Options
Saint-Gaudens $20 & $10 Matte Proof Gold
eaglesea
Posts: 84
Hi All!
New to the forum.
Have been doing some reading on this area of numismatics. Although prices are high, is it still considered "undervalued" when compared to high grade, better date, Mint State $20 & $10 gold?
eaglesea
New to the forum.
Have been doing some reading on this area of numismatics. Although prices are high, is it still considered "undervalued" when compared to high grade, better date, Mint State $20 & $10 gold?
eaglesea
0
Comments
I'm certain other more knowledgable members will answer your question.
Please visit my website Millcitynumismatics.com
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>IMHO, perfectly original matte proof gold in grades 65 or better is a great long term value. The problem is finding them, because 90% of the slabbed coins on the market have been dipped or doctored in some other way. While originality is an important consideration for all coins, it's especially important for matte proof gold, because even a light dip will remove much of the Mint-applied finish/color. >>
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>IMHO, perfectly original matte proof gold in grades 65 or better is a great long term value. The problem is finding them, because 90% of the slabbed coins on the market have been dipped or doctored in some other way. While originality is an important consideration for all coins, it's especially important for matte proof gold, because even a light dip will remove much of the Mint-applied finish/color. >>
I agree with the above.
And as I mentioned previously, back in the good old days, I could usually tell what year a Matte Proof gold coin was, without seeing the obverse/date. That's because each year has its own unique color and texture characteristics. But I can't do that much any more, because so many pieces have been messed with and stripped of their original surfaces.
The gold coins were individually sandblasted at the mint, so each is a unique piece with thousands of tiny sharp pits and bits of metal at multiple angles. An unadulterated sandblast proof ("matte" is an obsolete term for these), will have a sparkle that is often destroyed by dipping. The number of people who understand what a sandblast US gold coin should look like are as rare as the coins themselves.
PS: See Renaissance of American Coinage 1905-1908 for more extensive discussion of sandblast and satin proofs as well a almost 400 pages of info in the Saint-Gaudens and Pratt design coins.
Matte proofs are extremely stunning in person, and they would seem to be nearly impossible to get photographed in a way that does justice to them. I noticed them immediately when I went to the ANA Money Show in Fort Worth back in March. Several were on display, and they were jaw-dropping. I finally understood why some people preferred matte proofs to cameos and polished dies, and I even considered joining that camp. My preferences, however, are largely philosophical at this point, as the proofs, certified by NGC and PCGS in the upper PR60s, were priced like BMWs.
And I also agree that nice original "sandblast"(matte) proof gold is an area that is probably a little undervalued compared to many sections of the market - especially the better date and high grade gold pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>IMHO, perfectly original matte proof gold in grades 65 or better is a great long term value. The problem is finding them, because 90% of the slabbed coins on the market have been dipped or doctored in some other way. While originality is an important consideration for all coins, it's especially important for matte proof gold, because even a light dip will remove much of the Mint-applied finish/color. >>
I agree with the above.
And as I mentioned previously, back in the good old days, I could usually tell what year a Matte Proof gold coin was, without seeing the obverse/date. That's because each year has its own unique color and texture characteristics. But I can't do that much any more, because so many pieces have been messed with and stripped of their original surfaces. >>
with both statements, though it used to be that I got the darker 08's sometimes confused with 14's
eaglesea,
Right now you are averaging 100% in starting interesting threads. Thanks.
The really deep Matte Proof coins have no luster. They look like gold aspirin tablets. Later the mint experimented with the “Roman finish” Proof coins, which had some luster, and at least to my eye were far more attractive.
Matte Proof coins get HUGE registry points, which accounts for why people in the registry ATS can have sets that are 25% complete and be ahead of those whose sets are made up of Mint State coins that are 90 or more percent complete. Still they are an acquired taste, like artichokes, and I still would not enjoy a steady diet of artichokes.
Here’s a really pristine Matte Proof $10 Indian I sold years ago to a client. You can judge for yourself if you really like it and the near $30,000 price tag it had more than a decade ago.
Satin proofs were made by striking the coins on a high-pressure medal press, then doing nothing else. (Wee Wally Breen cooked up the name "Roman proof" because he didn't know how they were made and wanted to sound impressive.)
<< <i>Sandblast proofs were made by striking the coins on a high-pressure medal press, then sandblasting each coin. Looking at a photo of one in a slab is like trying to shave looking in a fogged mirror. >>
And mint has used the same process to make the "yellow bronze" bronze medals that the mint issues today, and I and most collectors don't care for them either.
<< <i>I held the 1913 PCGS PR65 CAC gold sticker $20 in my hand at the recent Stacks lot viewing. It was the most amazing coin I have ever seen! >>
Keep looking. While the $20, as well as the rest of the set, had marvelously wholesome and original surfaces, it has quite a few hairlines on the obverse. These seemed to bother me more than many others. Since it brought low 68 money...... WTF
What would I know? At the '85 ANA I had full ($20, $10, $5, $2 1/2) proof gold sets from 1908, 1909, 1914, and 1915. Now I'm just old, blind, cantankerous, and have forgotten more than Oreville. As Mark said, most matte proof gold is now FUBAR.
Thanks for the warm welcome and invaluable insight.
It seems my initial question on whether the series is "undervalued" depends very much on a particular coins originality? Is CAC absolutely necessary? Col Jessup made a comment that the Stacks 1913 $20 PR65 with CAC (Gold) still seemed "suspect" in spite of CAC certification? Are auctions still the best (only) place to find matte proof gold $20 & $10?
<< <i>Hi All
Thanks for the warm welcome and invaluable insight.
It seems my initial question on whether the series is "undervalued" depends very much on a particular coins originality? Is CAC absolutely necessary? Col Jessup made a comment that the Stacks 1913 $20 PR65 with CAC (Gold) still seemed "suspect" in spite of CAC certification? Are auctions still the best (only) place to find matte proof gold $20 & $10? >>
It didn't sound as if he had any problem with the coin's assigned grade or originality. But rather, he apparently thought it sold for more than it should have.That's a big difference.
<< <i>
<< <i>Hi All
Thanks for the warm welcome and invaluable insight.
It seems my initial question on whether the series is "undervalued" depends very much on a particular coins originality? Is CAC absolutely necessary? Col Jessup made a comment that the Stacks 1913 $20 PR65 with CAC (Gold) still seemed "suspect" in spite of CAC certification? Are auctions still the best (only) place to find matte proof gold $20 & $10? >>
It didn't sound as if he had any problem with the coin's assigned grade or originality. But rather, he apparently thought it sold for more than it should have.That's a big difference.
Mark/Col J
Thx for all the feedback.
With the CAC Gold label should this coin have been treated as PR66 when bidding?
<< <i>
eaglesea,
Right now you are averaging 100% in starting interesting threads. Thanks. >>
Hi Eagle Eye
Glad to know that!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Hi All
Thanks for the warm welcome and invaluable insight.
It seems my initial question on whether the series is "undervalued" depends very much on a particular coins originality? Is CAC absolutely necessary? Col Jessup made a comment that the Stacks 1913 $20 PR65 with CAC (Gold) still seemed "suspect" in spite of CAC certification? Are auctions still the best (only) place to find matte proof gold $20 & $10? >>
It didn't sound as if he had any problem with the coin's assigned grade or originality. But rather, he apparently thought it sold for more than it should have.That's a big difference.
Mark/Col J
Thx for all the feedback.
With the CAC Gold label should this coin have been treated as PR66 when bidding? >>
My pleasure and a belated welcome to the forum.
The gold label means that CAC is of the opinion that the coin is under-graded. But that does not mean that it should have automatically been treated as a 66 for bidding/value purposes. That is up to the individual bidders and THEIR opinions. Based on the colonel's comment about the price realized, however, it appears that at least two other parties agreed with CAC that the coin was under-graded.
That's my opinion, and it's largely based on the fact that, as rare as matte proof gold is to begin with, original pieces have become increasingly rare since the TPG game began. Dramatically so. And market prices barely reflect that yet.
Is CAC absolutely necessary?
No. The right dealer can help you find an original coin. Just keep in mind that there are less than 100 active dealers that can confidently recognize an original matte proof gold coin when they see it. And of those few dealers, not all can be counted on for proper advice.
Are auctions still the best (only) place to find matte proof gold $20 & $10?
The short answer is that you should keep your eyes open and buy the coins wherever they happen to be.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Hi All
Thanks for the warm welcome and invaluable insight.
It seems my initial question on whether the series is "undervalued" depends very much on a particular coins originality? Is CAC absolutely necessary? Col Jessup made a comment that the Stacks 1913 $20 PR65 with CAC (Gold) still seemed "suspect" in spite of CAC certification? Are auctions still the best (only) place to find matte proof gold $20 & $10? >>
I did not say it was "suspect". It was gloriously original but had more hairlines than I would like for the gold bug.
Hairlines? No problem. We can make those go away.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>What is rarer, matte finish or roman finish? >>
The write up in the PCGS Set Registry mentions 1909 & 1910 (Roman finish) and 1914 & 1915 (Matte finish) as the rarest.
Anyone else care to add?
<< <i>
<< <i>What is rarer, matte finish or roman finish? >>
The write up in the PCGS Set Registry mentions 1909 & 1910 (Roman finish) and 1914 & 1915 (Matte finish) as the rarest.
Anyone else care to add? >>
Is that for both 20's and ten's?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What is rarer, matte finish or roman finish? >>
The write up in the PCGS Set Registry mentions 1909 & 1910 (Roman finish) and 1914 & 1915 (Matte finish) as the rarest.
Anyone else care to add? >>
Is that for both 20's and ten's? >>
Yes, I think so. Interesting to note that for the PCGS Set Registry, the 1914 $10 & 1915 $20 have the highest weightage.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What is rarer, matte finish or roman finish? >>
The write up in the PCGS Set Registry mentions 1909 & 1910 (Roman finish) and 1914 & 1915 (Matte finish) as the rarest.
Anyone else care to add? >>
Is that for both 20's and ten's? >>
Yes, I think so. Interesting to note that for the PCGS Set Registry, the 1914 $10 & 1915 $20 have the highest weightage. >>
Does this reverse look like a roman finish?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What is rarer, matte finish or roman finish? >>
The write up in the PCGS Set Registry mentions 1909 & 1910 (Roman finish) and 1914 & 1915 (Matte finish) as the rarest.
Anyone else care to add? >>
Is that for both 20's and ten's? >>
Yes, I think so. Interesting to note that for the PCGS Set Registry, the 1914 $10 & 1915 $20 have the highest weightage. >>
Does this reverse look like a roman finish?
WOW! I am a novice....will have to defer to someone else on this one....
<< <i>Good grief! Doesn't anyone use a RedBook anymore? >>
What does the redbook say concerning these coins?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Good grief! Doesn't anyone use a RedBook anymore? >>
I just want to know if anyone thinks the coin I showed is roman finish
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Yes. That was also one of the reasons given by the Philadelphia Mint Superintendent for discontinuing the sandblast proofs. Also, the leftovers could not be put into circulation because they looked so different from normal coins that bankers would reject them as counterfeit. (Look in Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921[i/] for the rest of the reasons.)
The mint-struck proofs had virtually full strikes and no marks. When sandblasted they retained the clean surfaces and detail. Sandblasting a circulating strike also overlaid kicks, scrapes and other damage with the grit pits, and nothing could be done to improve detail.
Incidentally, “sandblast proof” was the normal hobby term until the 1950s when Wally Breen started screwing with the language.
<< <i>
<< <i>Good grief! Doesn't anyone use a RedBook anymore? >>
What does the redbook say concerning these coins? >>
Buy one
It brought $29,900, way over 64 money but less than 65. A raw coin that can never be holdered and that sells for that much must have been bought by a sophisticated numismatist.
The illustration is not entirely convincing, however the lot description is a confused mishmash of reality and crap. The entire description indicates that the writer was puling disconnected bits from here and there but did not understand what he/she was writing about. From the description:
The strike is clearly that of a Proof, with a high fin or wire edge around most of the extreme edge and the familiar textured fields (imparted by finely acid etched dies) and bountifully struck devices.
Phrase 1, is an assumption. Several stars, etc are inferior to sandblast proofs.
Phrase 2, is BS – a fin is a defect that can occur in many ways. It is not indicative of a superior strike.
Phrase 3, texture comes from use, and they did not treat the dies with acid. (Acid produces micro-scale surface changes, not macro-scale.)
Phrase 4, “bountifully” is an assumption.
The most likely scenario is that it was one of the last proofs struck during the year and did not get sandblasted – maybe it was held in reserve pending an order? (As a satin proof, it could have been put into circulation, and not destroyed as would have happened to a completed sandblast proof.)
Notes: Gold proofs after 1911 were not produced until after the corresponding denominations were struck for circulation. Proofs might also have been struck on several different occasions based on demand. Further, since the dies received no special treatment, used dies might be pressed into service for late-year proofs.
<< <i> A 1914 $10 they graded Specimen-64 which clearly struck as a proof but which didn't go through the final step of sand-blasting. While neither major service would holder it as proof or specimen, it was obvious.
The illustration is not entirely convincing, however the lot description is a confused mishmash of reality and crap. The entire description indicates that the writer was puling disconnected bits from here and there but did not understand what he/she was writing about. From the description:
The strike is clearly that of a Proof, with a high fin or wire edge around most of the extreme edge and the familiar textured fields (imparted by finely acid etched dies) and bountifully struck devices.
Phrase 1, is an assumption. Several stars, etc are inferior to sandblast proofs.
Phrase 2, is BS – a fin is a defect that can occur in many ways. It is not indicative of a superior strike.
Phrase 3, texture comes from use, and they did not treat the dies with acid. (Acid produces micro-scale surface changes, not macro-scale.)
Phrase 4, “bountifully” is an assumption.
The most likely scenario is that it was one of the last proofs struck during the year and did not get sandblasted – maybe it was held in reserve pending an order? (As a satin proof, it could have been put into circulation, and not destroyed as would have happened to a completed sandblast proof.)
Notes: Gold proofs after 1911 were not produced until after the corresponding denominations were struck for circulation. Proofs might also have been struck on several different occasions based on demand. Further, since the dies received no special treatment, used dies might be pressed into service for late-year proofs. >>
I saw the coin in hand. While agreeing that some of the verbiage is not totally accurate, even over the top, your valuation of your scholarship seems to sometimes induce a willingness to ignore what people who have a great deal of practical experience might have.
Have you ever seen the 1921 Specimen $20? Dave Akers, whose opinion is about as about as knowledgeable as it gets, saw this coin and said it had a fabric unlike that of any other 1921 $20 he had ever seen. John Albanese offered one of the owners $1M for a 50% interest. These people are not idiots, but some of the titans of the hobby.
That's not this coin. I wonder if it would pass your tests. You do great research, but you really should get out more. If you can get down from the ivory tower without falling on your -ss.
I'm thinking that, in essence, we agree on how it was made and what it probably is, but I seem to have a special ability to evoke disagreement from you.
Quibble on.
(There is absolutely no interest in responding to Jessup.)
<< <i>It is a special coin whose catalog description does not adequately explore the coin's qualities. It takes multiple opinions and solid information to make a fair determination. That both major grading services rejected the subject coin, indicates several experts disagree about the coin.
(There is absolutely no interest in responding to Jessup.) >>
Can we make that a long-term commitment?
I'm reminded of that old saying "Them that can, do, and them that can't, teach.
Quibble on
Good deal! We agree....and don't be so hard on yourself.
OK, I'll take you up on that. Just forgive me for bringing up an old question, because I'm still looking for an answer!
As we know, each year of matte proof gold has a distinctive color. (Or, in the case of 1908, two distinctive colors.) As many of us have also observed, once the coins are dipped, coins of all years are roughly the same color. That suggests to me that the dipping does more than erode the surface of the coin. I contend that dipping actually removes something from the surface of the coin, something that sits on the surface of the coin and that was applied at the Mint, most likely at the time of sandblasting.
Now Roger, I know that if you knew from the Mint records if something was actually applied to the coins, you would have told us already. But do you know enough about sandblasting processes to know how the color of a matte proof coin might be created? If so, please enlighten us!
BTW, the distinctive colors seen on matte proof gold are not limited to US coins. Foreign gold of the same era is the same way. Each issue has its own color.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
1. grit size creating preferential light diffraction, and
2. silver contamination in the alloy giving the coin a slight green cast - exaggerated by the many tiny facets.
A sandblasted coin has a much greater surface area than a normal piece. It also has a multitude of sharp angles and overlapping surfaces.
Dipping in any acid would etch the large surface area by removing copper or creating copper compounds. Etching also alters the physical surface by softening edges and dulling original surfaces. Possibly, the combination destroys the effects of #1 and/or #2?
In examining the Mitchelson and SI coins, plus some privately held and not slabbed, there were occasional pieces by year that seemed to enhance the green of fluorescent lights, but did nothing special under incandescent. I could not examine a large enough sample to note any trend. The way to check this is to design controlled testing conditions, possibly using modern .900 fine gold tokens struck at high pressure. The number of fully original sandblast proof gold coins is too small to be useful - and many are in plastic slabs. (NB: A lot of the SI coins have been cleaned, but I did not take detailed notes on those.)
Someone with access to a large collection of auction catalogs might be able to tell if some of the originals were lacquered or otherwise coated at some time – some old time collectors did this almost habitually.
--a very incomplete and speculative response. What are your thoughts?
<< <i>If there's anyone left who is interested in the OP’s question or related, let me know and I'll try to help >>
As long as we sit in rapt attention and worship your erudition.
As I said, at the 1985 ANA I handled 4 complete gold proofs sets (1908, 1909, 1914, 1915). That means I can.
Good luck at the library. You can read Akers' book. It's surely better than holding an actual coin in your hand.
"No theory will stand up to a chicken's guts
being cleaned out, a hand rammed up
to pull out the wriggling entrails,
the green bile and the bloody liver;
no theory that does not grow sick
at the odor escaping."
David Ignatow