GoldFinger1969

On 3/18/2022 at 5:18 PM, Woods020 said:

$2300 would be a fair and accurate price for each of these coins. As far as which one as you said neither is a hard date. 

It's an 18% premium, maybe 20% where gold is trading.  I'm wondering if both or one of the coins could be gotten for a bit cheaper price.

I remember I bought a 1915-S for spot....which basically is a 4% premium when you adjust for the 0.9675 adjustment factor.

Might pay to look at GC or HA and see if 64 1908 NM's and 63 1904 Liberty's maybe can be had for a total cost of $2,100 or so.  With the BP, maybe not -- but who knows at a local coin show or LCS.

On 3/18/2022 at 5:03 PM, J P Mashoke said:

Well now that I have gotten my feet wet I want to show two pieces I am looking at and get some ideas from the guys who know. I have a choice on one of these I can purchase for $2300.  Both are common and are not key dates that gaining very fast. So the question is should I just grab one at that price and do a lot of praying or pass and look for a better coin down the road. The Saint has a nice knee and nose and the LH has a over all clean look. Sorry the pictures are not that great. Any comments are welcome please.

First, don't forget that you can read about the 1908 No Motto Hoard story over in the RWB Saints Thread, JP.

Second, although I don't like this particular NGC holder (solid white interior), and even though I am more partial to Saints, I would probably go with the 1904 Liberty DE and wait on a No Motto.....and then, when you do want to add a 1908 NM... spend a few more $$$ and get an MS-65 CAC or even an MS-66 (or higher) No Motto. 

The surplus of 1908 NM's means that you get a lot more "bang for your buck" -- premium wise, that is -- whatever dollar amount you are willing to spend.  Just as both coins above are $2,300 but you can get an MS-64 for the No Motto vs. MS-63 for the Liberty.

On 3/17/2022 at 8:09 PM, VKurtB said:

By the way, when Roger participates in any thread involving counterfeits, and he mentions Colorado, it is Daniel Carr he’s referencing. You need to be aware of his backhand insults. He’s a walking plethora of them. I think he’s beyond contemptible. 

Contemptible is people selling fakes or committing fraud.  Having a strong opinion -- even a WRONG opinion -- shouldn't bring that level of vitriol.

JMHO. 

On 3/18/2022 at 1:28 PM, FlyingAl said:

I don't collect Saints and therefore have no idea which particular hoards are true or false, but I do think that I would have taken the mention of 40 coins as true, because we've seen it before in the hobby. This is the kind of misinformation that VKurt is talking about, where it can hurt even those who have been in the hobby for a time, and certainly those who are brand new. It is also why leaving opinions indistinguishable from fact very dangerous and raises many problems. 

He just has a very strong opinion on that.

I understand where you guys are coming from but if Roger wants to be absolutist there, he'll have to live with the consequences.  

Yes, and I hope many of you newbies gravitate over to the U.S. COINS section as the volume of new posts has really dried up there in recent days/weeks.

David Akers Double Eagles Auction Book:  Does anybody have this book ?  I'm thinking of getting it. 

Is it just tables of results or is there lots of commentary on the auctions, Double Eagles, etc ?

Here's a clear example of wrong information that can lead to wrong opinions/conclusions being given...akin to a wrong number for mintage or population numbers from the TPGs:

"....In The Coinage of Augustus Saint-Gaudens as Illustrated by the Phillip H. Morse Collection, the authors note, 'It seems highly unlikely that any sizeable quantity of an expensive coin such as the 1929 Saint could exist without being certified. Around 40 pieces were discovered in England in 1984, but we are not aware of any other sizeable holdings of this issue that have been uncovered recently'."

I don't have the book itself, but apparently the 1929 English Hoard Hoax got passed off as FACTUAL in this Heritage commentary and of more note, in the book itself.  The factually incorrect information does NOT detract from the rest of the analysis of the 1929 Saints -- it pretty much stands alone -- but anybody repeating that there was a hoard of 1929 Saints found in England in 1984 is saying something that we know now is 100% false.

This is why you have to be very careful with oral history. 

Does anybody here have David Akers' book, United States Gold Patterns, 1836-1907 ?

I am wondering if the book includes the Saint patterns from 1907.

On 3/18/2022 at 10:05 AM, J P Mashoke said:

Thanks for making this thread no one talks much about gold. Not sure why ?

I think it has to do with the cost.  1 oz. gold coins will cost you at least $2,000-plus.  Numismatic premium coins will cost $2,500 - $5,000.

Saints are my passion but I've only bought 4 in the last 7 years.  You have to be patient (or rich ! ) and enjoy doing lots of reading and research on these coins as you are unlikely to buy a few every month when you start out collecting these beauties.

On 3/17/2022 at 8:09 PM, VKurtB said:

Exactly this. Roger has many years ago lost ANY credibility capital he might have had with me. Any credibility I give him is a generous gift from me. He gets it on the 36-42 proofs, and nowhere else I’ve yet seen. 

Have you looked at or read his other books ?  I know you don't like gold or Saint coins, but you can't say the Saints DE book isn't a well-written, well-researched book.

Figured a thread for those interested in any kind of gold coins might be appropriate for those collecting a bit more upscale or just interested in learning for enjoyment's sake or down the line potential buying interest.

On 3/17/2022 at 4:53 PM, VKurtB said:

Here is an example, Al and “Finger”. Roger has repeatedly written that Daniel Carr is a counterfeiter. What would be CORRECT is to write that in his OPINION what Daniel Carr does SHOULD BE CONSIDERED counterfeiting. But no, Roger never writes that way. It’s ALWAYS in the language of absolutism, and that’s intellectually dishonest. 

Not my debate or cup of tea, but I would say something like that is splitting of hairs. 

Anybody with interest in what Dan Carr produces will find it out and then make their OWN determination as to whether or not it is counterfeiting, replicas, duplicates, copies, retro pieces....whatever.

If Roger's style is to at times be absolute, so be it.  You know where he stands.   A collector can disagree with his opinion and debate it....or just ignore it and continue to go their own way.

Doesn't have to be a contentious debate or get personal, that's my point.  Forget about the specifics of Dan Carr stuff, that's how I treat ANY topic.

On 3/17/2022 at 4:31 PM, VKurtB said:

Clear?

Yeah, Kurt....but just because you have a disagreement with someone doesn't mean you have to make it personal.

Use that same energy to post on coins. 

On 3/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

Of course, I would love to collect proof gold from 1909-1916, but I also don't have millions to throw around. 

That proves my love for coin research and reading....I can only buy a Saint-Gaudens DE about as often as the NY Mets or Jets make the playoffs ! 

On 3/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

Since I don't have the Saints book I can't tell for sure if there is anything in that book that is like the minor opinions stated in the 36-42 book. I somehow doubt it based in what you've said. 

I'm sure there are, if I went back and went over it.  But I found the book's conclusions for the most part to be well-supported and impeccably documented.  Quite frankly, he wasn't looking to break new ground with any major revelations.  He debunked a few Old Wive's Tales but for the most part, the book made no grandiose proclamations.  The biggest controversial debating points would probably be the theoretical number of potential Saint survivors (I personally think that undocumented Saint destruction is probably NOT evidence of survivorship for the bulk of the coins missing or not definitively melted down) and the passage on the 1933 Saints legal custodianship.  Roger provided in-depth supporting documentation via extensive analysis of post-WW II hoards for the former and gave interesting supporting evidence on the latter including the shortfall of 1932's which was filled by 1933 Saints.

On 3/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

I think that Roger's opinions on surviving coins is one of the things he has taken the time to separate from fact. In the 1936-42 proofs book he always states estimated mintage, which is a clear cut way to convey to the reader that "hey, this may or may not be true". I don't think anyone can argue this.

In the example I gave, Roger says that any Saint not definitively accounted for by being melted down in the 1933-37 meltdown could STILL be out there.  Maybe, but I think tens of millions of "missing" Saints would have been found by now.  I don't doubt the possibility -- even likelihood -- that the known Saint-Gaudens DE population will increase by tens of thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands in the next few decades.  Maybe even sooner if gold explodes in price.  But I freely admit this is a guestimate on my part.  I haven't been able to get any estimates myself from dealers, columnists, and others who see these hoards 1st-hand. 

Gun to my head....I'd say a few hundred new Saints a year, the majority of which may not even be submitted for grading because they are worn.  Still, a few might be Mint State and/or rarities.

On 3/17/2022 at 4:23 PM, FlyingAl said:

The problem with this is that it takes quite a major coin or hoard to bring up a well written and researched auction description. Even for coins like 1937 CAM proofs, the best I've ever seen was a basic description of the coin. No backstory, no rarity statement. It's useless to the reader at that point, and I imagine that many serious bidders looked at that, chuckled, and then bid $10,000-$20,000. Another reason why Roger's works are a rarity compared to other places, they actually find what makes each coin special and why someone is willing to pay $10,000-$20,000 for it, not just a brief description of the coin and a small mention in passing that goes along with "oh yeah by the way, its a CAM, one of around 10". I've seen all of the auction houses do this too, so I'm not just picking on one in particular. Of course, the forums are a great source, and I've found them to be almost equal to Roger's work at times. I will have to resurrect the 1936-42 proofs book to ask Roger why he took the stance on original sets .

Roger wrote the HA essay on the 1928 Saint Double Eagle bag, which sold for a few thousand dollars.  It's a fascinating story and involves a Mint Super who appears to have gotten unfairly caught in the theft of a complete bag of 1928 Saints ($5,000 in 1930's money) and could have been held personally liable for it. 

I find these missing 1928's one of the best stories -- but unfortunately, thinly-known and researched (because of lack of evidence and investigative work done at the time) -- involving Saint Double Eagles.  There's even a thin tie-in to the 1933 Saints that left the Philly Mint, though the ties are very speculative and more of interest to folks like me than numismatic researchers who can't find any direct link (admittedly so).  Still, it's fun to speculate.  

If those stolen 1928's could ever be found and verified as such, they'd command a pretty premium to the generally common generic 1928's that sell today in MS-66 and below.

Enjoy the back-and-forth with you and the others on this otherwise esoteric and arcane analysis of research, books, facts and opinions, and how they intersect with our little world ! 

I'd like to go but I'm getting ready to have a procedure done so travelling is probably out.

This is the Spring Whitman Baltimore Show ?

On 3/17/2022 at 2:30 PM, FlyingAl said:

It does seem we've had a long argument over something that seems rather minor in my eyes now .

Probably true FlyingAl..., but at the same time it helps us in an endeavor -- coin collecting, numismatics, grading, etc. -- without absolutes.   So I think that we know the quality of people we deal with.  I would never say someone isn't good at what they do just because they have a different opinion than me.

All I know is I read a 640-page book that Roger wrote/edited and I found it chock-full-of-facts and well-supported conclusions/opinions.  I don't think it would have helped me if facts, opinions, and conclusions were all color-coded.

On 3/17/2022 at 2:30 PM, FlyingAl said:

Goldfinger, I am with you 100% here, I was really just trying to get where VKurt was coming from. I always try to hear both sides of the story before I take a side. 

Yeah, you were spot on.  The problem is that Roger likes to answer using jokes and humor and VKurt can be sarcastic and at times smarmy and it can lead to a volatile back-and-forth.  Throw in their diametrically opposing views on gold in general or the 1933 Saint in particular....and it's like inviting Putin and the Ukrainian Freedom Association to the same dinner. 

On 3/17/2022 at 2:30 PM, FlyingAl said:

I'll try and explain where we went in a few posts, it did go really fast. The first thing that got us to where we decided that Roger does not sometimes distinguish his opinions and fact was where it was established that opinions (conclusions) cannot be facts. I had no idea this was true, but the definitions make it clear, and I was wrong. Opinions and conclusions are by definition, very close to the same. The only difference is that conclusions are generally logic and fact based, but are not in themselves fact and cannot be. I think this is where you got lost, and it was where I did before I researched it too. I encourage you to look it up, I'm sure there are sites that can give a much better answer than I can. 

I think you did a good job.  I agree with your analysis here.  I just can not recall in the Saints book (which I read in-depth and in it's entirety, not the case with FMTM) reading anything where Roger tried to pass off an opinion or a conclusion as definitive fact.  There was no "Walter Breen, Longon Hoard" moment.  I'm not an expert on coins or even Saints, but I have read alot on both and if someone tries to pass something off that is not clearly established or a logical conclusion, I'll probably sniff it out.  I might not have the answer myself, but I can tell when someone is jumping to an unsupported conclusion.

If it's on a minor detail, hey, those happen in a lengthy books.  If it's a major part of a chapter or a key idea, then I'll have trouble with it.  As you noted, we can be parsing things a bit too finely here....debating how many Angels fit on the head of a pin.  

Again....I didn't see any noticeable unsupported opinions being passed off as facts or even conclusions in the Saints book.  And I was looking for them, because I would have grilled Roger in the Saints thread.  And those that I had questions on, Roger graciously answered my concerns in the Saints Thread and they tended to be minor clear-ups or questions.  If I had a major disagreement on a key point in the book or in the 55 pages (to date) of the Saints thread, I can't recall them.

On 3/17/2022 at 2:30 PM, FlyingAl said:

I will note that there were only two things in the 36-42 proofs book that were opinions that were very layered in with facts where they got very blurry and it was easy to take the opinions as fact unless you really red between the lines. They were Roger's statements on original proof sets and the number of cameo coins a die pair could have struck. I agree with his stance on the former, and disagree with the latter.

This book by it's nature is more specific and defined than other books like my Saints book which covers 26 years, decades of the Gold Standard and other gold topics, and lots of different topics both within the Saints annual/mint coin reviews and the Special Chapters between them.  This type of book is by necessity going to have more conclusions along with lots of facts but you can't possibly have every other sentence footnoted and given a stamp of approval. 

Facts, logical conclusions, and nebuoulsly-supported opinions are 3 different levels of confidence.  At various times, you need to decide if something is major or minor and the level of proof needed to make a statement and if that statement is one of fact, conclusion, or opinion.  Roger's numerical math on Saint survivors is one good example of this and the presence of hoards and hidden bags being found, plus a continued drip-drip-drip from the retail public, can lead an individual to take EITHER position on more coins being found (or not) for a particular Saint mintage. 

Not sure what is special about the 1936-42 Proofs but clearly there's enough interest in them to justify a book.  

On 3/17/2022 at 2:30 PM, FlyingAl said:

You also raise a good point about finding other good books. There are few for niche markets, especially the 36-42 proofs book, and VKurt's statement proves this when he says: 

There aren't many books out there and it is unfortunate, but you may be able to find one on the Saints. I do, however, know that if there is a better or more researched book out there about the 36-42 proofs, I haven't found it. I view Roger's book as the authoritative reference on these coins. 

Other sources besides books might be the commentaries in auction catalogs and auction sites like HA, forums like this, and other various sources on the web.  I recently found some new information on the 1983 MTB Saint/Gold Hoard from the Stack's website archives.

Roger's Saints Book:  As an example of Roger's attempt to be fair, he had 2 lengthy sections on the debate abour Proof High Relief Saints.  Despite not believing that they ever struck Proofs...and despite the stronger evidence that there wasn't.....Roger gave equal time to the pro-Proof side. 

He could have just as easily given a few sentences and left it at that.  I haven't read some of these other books you folks cite, but if they have the footnotes and bibliography that the Saint-Gaudens DE book has, it's about as well-researched a book as you can get.

If you disagree or like some other books, please tell me who are these authors and their books.  I can tell you I like Bowers' books on Double Eagles and Morgan Dollars and Akers/Ambio's book on Gold Coins.  

BTW, there is a difference between BIAS and OBJECTIVITY -- they are often used interchangeably, but they are NOT the same thing.  You can be biased and still be objective.

On 3/16/2022 at 5:28 PM, FlyingAl said:

VKurt, I'm understanding this a little better now. I see why you want the opinions separate, and perhaps I will agree with that. I do think that Roger perhaps never thought to separate his opinions, instead leaving that job to the reader to figure out. 

I'm a bit lost here as I don't know ANYYBODY who has ever said they don't want opinions and facts separate.  I think the gray area is where you draw conclusions.

It might pay to give examples from somebody's or Roger's books/research, but I gave an example above from a topic and book I am familiar with above, namely Roger's Saints book.  I do not think that everything presented in any book is always either labled a fact or an opinion....many times it's a gray area between.  I don't think that unless you state these nebulous areas are facts that if you present them as plausibly true that you are guilty of fraud.  I think only MATERIALLY FACTUALLY WRONG information being presented as factually true or possibly true is a breach of ethics.

Not every logical assertion needst to be mathematically or visually/orally confirmed.

On 3/16/2022 at 5:28 PM, FlyingAl said:

Obviously, this raises problems later on, which you are clearly pointing out. I suppose that it is quite possible that Roger did this in error, but I think he may have intentionally left those opinions in there for the reader to decipher and decide if they want to agree or not, like I said before. As such, some people will take those as facts, which would be incorrect, even if the conclusions (opinions) he draws are logically true, and can be perhaps accepted as true. I agree with your point on this.  I certainly learned a lot about opinions vs facts today!

I'm confused....can you give an example of something that is an opinion being passed off as fact ?  I may be at a disadvantage given my lack of knowledge about Peace/Proof coins that Roger wrote about but hopefully I can follow the facts/opinions.

On 3/15/2022 at 9:00 PM, gmarguli said:

Don't blame the flippers. It's all on the buyers. If they wouldn't pay stupid prices, flippers wouldn't flip. 

People must love the designs or they think they are going to be able to sell them for more $$$.

People get sucked in at tops -- coins, baseball cards, the stock market, ARK ETF Funds, etc. -- and these Peace and Morgan issues are no different.

On 2/26/2022 at 1:15 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

1926-D vs. 1927-D:  Re-read the Commentary sections in the book regarding how these 2 coins "flipped" in the rarity rankings in the late-1950's.  It's an interesting story, and RWB does a great job of primary research to give readers the nitty-gritty.

The 1946 FCC Boyd Catalog by Kosoff & Kreisberg noted that at the time the 1926-D was #2 in the Saint series based on "....contacts with some of our finest cabinets."  Not a bad source of information at the time, but largely anectdotal and based on memories, albeit from experts presumably with no incentive to lie or give inaccurate information.  But no TPGs...no tabulated data on the internet....etc.  Just "informed opinion."

A 1949 sale of a 1926-D hit $2,500 -- if there are higher-priced sales of Saints up to that time, even the high-end expected for a 1933 Saint that never got off the ground -- I can't find it.  I'll keep looking in the book as it is voluminous.

But a few years later, once a few tiny hoards came back to the States from Europe, the price had fallen to about $500 for a top-quality 1926-D (The "Lima" Coin, MS-66+ CAC today).

Meanwhile, no more 1927-D's came back from Europe...other rarities kept seeing a few more here-and-there hoards from Europe or S/Central America....and then by the end of the decade more-or-less the 1927-D had moved to the top of the rarity rankings and the 1926-D and 1926-S (among others) had fallen a few rungs each.

1926-D:  The 1950 Menjou Catalog states previous high-profile auctions did NOT have this coin.  It was estimated to go for $2,500 but sold for $2,000.

1924-S:  Menjou Catalog calls it the rarest of all double eagles, ".....there are perhaps less than 5 specimens extant."  The estimate was $2,250 and it sold for $2,000.

Not long after the 1950 Menjou Auction, small hoards started to come back from Europe and the population numbers for each coin swelled.

On 3/15/2022 at 2:36 PM, zadok said:

...bottom line is still...opinions r never facts, even if they prove to be true....

Agreed....but well-supported OPINIONS are worthwhile.  BS is not.

For instance, Roger said in his Saints book that (theoretically) there are 39 MM Saints that can't be accounted for, the documentation for which is NOT there that they were conclusively melted.   So in theory, they all could still be out there. That's a fact.

Now...if he said that PROVES that there are 39 MM Saints in SDBs, foreign banks, American attics, etc....that would be something not supported by the numerical fact above.  He's not saying that.  OTOH, if he were to say that regardless of the veracity of the 39 MM Saints.....there continue to be mini-Hoards and they can come out at any time and depress the numismatic value of a premium coin so be careful....that is an OPINION that IMO is WELL-SUPPORTED by the underlying facts.

See the difference ?  You just have to be careful and qualify your statements.  Don't oversell something.

I think this is just basic common-sense. 

On 3/15/2022 at 2:13 PM, zadok said:

....can they then be accepted as fact? ......never....

Can what be accepted as fact ?  Opinions in books that are backed up by other facts ?  I think they can...if NOT supported, then no.

If I say that the Mets WILL win 90 games this year and make the playoffs, based on everything they have done so far I think that my OPINION is well-supported by the facts.  If I say that they will win 105 games...steamroll through the playoffs...and win the World Series...that's an unsupported opinion and conjecture.

Some of these books I can't speak to. But FMTM is too detailed and too long to be mostly "opinions."  As for his Saints book which I have gone back to dozens of times.....I think it's meticulouosly researched and opinions are clearly presented as such.  When talking about trade flows, the Gold Standard, use of Double Eagles, etc....RWB presents actual factual documentation and/or logical reasons based on economics, finance, and Treasury/Mint policy to make reasonable deductions.

I think we are splitting hairs here, folks.  Like wondering if a coin is MS-65 or MS-65+.  

On 3/15/2022 at 12:44 PM, RWB said:

The overhead cost of maintaining on-demand availability is high and not sustainable -- especially for hobby books guaranteed to lose money. The data technology has not changed - the means of transmitting it has. Plus, increasing reliance of the internet or expensive "cloud" storage further threatens the permanence and integrity of data/books/ideas.

Which is why I personally save key threads on this Forum....articles I find on the Internet from years or decades ago.....commentaries by folks like David Akers, RWB, etc....and of course, the actual books themselves and if possible in their PDF form.

As I mentioned on the RWB Saints book thread....I want to have key non-Saint chapters and the Saint Commentaries from the book available on my smarpthone/PC.  Since Heritage does not have that available (at least to the public; I am sure they have it in dowloadable format for themselves) I am going to eventually have it typed up in Word/PDF myself.   Will take some time or cost a few $$$ but well worth it.

Again, if you see something critical to your interests here or elsewhere, don't assume it'll always be there.  If it's unique or insightful information, save it....store it as a PDF on your own PC and back it up.  I've got lots of Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle commentaries from Bowers, Akers, RWB, etc....all saved.

As an example, there was a super-interesting spill-the-beans thread over at CU on the Origins of The Omega Countefeits.  Somehow, myself and another person DID save it -- but for reasons we can't recall, we both only saved the main storyteller's responses and posts (a guy who claimed that the Mafia was involved with the Omega's) and not the questions (insightful or deragotory) from the readers and contributors of the thread.  Makes the 32-pages of 1-sided commentary difficult to read and understand, like listening in on only 1-side of a telephone conversation.

You also have the infamous Franklin Gradeflation Thread which may still be there but the comments of people since banned from CU may or may not be there.  And who knows how long that thread will stay there.

On 3/15/2022 at 12:17 PM, gmarguli said:

Hate to break it to you, but many new computers don't come with a CD or DVD drive. It's old tech. 

Yup, have gone the way of the VCR.  My PC purchased last year doesn't have one which means I have to use downloads and stream.