was like to be new on an unfamiliar platform.  

[Mike Meenderink]

[Henri Charriere]

🐓:  Well now, that certainly changes everything, doesn't it?

Q.A.:  It certainly does, but I find it difficult to believe mainstay members of the Board did not know this.  If it's not your cup of tea, understood.  Thanks, Mike, for the helpful post. Now the OP has something to go by.  

Edit:  I am unable to reconcile the fact that the OP's example carries an adjectival grade, Ultra Cameo Gem Proof with no certification number while the two on sale are certified Ultra Cemeo PF-70 with a certification number.  My feeling is the earlier one was issued per special arrangement.  It stands to reason the two on sale were "resubmitted" for formal certification and would therefore expect to command a premium price. But frankly, while the piece is worth more than gold spot, I do not believe it will find many buyers at the seller's inflated price. I am going to arbitrarily set the FMV of the OP's specimen, pardon, example, at $299. There is no compelling reason why a contemporary example, unlike a commemorative, would require formal certification.

 

Edited Sunday at 01:39 AM by Henri Charriere
Reconsideration

[R__Rash]

@Coinbuf, @RWB, @Mike Meenderink , and @ldhair,  this brings up a question in my mind that you all could maybe cipher on for me. The OP post an NGC UCam gem proof. The great examples Mike provided are PF70 UCam. Am I wrong or does NGC consider gem or gem proof to be between PF or MS66 and PF or MS69 and labeled so as being understood, explaining no numeric for grade. If so How then would the value be affected? 
Also why would there be no bar code for identification. 

Edited Sunday at 02:45 AM by R__Rash
Spell

[Mike Meenderink]

On 6/22/2024 at 7:16 PM, R__Rash said:

@Coinbuf, @RWB, @Mike Meenderink , and @ldhair,  this brings up a question in my mind that you all could maybe cipher on for me. The OP post an NGC UCam gem proof. The great examples Mike provided are PF70 UCam. Am I wrong or does NGC consider gem proof to be between PF or MS66 and PF or MS69 and labeled so as being understood, explaining no numeric for grade. If so How then would the value be affected? 

Correct. Some dealers choose to have the coins adjectival graded instead of numerically Sheldon graded. Any coin that would grade above PF 65(not PF 66) would be considered a Gem Proof even an Ultra Cameo Gem Proof. I believe this is done to save submittal costs and blur the actual overall numismatic value of the coin. Not a fan. Cheers!

Edited Sunday at 02:26 AM by Mike Meenderink

[Henri Charriere]

But, but... it was done by NGC at the behest of the Smithsonian.  Not marketed for numismatists, per se. A PF-70 is not as meaningful or as sexy as a Gem Proof to the general public with an interest in history.  That's my take.

[RWB]

On 6/22/2024 at 10:16 PM, R__Rash said:

The great examples Mike provided are PF70 UCam. Am I wrong or does NGC consider gem or gem proof to be between PF or MS66 and PF or MS69 and labeled so as being understood, explaining no numeric for grade. If so How then would the value be affected? 

Who knows. It was just a cash grab, and remains nothing but a shiny piece of gold bullion in a meaningless holder.

[The 1849 piece was originally an experimental piece made for production approval in Dec 1849. Chief Coiner, Franklin Peale blocked the double eagle until Engraver Longacre produced hubs with much lower relief. Design patterns were made in copper plus lead splashers prior to the gold experimental pieces, and the design was approved. Two gold experimental pieces were made before Peale refused to supply bullion because of the excess relief. Peale did not like the 1850 version but was overruled. Peale was fired in Dec 1854.]

Edited Sunday at 03:04 AM by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/22/2024 at 3:15 PM, 716to509to562 said:

Could someone please assist in determining the worth of this 1849 pattern double eagle gold coin?

Recreations and re-strikes of famous issues, sometimes in smaller gold denominations, is a way to market stuff. 

Check out the Saint-Gaudens National Park Foundation gold AND silver commemoratives.

[GoldFinger1969]

Mike, those are Ask prices....where do you see any completed sales if any ?

[Just Bob]

These were issued by Govmint.com, a private company not affiliated with the US mint. They also struck 1 ounce pieces in that same design.

[716to509to562]

On 6/22/2024 at 8:13 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Mike, those are Ask prices....where do you see any completed sales if any ?

I haven't see any final sales. Right now, the value of the coins is 233?

[Coinbuf]

On 6/22/2024 at 7:16 PM, R__Rash said:

@Coinbuf, @RWB, @Mike Meenderink , and @ldhair,  this brings up a question in my mind that you all could maybe cipher on for me. The OP post an NGC UCam gem proof. The great examples Mike provided are PF70 UCam. Am I wrong or does NGC consider gem or gem proof to be between PF or MS66 and PF or MS69 and labeled so as being understood, explaining no numeric for grade. If so How then would the value be affected? 
Also why would there be no bar code for identification. 

As Mike said these adjectival grades are provided by NGC to bulk submitters who request them.   It can be to save on grading costs, or it may be easier for the sellers to market the coins, or both.    Coins without a numerical grade cannot be used in the NGC registry and because there is no grade there is no need for the barcode.

As to value, from my point of view this is just like a generic silver round, the value of those coins moves up or down with silver spot.   This is the same and its value would fluctuate with the gold spot price, however, I would not be surprised if the original sellers (think home shopping network) charged a significant premium when they sold them to buyers that purchase from those types of operations.   I never follow or track stuff like this so I cannot say if there is any segment of the secondary market that is willing to pay any premium over spot.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/22/2024 at 11:55 PM, 716to509to562 said:

I haven't see any final sales. Right now, the value of the coins is 233?

That's 1/10th the melt or bullion value of 1 ounce of gold.  That is the approximate "floor" in the price for a coin.  Some dealers may even underbid but that's the exception; usually, a good dealer or LCS will give you very close to the spot price of gold or the appropriate fraction thereof.

Edited Sunday at 05:57 AM by GoldFinger1969

[Mike Meenderink]

On 6/22/2024 at 8:13 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Mike, those are Ask prices....where do you see any completed sales if any ?

Ask price  I didn't go deeper.

[Mike Meenderink]

BTW...   99% of these coins were struck in PF 70 UCAM. As most modern private mints have high quality equipment as well as special handling for these private issue coins. I would be surprised if one came out of the original mint packaging and had any flaws. Modern proof coins are not too hard to get to be 70s all day if the quality control is on its game at the mint.

[Henri Charriere]

On 6/22/2024 at 10:57 PM, RWB said:

Who knows. It was just a cash grab, and remains nothing but a shiny piece of gold bullion in a meaningless holder.....

🐓:  Say, what's with all the Area Codes?

Q.A.: Hold on, Ricky. I have some more pressing matters to attend to, but first... how did you come to acquire this tchotchke?  

Edited Monday at 09:28 PM by Henri Charriere
Completion of thought.

[RWB]

On 6/24/2024 at 4:57 AM, Henri Charriere said:

but first... how did you come to acquire this tchotchke? 

Maybe --- he thought he was ordering tzimmes cake and got the pronunciation a little wrong?

[GoldFinger1969]

If it was a 1 ounce coin it'd be a nice replica of the Original 1849 of which there is only 1 in existence (2 others speculated about).  As it is, it's kinda small to look like the larger coin.

Like Roger said....basically a differentiated way of holding 1/10th ounce of gold.

[Henri Charriere]

Let's just pretend I an unscrupulous buyer so I can size up my prey and make you and offer.  Now, where did you get this from? (The FMV does not take into consideration whether you inherited this, or won this in a raffle.)  🤣

[powermad5000]

On 6/24/2024 at 9:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

basically a differentiated way of holding 1/10th ounce of gold.

Most of this modern stuff is like this. All of the Cook Islands strikes are different ways to hold silver or gold. ASE's are another way to hold silver that is not in the form of a tiny silver bar. There are tons of privately minted commemorative pieces made that put silver or gold into some type of "collectible" form. I refer to them universally as "gimmicks". I do not disdain people who collect these things as people can collect whatever they want and if these things make them happy, that is great. But in the likeness that I stopped collecting ASE's because of all the gimmicks (First Strike, Early Strike, First 50,000 struck, burnished, reverse proof, signed by so and so, and on and on), I see all of these kinds of "restrikes" and commemoratives as the same kind of sales pitch.

[Henri Charriere]

On 6/24/2024 at 3:55 PM, powermad5000 said:

.... I see all of these kinds of "restrikes" and commemoratives as the same kind of sales pitch.

"Restrikes"?  Say what?  Unless the original pattern was also struck in other denominations, e.g. a 1/10 oz., that term cannot properly apply.   A most unfortunate application of the term. IMHO. 

[powermad5000]

On 6/24/2024 at 4:38 PM, Henri Charriere said:

"Restrikes"?  Say what?  Unless the original pattern was also struck in other denominations, e.g. a 1/10 oz., that term cannot properly apply.   A most unfortunate application of the term. IMHO.

That's why I put the term in quotes.