What's the Deal With Certified Gold

Typetone

Let me preface by saying that I have been and will primarily be a copper/nickel/silver collector.

Here's the deal. I have been thinking about putting together the 20th century eight piece gold type set. Mostly 64s maybe one or two in 65.

Recently, gold dealer Mary Sauvain came up to Anchorage to do a seminar on gold coins for our coin club. She brought with her what must have been a few hundred thousand dollars of gold coins for us to look at and practice grading. I was frankly appalled. Most of the pieces graded MS61 to MS65. Yet to me they mostly looked AU at best. Most looked worn with color breaks, had extensive hairlines, and numerous marks. This was true regardless of the service, including PCGS, and regardless of the series. I asked Mary about it and she said that because gold is soft, more marks are allowed than is the case for C/N/S pieces. Since then I have looked at other gold pieces and spoken to other dealers. I always reach the same conclusion.

If this is all true, I will probably not collect a gold type set. I probably can't afford pieces at the 66 or higher level, and the lesser grades look terrible to my eye.

Query, am I imagining things. Have I just not seen enough gold coins, or are they really graded differently than C/N/S.

Any insight you have would be greatly appreciated.

Greg

keithdagen

Greg,

I think the $5 and $2.50 Indians can look attractive down to MS-63, but for the others, and for the Liberty pieces, you are right. Of course, 65's come in all shapes and sizes, and some are better than others. The smaller denominations look better up the chain, but those Saints allow for a LOT of marks even in 65.

As to comparing gold grading to CSN grading, not sure on that one. I didn't think that my MS-65 Saints had any more marks than gem Ikes or Morgans that I had at the time.

billywls

My experience was about the same. MS63 and lower looked very "baggy" or had numerous cuts. Rare dates were worse(i.e. 1813-1833). To find a clean looking coin for the grade often took looking at 10-20 examples--some tough dates I could only 2-3 examples. The nicer low grade coins often end up in higher grade slabs. At least with 20th century sets you can find large numbers to look through. Some MS64s are nice looking, the number gets substantially greater at MS65. Most MS66s look good.

Good luck.

lordmarcovan

Greg- that is a fun little set. Short but sweet, and still challenging. Mine is still at #5 Current, I think, though I just sold it and will be retiring it shortly. I was just about to be kicked out of #5 anyway. One of the coins, the Saint, came from Keith originally. It had some marks, but wasn't too bad looking.

As to your question about the quality of the coins, I have seen some desirable MS62 coins, even in the Liberties. I think the MS62 1902 $2.50 Lib I just upgraded before selling the entire set in MS63 was a good example- the only mark on it was a microscopic pinpr!ck on the cheek. Only a 62, to be sure, but there is such thing as a PQ 62, and such coins pack a lot of bang for the buck, in my humble, lower-middle-class opinion.

I got two of the three final upgrades in hand for my set today, though they were sold before I ever held them. The first was a 1907-D $5.00 in 63. I was disappointed with it, but not enough to return it. It was baggy and actually had a pockmark (small strikethrough?) in the right field on the obverse. The MS62 it replaced looked better. (Maybe early Denver gold has these issues?)

However, the 1907 $2.50 in an older green label 63 holder was a PQ cherry- I couldn't see a mark on it, and I would guess it is an upgrade candidate if the new owner decides to reholder it. Even considering its smaller size, it is a beauty. Has a razor-sharp strike. I feel like a new mother giving up her newborn baby for adoption- there will be a little seller's remorse on that one.

My experience might be limited compared to some here, but I can say this- despite the varying degrees of quality for the grade, I have yet to see ANY gold coin I would call "ugly". Gold is golden, after all, and has an aura to it... (Note that the word "aura" itself probably has its roots in the Latin word for gold).

I say again, that was a fun little set, even on my limited budget. Now I have decided to shoot for another short set, albeit one farther off the track- proof 2c pieces. If there is anyone who can advise me on my new enthusiasm for those, please educate me. (I have not yet owned one- my best 2c ever was a PCGS AU55 BN).

Cocoinut

Greg,

I've seen a lot of gold coins, but only a very small percentage have the kind of eye appeal that I like, and they're usually priced out of my reach. In MS60-63, they just have too many bagmarks. Copper spots due to an uneven alloy mix are common, and gold coins that have been dipped have a light, unnatural color. Luster is another problem for gold. Too frequently, they have dull, lifeless luster; "blazers" are few and far between. I would never consider buying a pre-1934 gold coin sight-unseen. There are too many "uglies" on the market.

While I don't always trust my own grading abilities when it comes to gold, I'm often skeptical of the grades I see on slabs. I agree that some types in MS slabs don't always appear to be MS (too many "commercial unc's", which to me means AU). The eagle's breast feathers on the $10 Indian are generally weak or missing. I also like the Pratt Indian design, but I think they're among the most difficult of all coins to grade. On the other hand, I have an "S" mint $20 Saint in MS63 with a nice orange peel effect that I like better than most MS65's.

Jim