Home U.S. Coin Forum

A quick GTG: 1924 PCGS St. Gauden's

braddickbraddick Posts: 23,981 ✭✭✭✭✭

I'll post the answer in about an hour or so.


peacockcoins

«1

Comments

  • relicsncoinsrelicsncoins Posts: 7,908 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll go 64.

    Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
  • ajaanajaan Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭✭

    64


    DPOTD-3
    'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'

    CU #3245 B.N.A. #428


    Don
  • SmudgeSmudge Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yep 64.

  • CRHer700CRHer700 Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    63+

    God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,132 ✭✭✭✭✭

    64 I don't care for all those copper spots.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 23,981 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll post the slab photos at around 4:30.

    peacockcoins

  • DrewUDrewU Posts: 177 ✭✭✭

    64

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 23,981 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was surprised too.


    peacockcoins

  • jacrispiesjacrispies Posts: 927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The lighting and toning do not help accentuate the high technical quality of this example. Tough to argue a position from these photos, although there are clear contact marks that I believe would prevent a superb gem.

    First impression was 65.

    "But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
    BHNC #AN-10
    JRCS #1606

  • scotty4449scotty4449 Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was on the 64/65 fence. That coin probablly has amazing luster, but it looks just ugly in those photos.

  • braddickbraddick Posts: 23,981 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    If that coin were in an NGC 67+ holder I bet more than one reply would say it was over graded by 3 to 4 points.

    And, more importantly- would they be correct?

    peacockcoins

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,485 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:

    @MFeld said:
    If that coin were in an NGC 67+ holder I bet more than one reply would say it was over graded by 3 to 4 points.

    And, more importantly- would they be correct?

    I don’t think so. But if they said 2 to 3 points, instead, I might have a different answer.😉
    I sure would like to see the coin in hand.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • P0CKETCHANGEP0CKETCHANGE Posts: 2,560 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Blinding luster—literally :#

    Nothing is as expensive as free money.

  • alaura22alaura22 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 26, 2024 5:52PM

    OMG..................

    @P0CKETCHANGE said:
    Blinding luster—literally :#

    Somebody was blind.............

  • CRHer700CRHer700 Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That was interesting.

    God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.

  • 1madman1madman Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is this the $100,000 price guide coin that sold for $50,000 in Feld’s other thread?

  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 11,296 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @braddick said:
    I was surprised too.


    Mechanical error, has to be.

    @MFeld said:
    If that coin were in an NGC 67+ holder I bet more than one reply would say it was over graded by 3 to 4 points.

    Truer words have never been spoken here, fear the kool-aid.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,768 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I said 63 originally.

    I also thought that the 1st set of pics showed wear/rub on the Left Knee but the 2nd set of pics shows a tone consistent with the rest of the leg and high-points. I can't tell how good the luster is but I could see the coin getting a 67 if you don't de-merit because of the copper spots.

    If the rub/wear isn't there, it's a 65. If the fields are as good as they seem (and you don't take away for the spots), you have a 66. If blazing luster, 67.

    I just couldn't tell from the 1st set of pics. It's why for a really high grade you need multiple pics from different angles OR it has to be in-hand.

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,132 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If eye appeal is still a grading factor for mint state coins, that coin was grossly over graded and the owner should send it back to PCGS to take advantage of their grade guarantee. Is it possible the copper spots didn't appear until after the coin was already slabbed?

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • 1madman1madman Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PerryHall said:
    If eye appeal is still a grading factor for mint state coins, that coin was grossly over graded and the owner should send it back to PCGS to take advantage of their grade guarantee. Is it possible the copper spots didn't appear until after the coin was already slabbed?

    That would be a very sneaky way to sell/market coins that either turn in the holder or get doctored (gassed) while in the holder. Assume the coin was problem free while being slabbed originally. Resubmit for a reholder & trueview after it turns in the holder, and now the coin has the fresh trueview picture showing the questionable areas. The dealer can just point to the fact that pcgs graded it 67+ and if you have any doubts about the coin’s surface issues, just look at them in the trueview picture.

  • P0CKETCHANGEP0CKETCHANGE Posts: 2,560 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1madman said:

    @PerryHall said:
    If eye appeal is still a grading factor for mint state coins, that coin was grossly over graded and the owner should send it back to PCGS to take advantage of their grade guarantee. Is it possible the copper spots didn't appear until after the coin was already slabbed?

    That would be a very sneaky way to sell/market coins that either turn in the holder or get doctored (gassed) while in the holder. Assume the coin was problem free while being slabbed originally. Resubmit for a reholder & trueview after it turns in the holder, and now the coin has the fresh trueview picture showing the questionable areas. The dealer can just point to the fact that pcgs graded it 67+ and if you have any doubts about the coin’s surface issues, just look at them in the trueview picture.

    I’ve thought of this, but I have to think that PCGS has some sort of process to review during a reholder, at least on Rarity submissions, given the guarantee liability. Rarity reholder costs $300, although coins up to $100k value are only $25.

    Nothing is as expensive as free money.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Dip it to dull the spots (ask PCGS conservation) and flip it!

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,132 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Dip it to dull the spots (ask PCGS conservation) and flip it!

    I read that ugly copper spots can be removed from gold coins using one of those small butane torches. Has anyone else heard of this?

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,132 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @P0CKETCHANGE said:

    @1madman said:

    @PerryHall said:
    If eye appeal is still a grading factor for mint state coins, that coin was grossly over graded and the owner should send it back to PCGS to take advantage of their grade guarantee. Is it possible the copper spots didn't appear until after the coin was already slabbed?

    That would be a very sneaky way to sell/market coins that either turn in the holder or get doctored (gassed) while in the holder. Assume the coin was problem free while being slabbed originally. Resubmit for a reholder & trueview after it turns in the holder, and now the coin has the fresh trueview picture showing the questionable areas. The dealer can just point to the fact that pcgs graded it 67+ and if you have any doubts about the coin’s surface issues, just look at them in the trueview picture.

    I’ve thought of this, but I have to think that PCGS has some sort of process to review during a reholder, at least on Rarity submissions, given the guarantee liability. Rarity reholder costs $300, although coins up to $100k value are only $25.

    This coin is worth well below $100K in its present condition so it would be worth the $25 to have PCGS review this coin.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • 1madman1madman Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PerryHall said:

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Dip it to dull the spots (ask PCGS conservation) and flip it!

    I read that ugly copper spots can be removed from gold coins using one of those small butane torches. Has anyone else heard of this?

    Yes, the spots can be removed. Clearly the owner of this coin can get it conserved and upgraded to 69 making this by far the finest known. Should be no problem upgrading 1.5-2.0 points for a coin with this many issues.

    Curiously, does anyone think if this coin was sent to cacg it would details grade? I’d give it a 50/50 shot of a straight grade there.

  • privatecoinprivatecoin Posts: 3,382 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No CAC. :D

    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc

  • @MFeld said:
    If that coin were in an NGC 67+ holder I bet more than one reply would say it was over graded by 3 to 4 points.

    I was going to post MS62 after deciding I wouldn’t want to buy/own it as an MS63; then I saw the grade reveal

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,485 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1madman said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @cameonut2011 said:
    Dip it to dull the spots (ask PCGS conservation) and flip it!

    I read that ugly copper spots can be removed from gold coins using one of those small butane torches. Has anyone else heard of this?

    Yes, the spots can be removed. Clearly the owner of this coin can get it conserved and upgraded to 69 making this by far the finest known. Should be no problem upgrading 1.5-2.0 points for a coin with this many issues.

    Curiously, does anyone think if this coin was sent to cacg it would details grade? I’d give it a 50/50 shot of a straight grade there.

    No, they wouldn’t details-grade the coin. Regardless of what people think of copper spots, they aren’t something that would result in a details-grade.

    On some occasions copper spots that are removed have been known to reappear.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • AngryTurtleAngryTurtle Posts: 1,566 ✭✭✭

    I let the herd sway my judgement to a 64, and then saw the answer before I posted. my initial thought was 64 due to lack of luster, no penalty for the spots, but then taking a closer look decided on 65 no CAC. No CAC due to the slight discoloration on the knee, although I have proved to myself that I dont know what I am talking about with CAC on gold coins!

  • pursuitoflibertypursuitofliberty Posts: 6,921 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Technically, I was at 65, shot 66 ... but I figured the spots and stains were a negative, holding it back at 64, shot 5, depending on the luster.

    I would NOT have considered anything above 66 for any reason.


    “We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”

    Todd - BHNC #242
  • Coin FinderCoin Finder Posts: 7,165 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm surprised at that grade, with just a picture its hard to tell but I suppose in hand it looks different. It must be dark toning on the high points and not hits or marks..

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,969 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2024 5:45PM

    @privatecoin said:
    No CAC. :D

    Agreed. However these do not look like copper spots but rather copper stains which is not as bad but still not an eye appeal positive.

    I would have trouble thinking this coin is a 66 let alone a 67. Only based on photos which is not best way to determine grade.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,969 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2024 6:02PM

    This is what grade these days? I figure it is an MS-64.

    Has not been submitted to CAC yet. Do not have reverse photo yet.

    An ultra rare PCGS 1.1 white label rattler.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,969 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2024 6:03PM

    Duolicate post.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I had it down as a 66 as the surfaces very nice & what is shown looked to be possibly a less than accurate depiction of the coin. Also, copper spots are removed via various forms of electrolysis that will not harm the surface (actually have posted a few on this and on Cointalk with regards to gold coins of somewhat more recent vintage).

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • KiwiNumiKiwiNumi Posts: 128 ✭✭✭

    I was guessing 66 but I'm terrible at grading gold. Maybe blind luck.

  • 1madman1madman Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oreville said:
    This is what grade these days? I figure it is an MS-64.

    Has not been submitted to CAC yet. Do not have reverse photo yet.

    An ultra rare PCGS 1.1 white label rattler.

    With all the chatter, I think it should green bean at cac as a 63. The plastic (unfortunately) is worth more than the gold.

  • ReadyFireAimReadyFireAim Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 27, 2024 10:34PM

    @CRHer700 said:
    63+

    This was my guess.
    I can't ever remember being this far off. :#

    Also...I <3 copper spots :)

  • EastonCollectionEastonCollection Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭✭✭

    While there are no hits on the obverse or reverse devices that brings up the grade, the copper discoloration and other spots are just an eye sore to my eye taking it out of the 67 and 66 grades. Also, this just might be an example that I can't grade off photos and there is blazing luster. Either way, I wouldn't be purchasing this coin for my collection based on the photo.

    Easton Collection
  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,132 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @EastonCollection said:
    While there are no hits on the obverse or reverse devices that brings up the grade, the copper discoloration and other spots are just an eye sore to my eye taking it out of the 67 and 66 grades. Also, this just might be an example that I can't grade off photos and there is blazing luster. Either way, I wouldn't be purchasing this coin for my collection based on the photo.

    I and the vast majority of collectors would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are a few collectors who are more interested in collecting the label than the coin.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • EastonCollectionEastonCollection Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 28, 2024 3:15AM

    @PerryHall said:

    @EastonCollection said:
    While there are no hits on the obverse or reverse devices that brings up the grade, the copper discoloration and other spots are just an eye sore to my eye taking it out of the 67 and 66 grades. Also, this just might be an example that I can't grade off photos and there is blazing luster. Either way, I wouldn't be purchasing this coin for my collection based on the photo.

    I and the vast majority of collectors would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are a few collectors who are more interested in collecting the label than the coin.

    Yes, I agree - I call them amateurs or rookies. They are playing in spaces that they shouldn't be in unless they work with a very trusted dealer. I guess this is true in everything in life.

    Easton Collection
  • lermishlermish Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1madman said:

    @oreville said:
    This is what grade these days? I figure it is an MS-64.

    Has not been submitted to CAC yet. Do not have reverse photo yet.

    An ultra rare PCGS 1.1 white label rattler.

    With all the chatter, I think it should green bean at cac as a 63. The plastic (unfortunately) is worth more than the gold.

    If I could get decent odds, I would bet this gold stickers. Via pictures I think its a great looking coin and, in hand, I trust oreville's eye.

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,288 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No guess is as good as any.

  • skier07skier07 Posts: 3,968 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lermish said:

    @1madman said:

    @oreville said:
    This is what grade these days? I figure it is an MS-64.

    Has not been submitted to CAC yet. Do not have reverse photo yet.

    An ultra rare PCGS 1.1 white label rattler.

    With all the chatter, I think it should green bean at cac as a 63. The plastic (unfortunately) is worth more than the gold.

    If I could get decent odds, I would bet this gold stickers. Via pictures I think its a great looking coin and, in hand, I trust oreville's eye.

    I’ll give you 50 to 1. $500 minimum bet.

  • lermishlermish Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @skier07 said:

    @lermish said:

    @1madman said:

    @oreville said:
    This is what grade these days? I figure it is an MS-64.

    Has not been submitted to CAC yet. Do not have reverse photo yet.

    An ultra rare PCGS 1.1 white label rattler.

    With all the chatter, I think it should green bean at cac as a 63. The plastic (unfortunately) is worth more than the gold.

    If I could get decent odds, I would bet this gold stickers. Via pictures I think its a great looking coin and, in hand, I trust oreville's eye.

    I’ll give you 50 to 1. $500 minimum bet.

    Just for clarity, we had a misunderstanding. I jumped on the 50:1 for Oreville's coin...but @skier07 thought I was referring to the 67+ in the OP. So no bet :'(

  • goldengolden Posts: 9,598 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not a coin that I would want as a 67+.

  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,969 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Luxor said:
    This is more along the lines of how I envision a 67+ common date Saint looking....

    I agree.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
  • orevilleoreville Posts: 11,969 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @lermish said:

    @1madman said:

    @oreville said:
    This is what grade these days? I figure it is an MS-64.

    Has not been submitted to CAC yet. Do not have reverse photo yet.

    An ultra rare PCGS 1.1 white label rattler.

    With all the chatter, I think it should green bean at cac as a 63. The plastic (unfortunately) is worth more than the gold.

    If I could get decent odds, I would bet this gold stickers. Via pictures I think its a great looking coin and, in hand, I trust oreville's eye.

    I have not yet seen this coin in-person. I fully admit I am no better in grading a photo of a coin than the average collector.

    I only bought that coin because of the ultra rare slab. Upon a second look that 1924 Saint could be a borderline MS-63/64. It is only wishful thinking that I was cheering for a gold sticker.

    A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file