» show previous quotes
Au contraire, getting a bean or not will tell you something about the quality of the surfaces. Rarity or not, who wants to pay millions for a coin with questionable surfaces. Hence a legit question. If you think this is a 'tiresome agenda', I guess you don't care about surface quality of a coin. I do. Hence my question.
SH
If the coin were to be submitted to CAC and failed to sticker, all that would tell you was that in CAC’s opinion it wasn’t solid for the grade. And unless the coin’s stickered at the time of the sale, in all likelihood, potential bidders won’t know what CAC thinks of it, anyway.
I haven’t seen or heard any comments regarding “questionable surfaces” from anyone who’s examined the coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@matt_dac said:
The CAC snipes don't belong in this thread.
What do you mean by snipe? I asked a legitimate question in the rare coin market. Has it been to CAC? I would want to know.
Because of the obvious, tiresome agenda of throwing a CAC grenade into a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with CAC. I was referring to this as the kick off:
I wonder how many high end collectors would pass on buying this coin unless and until it was submitted to CAC and received a green or a gold sticker (some collectors have exceedingly high standards and simply refuse to consider buying coins that do not have a CAC sticker because they do not want to have in their collection a coin that is "low end" for the grade)?<
Au contraire, getting a bean or not will tell you something about the quality of the surfaces. Rarity or not, who wants to pay millions for a coin with questionable surfaces. Hence a legit question. If you think this is a 'tiresome agenda', I guess you don't care about surface quality of a coin. I do. Hence my question.
SH
You don’t need a sticker for that. Just hire JA to view it at Sotheby’s. He’ll probably want to view it anyway.
Also, if the people bidding on this don’t care if it’s TPG slabbed, will they care if it’s beaned?
@matt_dac said:
The CAC snipes don't belong in this thread.
What do you mean by snipe? I asked a legitimate question in the rare coin market. Has it been to CAC? I would want to know.
Because of the obvious, tiresome agenda of throwing a CAC grenade into a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with CAC. I was referring to this as the kick off:
I wonder how many high end collectors would pass on buying this coin unless and until it was submitted to CAC and received a green or a gold sticker (some collectors have exceedingly high standards and simply refuse to consider buying coins that do not have a CAC sticker because they do not want to have in their collection a coin that is "low end" for the grade)?<
Au contraire, getting a bean or not will tell you something about the quality of the surfaces. Rarity or not, who wants to pay millions for a coin with questionable surfaces. Hence a legit question. If you think this is a 'tiresome agenda', I guess you don't care about surface quality of a coin. I do. Hence my question.
SH
You don’t need a sticker for that. Just hire JA to view it at Sotheby’s. He’s probably want to view it anyway.
Also, if the people bidding on this don’t care if it’s TPG slabbed, will they care if it’s beaned?
Your “Just hire JA to view it at Sotheby’s”, would be far easier said than done. I bet (and would give good odds) he’d decline.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@matt_dac said:
The CAC snipes don't belong in this thread.
What do you mean by snipe? I asked a legitimate question in the rare coin market. Has it been to CAC? I would want to know.
Because of the obvious, tiresome agenda of throwing a CAC grenade into a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with CAC. I was referring to this as the kick off:
I wonder how many high end collectors would pass on buying this coin unless and until it was submitted to CAC and received a green or a gold sticker (some collectors have exceedingly high standards and simply refuse to consider buying coins that do not have a CAC sticker because they do not want to have in their collection a coin that is "low end" for the grade)?<
Au contraire, getting a bean or not will tell you something about the quality of the surfaces. Rarity or not, who wants to pay millions for a coin with questionable surfaces. Hence a legit question. If you think this is a 'tiresome agenda', I guess you don't care about surface quality of a coin. I do. Hence my question.
SH
You don’t need a sticker for that. Just hire JA to view it at Sotheby’s. He’s probably want to view it anyway.
Also, if the people bidding on this don’t care if it’s TPG slabbed, will they care if it’s beaned?
Your “Just hire JA to view it at Sotheby’s”, would be far easier said than done. I bet (and would give good odds) he’d decline.
I don’t know him so that could very well be. I’m sure there are other dealers that will be willing.
@DarkRage666 said:
So why are these illegal to own compared to other gold eagles?
some, like me, say they are legal to own.
the 1933 DE were ordered melted. it is alleged that some were secretly removed from the mint via illegal means. for further reading read up on the 1933 double eagle story, the Farouk specimen and the Langbord lawsuits.
As much as you might want them to be legal to own - and so do I - saying that they are so would be incorrect. The legal system has spoken and all appeals have been exhausted.
So, will the Feds grab this one up too?
Of course not - they already legalized it.
Mark,
Didn't follow the dispute totally, but wondered why this "one" coin would be legal, thus my comment. After all, the government stated the below:
The government has long argued, “**All **1933 Double Eagles are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States” and that the Langbord family had “voluntarily surrendered” the coins to the Mint.
So, why is this this single coin legal. What makes it different then the others?
I'm curious, thanks...
Jim
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
@DarkRage666 said:
So why are these illegal to own compared to other gold eagles?
some, like me, say they are legal to own.
the 1933 DE were ordered melted. it is alleged that some were secretly removed from the mint via illegal means. for further reading read up on the 1933 double eagle story, the Farouk specimen and the Langbord lawsuits.
As much as you might want them to be legal to own - and so do I - saying that they are so would be incorrect. The legal system has spoken and all appeals have been exhausted.
So, will the Feds grab this one up too?
Of course not - they already legalized it.
Mark,
Didn't follow the dispute totally, but wondered why this "one" coin would be legal, thus my comment. After all, the government stated the below:
The government has long argued, “**All **1933 Double Eagles are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States” and that the Langbord family had “voluntarily surrendered” the coins to the Mint.
So, why is this this single coin legal. What makes it different then the others?
I'm curious, thanks...
Jim
Jim, the below, about the one legal-to-own example is from a CoinWeek article.
In 1944, representatives of King Farouk of Egypt–an eclectic collector of stamps, old razor blades, antique aspirin bottles, and coins–applied for an export license for a single 1933 Double Eagle.
“It wasn’t until a few weeks after that license was signed that suddenly everyone realized that an awful mistake had been made,” said David Redden, Vice Chairman and Auctioneer at Sotheby’s. “This coin was illegal to own, and in fact clearly had been stolen from the U.S. Mint.”
On February 29, 1944, one of the 1933 Double Eagles left the United States after being sold to a foreign national by a coin dealer in Texas; that must have been the Farouk coin. One by one, federal agents tracked down the other nine coins that left the Mint by way of George McCann. Somehow the agents were led to Israel Switt, who had sold the 10 coins in question.
King Farouk 1933Through Switt, nine of the 1933 Double Eagles were tracked down by the feds and eventually destroyed. Unbeknownst to the Secret Service or anyone else, however, Switt had 10 more of the “illegal” 1933 gold coins in his possession. He had put them away for safekeeping, and eventually they were secured in a safe-deposit box at a Philadelphia bank.
As for the Farouk coin, the United States had to sit on its hands until the Egyptian king was overthrown in 1952 to try to retrieve it.
“In 1944, we were in the middle of a world war, and Egypt stood at the crossroads in the middle of the Mediterranean,” said Redden. “It was not, perhaps, precisely the right moment in diplomatic history to go and try to make a claim on a coin.”
According to a report in the New York Times, when the U.S. government discovered that Lot 185 in the Farouk Sale was a 1933 Double Eagle, the Treasury Department requested that it be removed from the auction. It was.
But then the notorious coin disappeared for over 45 years.
A Sting Operation in New York City
After the Farouk auction, the coin is believed to have remained in Egypt until it was purchased by London coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1995. He brought it to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City to sell it for $1.6 million to an “American coin collector”. The ever-diligent Secret Service set up a sting, whereupon they seized the coin and imprisoned Fenton. It was after his release from jail that Fenton initiated a prolonged legal battle to retain the coin. His legal team argued that the United States had provided written permission for the coin to be included in a private collection: the export license of 1944.
Thus, from a legal standpoint, issues were murky enough to lead to a settlement.
During the years of the legal process, the 1933 Double Eagle rested in a U.S. Treasury vault at 7 World Trade Center (WTC). It was moved to the bullion vaults of Fort Knox, Kentucky, after the case was settled in late January of 2001, less than eight months before 7 WTC was destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attack. According to the out-of-court settlement, the U.S. Mint agreed to declare the notorious coin the only 1933 Double Eagle ever to have been issued (monetized) by the U.S. government.
It was soon put up for auction. The winning bidder had to pay “a fee of $20 for the face value of the coin,” said David Pickens, who was Associate Director of the U.S. Mint at that time.
Since the moment it was moved to Fort Knox, the United States Mint Police guarded the coin until after the auction ended. It did not become legal tender until the Mint Director signed the relevant documents after the conclusion of the sale. The 1933 Double Eagle sold for $6.6 million, plus its $20 face value and a 15 percent fee to the auction house–a grand total of $7.6 million. The money from the sale was split evenly between the U.S. government and Fenton. According to Mr. Pickens, the amount going to the Mint was to be placed “in the general fund of the Treasury Department to reduce the national debt.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The government has long argued, “**All **1933 Double Eagles are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States” and that the Langbord family had “voluntarily surrendered” the coins to the Mint.
So, why is this this single coin legal. What makes it different then the others?
I'm curious, thanks...
Jim
A judge's settlement decision for this particular case.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@CaptHenway said:
Back around the time of the first Sotheby’s sale, at least one, and probably two, of the major TPG’s announced that they had assigned a grade to the coin. Does anybody remember who that was/were, and what the grade(s) was/were?
@CaptHenway said:
Back around the time of the first Sotheby’s sale, at least one, and probably two, of the major TPG’s announced that they had assigned a grade to the coin. Does anybody remember who that was/were, and what the grade(s) was/were?
Pcgs MS65 at that time
I remember this. I don’t think NGC or ANACS took a position on the Farouk coin.
@DarkRage666 said:
So why are these illegal to own compared to other gold eagles?
some, like me, say they are legal to own.
the 1933 DE were ordered melted. it is alleged that some were secretly removed from the mint via illegal means. for further reading read up on the 1933 double eagle story, the Farouk specimen and the Langbord lawsuits.
As much as you might want them to be legal to own - and so do I - saying that they are so would be incorrect. The legal system has spoken and all appeals have been exhausted.
So, will the Feds grab this one up too?
Of course not - they already legalized it.
Mark,
Didn't follow the dispute totally, but wondered why this "one" coin would be legal, thus my comment. After all, the government stated the below:
The government has long argued, “**All **1933 Double Eagles are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States” and that the Langbord family had “voluntarily surrendered” the coins to the Mint.
So, why is this this single coin legal. What makes it different then the others?
I'm curious, thanks...
Jim
Jim, the below, about the one legal-to-own example is from a CoinWeek article.
In 1944, representatives of King Farouk of Egypt–an eclectic collector of stamps, old razor blades, antique aspirin bottles, and coins–applied for an export license for a single 1933 Double Eagle.
“It wasn’t until a few weeks after that license was signed that suddenly everyone realized that an awful mistake had been made,” said David Redden, Vice Chairman and Auctioneer at Sotheby’s. “This coin was illegal to own, and in fact clearly had been stolen from the U.S. Mint.”
On February 29, 1944, one of the 1933 Double Eagles left the United States after being sold to a foreign national by a coin dealer in Texas; that must have been the Farouk coin. One by one, federal agents tracked down the other nine coins that left the Mint by way of George McCann. Somehow the agents were led to Israel Switt, who had sold the 10 coins in question.
King Farouk 1933Through Switt, nine of the 1933 Double Eagles were tracked down by the feds and eventually destroyed. Unbeknownst to the Secret Service or anyone else, however, Switt had 10 more of the “illegal” 1933 gold coins in his possession. He had put them away for safekeeping, and eventually they were secured in a safe-deposit box at a Philadelphia bank.
As for the Farouk coin, the United States had to sit on its hands until the Egyptian king was overthrown in 1952 to try to retrieve it.
“In 1944, we were in the middle of a world war, and Egypt stood at the crossroads in the middle of the Mediterranean,” said Redden. “It was not, perhaps, precisely the right moment in diplomatic history to go and try to make a claim on a coin.”
According to a report in the New York Times, when the U.S. government discovered that Lot 185 in the Farouk Sale was a 1933 Double Eagle, the Treasury Department requested that it be removed from the auction. It was.
But then the notorious coin disappeared for over 45 years.
A Sting Operation in New York City
After the Farouk auction, the coin is believed to have remained in Egypt until it was purchased by London coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1995. He brought it to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City to sell it for $1.6 million to an “American coin collector”. The ever-diligent Secret Service set up a sting, whereupon they seized the coin and imprisoned Fenton. It was after his release from jail that Fenton initiated a prolonged legal battle to retain the coin. His legal team argued that the United States had provided written permission for the coin to be included in a private collection: the export license of 1944.
Thus, from a legal standpoint, issues were murky enough to lead to a settlement.
During the years of the legal process, the 1933 Double Eagle rested in a U.S. Treasury vault at 7 World Trade Center (WTC). It was moved to the bullion vaults of Fort Knox, Kentucky, after the case was settled in late January of 2001, less than eight months before 7 WTC was destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attack. According to the out-of-court settlement, the U.S. Mint agreed to declare the notorious coin the only 1933 Double Eagle ever to have been issued (monetized) by the U.S. government.
It was soon put up for auction. The winning bidder had to pay “a fee of $20 for the face value of the coin,” said David Pickens, who was Associate Director of the U.S. Mint at that time.
Since the moment it was moved to Fort Knox, the United States Mint Police guarded the coin until after the auction ended. It did not become legal tender until the Mint Director signed the relevant documents after the conclusion of the sale. The 1933 Double Eagle sold for $6.6 million, plus its $20 face value and a 15 percent fee to the auction house–a grand total of $7.6 million. The money from the sale was split evenly between the U.S. government and Fenton. According to Mr. Pickens, the amount going to the Mint was to be placed “in the general fund of the Treasury Department to reduce the national debt.”
Mark,
Thank you taking the time and effort to post your reply. I was not aware of those details and what a story it is.
Best,
Jim
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
@CaptHenway said:
Back around the time of the first Sotheby’s sale, at least one, and probably two, of the major TPG’s announced that they had assigned a grade to the coin. Does anybody remember who that was/were, and what the grade(s) was/were?
I thought I remembered reading that ATS had announced that they would grade it the same or one point higher, but I cannot find it anywhere.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I thought I had already known more than I wanted to know about the story of the Fenton coin. Was surprised to learn about the World Trade Center saga. Many coins did survive (as I have a few) and curious if this one would have even if it had remained. Anyone know if it was in one of the locations there that would have likely been among the numismatic survivors?
RE:
"During the years of the legal process, the 1933 Double Eagle rested in a U.S. Treasury vault at 7 World Trade Center (WTC). It was moved to the bullion vaults of Fort Knox, Kentucky, after the case was settled in late January of 2001, less than eight months before 7 WTC was destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attack."
@1northcoin said:
I thought I had already known more than I wanted to know about the story of the Fenton coin. Was surprised to learn about the World Trade Center saga. Many coins did survive (as I have a few) and curious if this one would have even if it had remained. Anyone know if it was in one of the locations there that would have likely been among the numismatic survivors?
RE:
"During the years of the legal process, the 1933 Double Eagle rested in a U.S. Treasury vault at 7 World Trade Center (WTC). It was moved to the bullion vaults of Fort Knox, Kentucky, after the case was settled in late January of 2001, less than eight months before 7 WTC was destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attack."
Anyone know one way or the other? Did Tripp cover this in his book?
@matt_dac said:
The CAC snipes don't belong in this thread.
With your respect to your posts to my bringing up the issue of CAC and this 33 double eagle, it appears the folks selling/auctioning the coin agree with me why it is important. Kudos to Sotheby's for realizing this importance of having the surface evaluation of this great coin. That probably added $5 million to the end result as now potential buyers will be assured of its quality - no cleaning, etc.
@matt_dac said:
The CAC snipes don't belong in this thread.
With your respect to your posts with respect to my bringing up the issue of CAC and this 33 double eagle, it appears the folks selling/auctioning the coin agree with me why it is important. Kudos to Sotheby's for realizing this importance of having the surface evaluation of this great coin. That probably added $5 million to the end result as now potential buyers will be assured of its quality - no cleaning, etc.
@matt_dac said:
The CAC snipes don't belong in this thread.
With your respect to your posts to my bringing up the issue of CAC and this 33 double eagle, it appears the folks selling/auctioning the coin agree with me why it is important. Kudos to Sotheby's for realizing this importance of having the surface evaluation of this great coin. That probably added $5 million to the end result as now potential buyers will be assured of its quality - no cleaning, etc.
Most anyone with serious interest in buying the coin could ascertain its condition or enlist someone other than CAC to do so. While we likely won’t have any way of knowing what “value”, if any, the CAC endorsement added, I think your estimate is considerably more than $4 million too high.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
With your respect to your posts to my bringing up the issue of CAC and this 33 double eagle, it appears the folks selling/auctioning the coin agree with me why it is important. Kudos to Sotheby's for realizing this importance of having the surface evaluation of this great coin. That probably added $5 million to the end result as now potential buyers will be assured of its quality - no cleaning, etc.
Most anyone with serious interest in buying the coin could ascertain its condition or enlist someone other than CAC to do so. While we likely won’t have any way of knowing what “value”, if any, the CAC endorsement added, I think your estimate is considerably more than $4 million too high.
I agree with this - but CAC adds credibility and cachet, but you might be right that it adds much less than $5 million. No question there are quite a few others who could advise on this (and probably will be asked to do so) but they don't have a sticker
I am still in the $30 million range for the final price of the coin - and I think adding the credibility of a CAC positive evaluation - you get 2 or more strong bidders who want to be affiliated with the history of this coin, and then add a grean bean.........
Let's see .... if the wife is willing to move into the cabin, we sell the main house, liquidate the retirement funds ...... and TDN doesn't bid, I can swing it w/o having to sell the PCGS Sample collection. It will be a "box of 1" collection.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
@matt_dac said:
The CAC snipes don't belong in this thread.
With your respect to your posts to my bringing up the issue of CAC and this 33 double eagle, it appears the folks selling/auctioning the coin agree with me why it is important. Kudos to Sotheby's for realizing this importance of having the surface evaluation of this great coin. That probably added $5 million to the end result as now potential buyers will be assured of its quality - no cleaning, etc.
I was certain JA would love to see this coin. He provided a nice quote too:
John Albanese said:
The Farouk-Fenton-Weitzman 1933 Double Eagle is a legendary and unique coin of great importance. It has a few obverse abrasions, typical of Saints in the 1930s, which are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster. The eye appeal of this great rarity is off the charts!
Although, it's virtually sitckered, it seems CAC declined to actually sticker it like the following
CAC will, upon request by the successful purchaser of the 1933 Double Eagle, provide the green sticker without cost.
Given that this is now PCGS CAC which is what Laura recommends and she has 3 interested customers, this should be an exciting auction. Can she represent all 3 or would she need to pick one and recommend the other 2 get different representation?
Really interesting back-and-forth on this subject, I may weigh in in the future on some of the topics raised.
I saw that somewhere on a CU thread my timeline from another website had been posted but I can't find it. So I'll re-post it here as this appears to be the most recent comments on the legal case involving the 1933 Saints.
1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Timeline:
• March 2nd, 1933: 1st 1933 Saint-Gaudens DEs are struck. The official Mint records and most previous sources do NOT cite March 2nd as the date of first striking, but March 15th. Roger Burdette uncovered this discrepancy from a letter dated 1945.
• March 4th: FDR sworn in as president
• March 5th: Last official gold shipment to Federal Reserve banks leaves the Mint
• March 6th: Treasury Secretary Woodin (a coin collector) orders Mint Director Robert J. Grant to not "pay out" any more gold. Grant complies, with an addendum: ".....this does not prohibit the deposit of gold and the usual payment thereof."
• March 7th: A wire is sent from an Asst Attorney General stating that Mint personnel could continue exchanging gold coins for gold coins.
• March 15th: A letter is sent by Acting Director Mary M. O'Reilly (Mint Director Robert J. Grant was on leave) informing Lewis Froman of Buffalo, NY that he could deposit gold bullion directly at the Mint in exchange for gold coin because it "...neither increases nor depletes the stock of gold in the Treasury."
• April 5th: FDR's Executive Order 6102 goes into effect.
• April 12th: Last "legal" day to participate in coin-for-coin exchanges.
• May(?)-June(?): An entire bag (250) of 1928 Saint-Gaudens DEs is stolen from the Philly Mint vault. The bag appears to have been stolen at the same time that 1933 Saints were placed in the vault.
Will someone please explain why this didn't come back as "Genuine MS Details (95 - Scratch)" I have sent in coins with less damage then what's on her knee and that's all I received.
@Baycity said:
Will someone please explain why this didn't come back as "Genuine MS Details (95 - Scratch)" I have sent in coins with less damage then what's on her knee and that's all I received.
The reason is that those are contact marks. They aren’t scratches, which, if significant enough, could result in a details-grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What about this one "Genuine MS Details (98 - Damage)"? I have receieved that on several Morgans, which to me look like bag marks. I am not a grader by any means but that knee looks worse then alot of stuff that I have had graded and all I get is Genuine MS Details.
@Baycity said:
Will someone please explain why this didn't come back as "Genuine MS Details (95 - Scratch)" I have sent in coins with less damage then what's on her knee and that's all I received.
The reason is that those are contact marks. They aren’t scratches, which, if significant enough, could result in a details-grade.
I agree, Mark. But it always has been my opinion that a little more latitude is given to rare (and exceptional) coins.
Those are contact marks.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@Baycity said:
What about this one "Genuine MS Details (98 - Damage)"? I have receieved that on several Morgans, which to me look like bag marks. I am not a grader by any means but that knee looks worse then a lot of stuff that I have had graded and all I get is Genuine MS Details.
With your Morgans, were the hits deeper than what’s typically seen for the series? Saints are big, soft, gold coins that were often stacked in vaults, and the knee is the highest point of the obverse. It's quite typical for the series to have deeper hits on the knee.
Also, note that the coin were talking about is an Ultra-rarity. Im not saying that this is the case with this particular coin, nor am I saying I agree with this practice, but ultra rarities can sometimes be given quite a bit of leeway in the grading room. Have you seen the 1870-S $3 that just sold in the Bass sale?
@Baycity said:
Will someone please explain why this didn't come back as "Genuine MS Details (95 - Scratch)" I have sent in coins with less damage then what's on her knee and that's all I received.
The reason is that those are contact marks. They aren’t scratches, which, if significant enough, could result in a details-grade.
I agree, Mark. But it always has been my opinion that a little more latitude is given to rare (and exceptional) coins.
Those are contact marks.
Pete
I absolutely agree about the latitude, Pete.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After speaking with the people at Pcgs on more then one occasion about the grades they have given my coins they are fair grades. Anything that happens to the coin after the mint processe needs to be taken into the grade of the coin. I can accept that, my coins were graded fair. I just disagree with this grade for this coin just because of its ultra rarity. That is post mint damage.
@Baycity said:
After speaking with the people at Pcgs on more then one occasion about the grades they have given my coins they are fair grades. Anything that happens to the coin after the mint processe needs to be taken into the grade of the coin. I can accept that, my coins were graded fair. I just disagree with this grade for this coin just because of its ultra rarity. That is post mint damage.
All bag-marks, other forms of contact marks, hairlines, scratches, etc. are post-strike flaws. And graders take those flaws into account, when assigning grades. If you wish to label post-strike flaws as “damage” almost all coins are “damaged” and there’s not much sense in using numerical grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well that is the way customer service at Pcgs explained it to me about my coins. I accepted that, but why should this coin be any different then mine. Because it is an ultra rarity? Shouldn't a grade be just based off the grade and not the rarity of the coin so they can get press that they graded a 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Gold Coin in MS65. And CAC agreed with it, sounds like they get a % of that sale, right along with Pcgs. I suppose bad press (with$$$$$) is better then no press.
Comments
@spacehayduke said:
» show previous quotes
Au contraire, getting a bean or not will tell you something about the quality of the surfaces. Rarity or not, who wants to pay millions for a coin with questionable surfaces. Hence a legit question. If you think this is a 'tiresome agenda', I guess you don't care about surface quality of a coin. I do. Hence my question.
SH
If the coin were to be submitted to CAC and failed to sticker, all that would tell you was that in CAC’s opinion it wasn’t solid for the grade. And unless the coin’s stickered at the time of the sale, in all likelihood, potential bidders won’t know what CAC thinks of it, anyway.
I haven’t seen or heard any comments regarding “questionable surfaces” from anyone who’s examined the coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You don’t need a sticker for that. Just hire JA to view it at Sotheby’s. He’ll probably want to view it anyway.
Also, if the people bidding on this don’t care if it’s TPG slabbed, will they care if it’s beaned?
Your “Just hire JA to view it at Sotheby’s”, would be far easier said than done. I bet (and would give good odds) he’d decline.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don’t know him so that could very well be. I’m sure there are other dealers that will be willing.
Definitely not decent, but it is the only one I have ever seen.
I am a collector
And things, well things
They tend to accumulate
I would like to see the other 61+ coins in the group that was submitted with that coin.
Mark,
Didn't follow the dispute totally, but wondered why this "one" coin would be legal, thus my comment. After all, the government stated the below:
The government has long argued, “**All **1933 Double Eagles are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States” and that the Langbord family had “voluntarily surrendered” the coins to the Mint.
So, why is this this single coin legal. What makes it different then the others?
I'm curious, thanks...
Jim
Jim, the below, about the one legal-to-own example is from a CoinWeek article.
In 1944, representatives of King Farouk of Egypt–an eclectic collector of stamps, old razor blades, antique aspirin bottles, and coins–applied for an export license for a single 1933 Double Eagle.
“It wasn’t until a few weeks after that license was signed that suddenly everyone realized that an awful mistake had been made,” said David Redden, Vice Chairman and Auctioneer at Sotheby’s. “This coin was illegal to own, and in fact clearly had been stolen from the U.S. Mint.”
On February 29, 1944, one of the 1933 Double Eagles left the United States after being sold to a foreign national by a coin dealer in Texas; that must have been the Farouk coin. One by one, federal agents tracked down the other nine coins that left the Mint by way of George McCann. Somehow the agents were led to Israel Switt, who had sold the 10 coins in question.
King Farouk 1933Through Switt, nine of the 1933 Double Eagles were tracked down by the feds and eventually destroyed. Unbeknownst to the Secret Service or anyone else, however, Switt had 10 more of the “illegal” 1933 gold coins in his possession. He had put them away for safekeeping, and eventually they were secured in a safe-deposit box at a Philadelphia bank.
As for the Farouk coin, the United States had to sit on its hands until the Egyptian king was overthrown in 1952 to try to retrieve it.
“In 1944, we were in the middle of a world war, and Egypt stood at the crossroads in the middle of the Mediterranean,” said Redden. “It was not, perhaps, precisely the right moment in diplomatic history to go and try to make a claim on a coin.”
According to a report in the New York Times, when the U.S. government discovered that Lot 185 in the Farouk Sale was a 1933 Double Eagle, the Treasury Department requested that it be removed from the auction. It was.
But then the notorious coin disappeared for over 45 years.
A Sting Operation in New York City
After the Farouk auction, the coin is believed to have remained in Egypt until it was purchased by London coin dealer Stephen Fenton in 1995. He brought it to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City to sell it for $1.6 million to an “American coin collector”. The ever-diligent Secret Service set up a sting, whereupon they seized the coin and imprisoned Fenton. It was after his release from jail that Fenton initiated a prolonged legal battle to retain the coin. His legal team argued that the United States had provided written permission for the coin to be included in a private collection: the export license of 1944.
Thus, from a legal standpoint, issues were murky enough to lead to a settlement.
During the years of the legal process, the 1933 Double Eagle rested in a U.S. Treasury vault at 7 World Trade Center (WTC). It was moved to the bullion vaults of Fort Knox, Kentucky, after the case was settled in late January of 2001, less than eight months before 7 WTC was destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attack. According to the out-of-court settlement, the U.S. Mint agreed to declare the notorious coin the only 1933 Double Eagle ever to have been issued (monetized) by the U.S. government.
It was soon put up for auction. The winning bidder had to pay “a fee of $20 for the face value of the coin,” said David Pickens, who was Associate Director of the U.S. Mint at that time.
Since the moment it was moved to Fort Knox, the United States Mint Police guarded the coin until after the auction ended. It did not become legal tender until the Mint Director signed the relevant documents after the conclusion of the sale. The 1933 Double Eagle sold for $6.6 million, plus its $20 face value and a 15 percent fee to the auction house–a grand total of $7.6 million. The money from the sale was split evenly between the U.S. government and Fenton. According to Mr. Pickens, the amount going to the Mint was to be placed “in the general fund of the Treasury Department to reduce the national debt.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But JA is the only one who can green bean it. It would be a conflict of interest.
A judge's settlement decision for this particular case.
For purposes of accuracy, it was an out of court settlement.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Pcgs MS65 at that time
I remember this. I don’t think NGC or ANACS took a position on the Farouk coin.
If the coin was clearly stolen, how can an export license make it legal to own?
Here a different Sotheby's image of the coin. Much more represents what the coin looks like than those horrible Squaremoose "matte proof" images:
Mark,
Thank you taking the time and effort to post your reply. I was not aware of those details and what a story it is.
Best,
Jim
I hope the prongs don't put dents into the rim
Prepare to be pleasantly surprised
Yep. Here it is:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/3290017#Comment_3290017
I thought I remembered reading that ATS had announced that they would grade it the same or one point higher, but I cannot find it anywhere.
I thought I had already known more than I wanted to know about the story of the Fenton coin. Was surprised to learn about the World Trade Center saga. Many coins did survive (as I have a few) and curious if this one would have even if it had remained. Anyone know if it was in one of the locations there that would have likely been among the numismatic survivors?
RE:
"During the years of the legal process, the 1933 Double Eagle rested in a U.S. Treasury vault at 7 World Trade Center (WTC). It was moved to the bullion vaults of Fort Knox, Kentucky, after the case was settled in late January of 2001, less than eight months before 7 WTC was destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attack."
Anyone know one way or the other? Did Tripp cover this in his book?
With your respect to your posts to my bringing up the issue of CAC and this 33 double eagle, it appears the folks selling/auctioning the coin agree with me why it is important. Kudos to Sotheby's for realizing this importance of having the surface evaluation of this great coin. That probably added $5 million to the end result as now potential buyers will be assured of its quality - no cleaning, etc.
See Below:
https://www.greysheet.com/news/story/cac-certified-acceptance-corporation-verifies-grade-of-stuart-weitzman-s-1933-double-eagle
They CAC'd that POS?
Quite a few scrapes on her knee.
Nine > @spacehayduke said:
Most anyone with serious interest in buying the coin could ascertain its condition or enlist someone other than CAC to do so. While we likely won’t have any way of knowing what “value”, if any, the CAC endorsement added, I think your estimate is considerably more than $4 million too high.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree with this - but CAC adds credibility and cachet, but you might be right that it adds much less than $5 million. No question there are quite a few others who could advise on this (and probably will be asked to do so) but they don't have a sticker
I am still in the $30 million range for the final price of the coin - and I think adding the credibility of a CAC positive evaluation - you get 2 or more strong bidders who want to be affiliated with the history of this coin, and then add a grean bean.........
Now imagine if that bean was gold
Best, SH
Sorry, my imagination isn’t anywhere near that good.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
i have not read this thread in its' entirety.
has anyone here tried to run down cert #s on ngc coins like we do for pcgs?
should be pretty easy. just pull up a known coin in that group with the cert verify and then change the last number up and down.
i have came across some amazing results doing this with pcgs certs. (as have others)
2006684-050 (64) - 1933 $20
2006684-051 (65) - 1933 $20
After this, my search activity exceeded their limits. Someone should try the next two to three coins starting at 52 and add them to the list.
.
what is the cert link page url?
https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/
@cccoins said:
2006684-050 (64) - 1933 $20
2006684-051 (65) - 1933 $20
2006684-052 - not shown
2006684-053 - not shown
2006684-054 (65) - 1933 $20
Is that a strike issue on her raised knee, in addition to the marks?
Let's see .... if the wife is willing to move into the cabin, we sell the main house, liquidate the retirement funds ...... and TDN doesn't bid, I can swing it w/o having to sell the PCGS Sample collection. It will be a "box of 1" collection.
looks King Farouk dropped it in the palace parking lot once or twice
I was certain JA would love to see this coin. He provided a nice quote too:
Although, it's virtually sitckered, it seems CAC declined to actually sticker it like the following
Given that this is now PCGS CAC which is what Laura recommends and she has 3 interested customers, this should be an exciting auction. Can she represent all 3 or would she need to pick one and recommend the other 2 get different representation?
Really interesting back-and-forth on this subject, I may weigh in in the future on some of the topics raised.
I saw that somewhere on a CU thread my timeline from another website had been posted but I can't find it. So I'll re-post it here as this appears to be the most recent comments on the legal case involving the 1933 Saints.
1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Timeline:
• March 2nd, 1933: 1st 1933 Saint-Gaudens DEs are struck. The official Mint records and most previous sources do NOT cite March 2nd as the date of first striking, but March 15th. Roger Burdette uncovered this discrepancy from a letter dated 1945.
• March 4th: FDR sworn in as president
• March 5th: Last official gold shipment to Federal Reserve banks leaves the Mint
• March 6th: Treasury Secretary Woodin (a coin collector) orders Mint Director Robert J. Grant to not "pay out" any more gold. Grant complies, with an addendum: ".....this does not prohibit the deposit of gold and the usual payment thereof."
• March 7th: A wire is sent from an Asst Attorney General stating that Mint personnel could continue exchanging gold coins for gold coins.
• March 15th: A letter is sent by Acting Director Mary M. O'Reilly (Mint Director Robert J. Grant was on leave) informing Lewis Froman of Buffalo, NY that he could deposit gold bullion directly at the Mint in exchange for gold coin because it "...neither increases nor depletes the stock of gold in the Treasury."
• April 5th: FDR's Executive Order 6102 goes into effect.
• April 12th: Last "legal" day to participate in coin-for-coin exchanges.
• May(?)-June(?): An entire bag (250) of 1928 Saint-Gaudens DEs is stolen from the Philly Mint vault. The bag appears to have been stolen at the same time that 1933 Saints were placed in the vault.
Will someone please explain why this didn't come back as "Genuine MS Details (95 - Scratch)" I have sent in coins with less damage then what's on her knee and that's all I received.
The reason is that those are contact marks. They aren’t scratches, which, if significant enough, could result in a details-grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What about this one "Genuine MS Details (98 - Damage)"? I have receieved that on several Morgans, which to me look like bag marks. I am not a grader by any means but that knee looks worse then alot of stuff that I have had graded and all I get is Genuine MS Details.
It is still Post Mint Damage and should be graded as that.
I agree, Mark. But it always has been my opinion that a little more latitude is given to rare (and exceptional) coins.
Those are contact marks.
Pete
With your Morgans, were the hits deeper than what’s typically seen for the series? Saints are big, soft, gold coins that were often stacked in vaults, and the knee is the highest point of the obverse. It's quite typical for the series to have deeper hits on the knee.
Also, note that the coin were talking about is an Ultra-rarity. Im not saying that this is the case with this particular coin, nor am I saying I agree with this practice, but ultra rarities can sometimes be given quite a bit of leeway in the grading room. Have you seen the 1870-S $3 that just sold in the Bass sale?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
This is the first time I have heard about the theft of entire bag of 1928 St. Gaudens double eagles.
If they got a whole bag out without getting pinched, I guess a few loose ones would also make it (and did) out.
Pete
I absolutely agree about the latitude, Pete.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sorry double post
After speaking with the people at Pcgs on more then one occasion about the grades they have given my coins they are fair grades. Anything that happens to the coin after the mint processe needs to be taken into the grade of the coin. I can accept that, my coins were graded fair. I just disagree with this grade for this coin just because of its ultra rarity. That is post mint damage.
All bag-marks, other forms of contact marks, hairlines, scratches, etc. are post-strike flaws. And graders take those flaws into account, when assigning grades. If you wish to label post-strike flaws as “damage” almost all coins are “damaged” and there’s not much sense in using numerical grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well that is the way customer service at Pcgs explained it to me about my coins. I accepted that, but why should this coin be any different then mine. Because it is an ultra rarity? Shouldn't a grade be just based off the grade and not the rarity of the coin so they can get press that they graded a 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle Gold Coin in MS65. And CAC agreed with it, sounds like they get a % of that sale, right along with Pcgs. I suppose bad press (with$$$$$) is better then no press.