Wells Fargo Hoard of St Gaudens

Author1 · February 25, 2014 9:36PM

I was looking at these and they seem to be graded very high. It seems like the market deducts for the pedigree. Couldn't some one resubmit the coin and have the pedigree removed at a profit?

CaptHenway · February 25, 2014 11:29PM

<< I was looking at these and they seem to be graded very high. It seems like the market deducts for the pedigree. Couldn't some one resubmit the coin and have the pedigree removed at a profit? >>

Good question.

An excellent example of why a TPG should grade consistently.

ColonelJessup · February 25, 2014 11:43PM

No reholder will work. Every serious gold buyer always says ""no 1908". Not "no Wells Fargo". Every one of the "Wells Fargo" coins is pretty easily identifiable. Even if not, the 1908 date is DOA. Just avoid them.

Sonorandesertrat · February 25, 2014 11:54PM

<< No reholder will work. Every serious gold buyer always says ""no 1908". Not "no Wells Fargo". Every one of the "Wells Fargo" coins is pretty easily identifiable. Even if not, the 1908 date is DOA. Just avoid them. >>

WTCG · February 25, 2014 11:57PM

The Wells Fargo coins are similar to coins from the Redfield hoard: even without the pedigree they seem to be identifiable based on a mash up of several factors including date, grade and overall look of the coins.

messydesk · February 26, 2014 12:03AM

If you submit an overgraded coin to have the pedigree removed, it might be reviewed and downgraded. You'd be paid something for the downgrade, but I don't know if you'd ever make money doing this. Plus, as the good Colonel indicates, that pedigree has made 1908 NM toxic. If you want one for your collection, cherrypick for quality (there are tons to choose from) and pay the right price for it.

RYK · February 26, 2014 12:07AM

<< I was looking at these and they seem to be graded very high. It seems like the market deducts for the pedigree. Couldn't some one resubmit the coin and have the pedigree removed at a profit? >>

If it were that easy, it would have been done.

Author1 · February 26, 2014 9:31AM

So you are saying every 1908 is tainted?

ColonelJessup · February 26, 2014 10:03AM

Yes, every 1908 NM.

Every 1908 NM.

Heritage may have sold some 67's and 68's (88 pop?). Would be interesting to check their archives

MGLICKER · February 26, 2014 10:09AM

No comment on whether the Wells Fargo Saints are over graded, but they always seem to bring market value or a small premium in PCGS slabs.

ColonelJessup · February 26, 2014 10:14AM

08NM pops

PCGS
MS68 - 101
MS69 - 10

NGC

MS68 -145 which one can assume all are upgrades from PCGS 67
MS69 - didn't bother

PCGS MS67 - 800+

CaptHenway · February 26, 2014 10:31AM

<< So you are saying every 1908 is tainted? >>

Many dealers with buy sheets excluded or discounted 1908 NM $20's long before the so-called Wells Fargo Hoard came on the market. The coins have a dull, flat appearance, and do not sell well at retail.

Ulichen · February 26, 2014 12:16PM

Hey now....you are hurting my 1908s feelings......She was like the others until the nice man put this sticker on her....

OldIndianNutKase · February 26, 2014 2:14PM

<<Every serious gold buyer always says ""no 1908". Not "no Wells Fargo". Every one of the "Wells Fargo" coins is pretty easily identifiable. Even if not, the 1908 date is DOA. Just avoid them.>>

Great advice:

PCGS 67 Pop. 861 / $8,250 CoinFacts $$
PCGS 68 Pop. 101 / $22,000 CoinFacts $$

Price is 3-4X reality. But why? Any opportunity to short them?

OINK

Justlooking · February 26, 2014 4:19PM

There may be a lot of 'em, but they sure are purty!

illini420 · February 26, 2014 4:24PM

Last year at Long Beach I had a few of these in the old green holders... all MS66. Seemed to get lots more attention and they sold pretty quickly and for a premium over the other $20 Saints I had in the case. Seemed like every other dealer coming to my case during set up had asked about them too. Wonder if the SoCal market treats these a bit differently than in other parts of the country????

ebaybuyer · February 27, 2014 2:20AM

"There may be a lot of 'em, but they sure are purty! "

roadrunner · February 27, 2014 6:13AM

<< No reholder will work. Every serious gold buyer always says ""no 1908". Not "no Wells Fargo". Every one of the "Wells Fargo" coins is pretty easily identifiable. Even if not, the 1908 date is DOA. Just avoid them. >>

Gee, I thought I was a "sometimes" serious buyer of choice and gem generic saints, including the "tainted" 1908. Please offer me all your MS64-MS67 1908 NM's at steep "DOA" discounts.

I actually like the look of these coins, blasty and very fresh looking. While the MS68/69 grades may be a bit overblown, they are nicer than most everything else out there in the other common dates. If not for these
coins MS66's and MS67's would be a lot pricier than they are. I would not that CAC has yet to sticker a single MS68 or higher saint. You'd think those 100+ people would be lining up to try and get the first one stickered.
JA may not be a fan of the strike. The sticker rate on gem 1908 NM's is much lower than the 1924-1928's. It's shockingly low. There's also a scarcer double die variety found in this hoard. While they are not rare, they
are a lot scarcer than the regular ones. I'll buy every nice looking 1908 NM I run across, even if not stickerable. The last one I saw was a killer MS64 ogh at a local show that the seller wanted MS65 money for. I felt the coin
was 64++ and offered a $150 premium for it. They wouldn't do it. If there are 10,000 WF's out there that's still a drop in the bucket of all the MS64-MS66 Saints our there. The WF saints make up 90% of all MS67's though.
One sharp PNG dealer I know makes it a point to check every 64 and higher saint for potential upgrades. He says he routinely finds them under-graded because of the strike and does quite well getting upgrades. Next time I see
him I'll tell him he's DOA. I actually like the idea of owning a coin from a known hoard rather than the 1924-1928 that came from who knows where (ie some other bank vault). I also like the fact that the 1908 era is more
interesting to me than the mid to late 1920's. In this case...older is better....more nostalgic to me.

If you want a very clean, totally original, and blasty looking saint, the 1908 NM's are hard to beat. Yeah, they are struck worse than the with motto's. So sue me. If bust half and quarter collectors felt like that they'd have to
cross a number of dates or varieties off their list....same comment for many O mint Morgan dollars, S and D mint buffs -walkers - SLQ's - etc. Someone better tell Heritage all this as they currently list the NM at $10 higher on
their daily gold fax wholesale sheet in grades of 63,64,66. Just +$5 for MS65's. After years of doing this you'd think they'd know these are DOA and not saleable unless discounted.

saintguru · February 27, 2014 7:32AM

I agree with the OT that they were generally over-graded. And to exacerbate that the dies were crap...quite shallow compared to the 2907 and especially the 1908 With Motto..

I had a WF coin in MS 67 that was really a 67. I had Wells Fargo removed!

ColonelJessup · February 27, 2014 9:53AM

Perhaps I shouldn't have said DOA. Crippled maybe?

Tainted was mentioned. That'll work for me.

I would not want a 50 piece lot of CAC 1908's in MS66. Some might think that, their having the lowest premium over gold in higher grade, they would reap the best ROI when the spreads are amplified on some strong resurgence in bullion. HUH?
Otherwise I find it hard to imagine a time in the next several years when there is not an over-supply depressing the market. I'd like to say another decade.

Try the Taste Test. Put an 08 in any grade 66 or better next to any common late-date P-Mint one grade lower. Which do you reach for from arm's length away.

Common Saints are about sizzle. A common Saint in 68 should be a bleeping .

of a headlight. Perfection is useless without it.

Friends don't let friends buy......

It would be easy to dispute what I have to say. All generalizations are bad. So I checked the Heritage archives. Let your own fingers do the walking.

Lest you think I disparage roadrunner's acumen, I would tell you that, in almost 30 years, I've only seen him make two mistakes. Both occurred when he sold me his coins for not-enough "too much" . .

roadrunner · February 27, 2014 12:41PM

I've done the taste test. And for every dozen or so non WF MS66's I see in holders, maybe 1 or 2 coins are actually 66's. It's typically too many marks and not enough blast. From what I've seen of the WF 66's they
tend to be cleaner overall than the other date MS66's. It's really only in the strike where they falter. I've never been much of a "strike" guy. Luster, marks, and friction have always been at the top of my list....maybe that's a
mistake. Most of the WF saints I see are closer to the assigned grade than the other dates. I would agree that as a group they were over-graded. But the kicker is, 80% or greater of ALL MS65-67 Saints are overgraded.
Why just beat on the poor old 1908 NM's? Go ahead and try to stack a pile of MS66 (76) or MS67 (8) CAC WF '08 NM's. If you got every one your stack would only be 83 pieces vs. 1860 of all other dates....most of those
coming from the 1924-28. And if we compare MS65's it's only 28 NM's vs. 4570 of the "other dates." Stickered WF NM's look like a decent good deal in certain grades. I do see that the pile of non-WF stickered saints is
sizable. So no doubt most have been cracked out from their original holders and left "non-pedigreed." Still, stickered WF saints with the pedigree are pretty scarce. I don't think I'd pass on a 66 I liked for the right price. The
67's and 68's live in another time zone and I don't like the freight that they cost. Keep me within 2X-3X bullion price with the 65's and 66's.

I get "it" that WF Saint's have a "disability." I don't deny that. With that same logic applied to gem Morgan dollars dated 79-s, 80-s, 81-s and 82-s VS. other common dates dated 83-0, 84-0, 85-0, 98-0, 99-0, 00-0, 01-0,
85, 86, 87, etc. one would think the lesser struck or not as flashy P and O mints would get no respect vs. the flashy and semi PL early S mints. But, that's not really the case. No one shuns those other dates in MS65 because
they have weaker hair over the ear or weaker breath feathers and flatter luster. An 1881-s in MS65 vs. an 1885-o in MS65 is like night and day. Why are 1908 NM MS66 saints so different? We might as well bash the 1901-s,
1926 and 1932 $10's while we're at it since they are dirt common compared to most every other date in those series. Toss in the 1857-s $20's to the "no fly zone" list as well as they are the 2nd most common date
$20 Lib (1850-1907) in MS65 and possibly the most common date in MS66. In the end though....they are all still worthy type coins regardless of strike, conservation, etc.

The Colonel is probably right that I sold a couple of coins to him too cheap over the years. Done that a lot with other dealers as well. And I recall one of those coins getting the same MS64 grade as I got when the Colonel
resubmitted it. To my surprise, a month or so later it was in a MS65 holder in Marty Haber's case for twice what I had sold it for. A nice $5K score for the Colonel. It was at that point that it clicked in my head that it didn't just
matter what the coin's real grade was....but there was art to the submission process as well. And no two submissions of the same coin were the same. That's the advantage of being a Colonel and me just having reached the
grade of Lieutenant.

saintguru · February 28, 2014 1:01AM

Roadrunner...you basically said exactly what I did two threads above.

I strongly disagree that 80% of ALL MS65-67's are overgraded. Come on, man. Perhaps 35%.

The Wells coins are a rip and as I said, I removed the pedigree. The coin was quickly insignificant to me and it went out my door.

Wells Fargo Hoard of St Gaudens

Comments

Leave a Comment