the lack of superb gem quarter eagle indians
Gazes
Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
There are a total of 5 indian quarter eagles graded MS-67 by PCGS in the entire series (3 are 1908, 1 1914 and 1 1929). In 2010 the census was a total of 4---so just one new MS-67 in the last 9 years. My question is why are there almost no superb gem examples in this series?
2
Comments
No one cared enough about them to preserve them when they were new and/or rough Mint handling.
I would assume that the sunken design has something to do with it. If the fields are the high point of a coin, they are probably more likely to accumulate enough bag marks to preclude them from grades MS67 and above.
The same issue seems to affect the Indian $5’s also since only 16 have been graded MS67 or higher by PCGS.
@RogerB might have insights in what denomination gold may have been most used in commercial channels.
Also, the design absorbs abuse like Chuck Wepner
This is it....exactly the opposite of Sturgis Bigelow's goofy claims to President Roosevelt.
The $5 Indians are harder to find in MS-64 and up than the $2.50 Indians. I presume that has something to do with the weight and size of the coins.
A little off topic, but it appears the San Francisco fives are much more difficult than others-in general regardless of grade. Anyone here have any skinny on this? I have seen where a few small hoard came to light i believe from Central America, or they would be even scarcer. Thanks.
Generally agree but on branch mint coins the mint mark is the only design feature that is higher than the fields which is why the mint marks wear so fast. Without raised rims the fields have no protection when they are laying on and slid across a table when being counted which is why so many have hairline scratches.
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
@ColonelJessup...
Only older boxing fans can appreciate your reference to Chuck Wepner...
As far as $5 Indian gold...I have a nice one...not MS67 and likely not a 64...but it is my favorite gold coin..just a great design and the incuse features make it special. Cheers, RickO
The real-life “Rocky.”
Thanks for the responses. Here is an interesting article that touches on some of the aspects of the dearth of high graded indian quarter eagles. https://coinweek.com/featured-news/coin-rarities-related-topics-the-shrike-karschner-set-of-indian-head-2½-gold-coins/
Thanks for interesting link. I sure wish editors of ALL reference type articles on everything would put the date of publication ...in... the text.
Helpful link. Makes me want to go check auction images of the coins mentioned. The HA archives have some great stories to tell
I'd consider Indian $5's to be the toughest 20th Century gold series for overall high-quality survival. Curious about what an hour with the pops will tell me.
Per @ricko and @BillJones - extra punching power in a quarter-ounce planchet
I'd like to put together a set of MS61's and call it The Tomato Can Collection.
I'd like to see one of the possibly 17 1909-O's still un-waxed.
The "intaglio inversion" of high-point wear makes grading both Pratt designs very hard to master because coins get damaged more thoroughly when 50% of the surface is one large obvious (if often ineffable) high point.
OT but obviously a good topic for a separate thread.
More difficult in number or as a percentage of mintage?
While I know the answer in terms of pops, I think it's useful to disabuse yourself that any percentage of surviving mintage is meaningful. At the level he's talking about, absolute survival seems more the factor. Throw out 08-S and 16-S as hoard survivors and check remaining S-mint pops 64+ and up
Is it possible that using the same grading is too high a standard for the incuse design?
To me they all look better than their grade so I don't know.
Nice topic though.
I've become interested in the 1/4 eagle recently.
My Saint Set
You have three possibilities:
1. Absolute numbers are smaller because absolute surviving pops are smaller.
2. Relative (percentage) numbers are smaller because of a difference in usage patterns. [Fewer S-mint set aside in bank bags or collections and more circulating of S-mint coinage in commerce.]
3. There are so few in absolute numbers that statistics don't apply. If you've only got 5 or 6 gems around, one person setting aside 3 coins is responsible for the statistical disparity.
I don't know which is the right answer, partly because I don't know the numbers. I also don't really care that much. LOL. Just a little curious.
after reading this thread and some of the links--check out the kutz 2.5 and the simpson $5 indian registry sets. Pretty awe inspiring collections.
Kutz...
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/indian-2-1-gold-major-sets/indian-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1908-1929/alltimeset/8914
Simpson...
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/indian-head-5-gold-major-sets/indian-head-5-gold-circulation-strikes-1908-1929/alltimeset/71623
BTW....Where is Jwitten?
Love his set
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/indian-2-1-gold-major-sets/indian-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1908-1929/publishedset/175943
My Saint Set
FYI - A planchet intended for circulation production does not have "perfect" surfaces. Pressure of the dies on a planchet moves metal and forces it to conform to the configuration of face dies and the edge collar.
With normal dies, the fields (or "tables") are the highest parts, and these squeeze and deform the planchet the most. Therefor, planchet surfaces are nearly always smoothed to match the dies. With Bigelow's foolish approach, the fields and central design are the lowest portions of dies and therefore receive less pressure and less deformation than on a normal coin. Indian $2.50 and $5 have best detail in the depressions around design elements and inscriptions. Sadly, in 1908 TR didn't ask for expert opinion from George F Kunz (VP at Tiffany) or professional medalists, and depended entirely on his friend's ignorance of coinage and his own fixation with Native American feather headdress.
It took me about 10 minutes looking at the pop report to figure it out. Why won't you?
It was only 6 minutes for the quarter eagles
In both cases the CAC Census was also consulted.
Lets look at one
I'm 75 years old, so there is nothing new about me.
LMFAO
Oddly, I needed a one word answer and you wrote 1000 words to explain why you wouldn't give me a one word answer.
Great thread!
I love these in MS
Here’s my $5
My YouTube Channel
Remarkable that you think
.
1) there is a one word answer to your three-pronged question.
2) you might be entitled to sit on your ass and have it served up to you when @batumi is doing the actual thinking here
Welcome to the discussion. This thread is about gem Unc's not AU's graded commercially as MS-something.
Do you have a better example?
Wrong question. My original question was "less by absolute number or as a percentage of mintage".
That question was not answered (not that I couldn't look it up), instead you spent 1000 words telling me that you had no interest in providing an answer. Which is doubly odd because the question wasn't sent to you but to batumi, so you felt the need to step between my question and batumi and tell me that I"m not entitled to receive HIS answer.
I then explained why I wanted the answer to that question because of my thoughts. And here you are still suggesting that batumi did the actual thinking (yay!) but could not be bothered to provide the product to that thinking. So, apparently, you expect that we should all go off in a corner and think to ourselves. Hmmm...that's not a bad strategy, why don't you do that?
Next time someone asks PMD or error, please take the time out of your apparently idle day to tell them to get off their butt and look it up for themselves. Next time someone asks counterfeit or real, please simply tell them to not let someone else do the thinking and do the research on their own. Next time someone asks whether to submit a coin for grading, please tell them not to ask PCGS to do the grading for them but to get off their butt and figure out the grade and authenticity on their own.
Batumi made an observation. If there is any factual basis to that observation, he knew what the statistical nature of the observation was and could have provided it without your interference or requiring me to reproduce his research. It was a fair question with a simple response and YOUR response was simply unnecessary. You may now return to contemplating your self importance.
Interestingly, the biggest piece of the answer is most likely survival rate [after careful statistical analysis] which seems odd when a big old expert like you told me to disabuse myself of that notion.
In terms of the submitted population, P mint has the highest rate of gem survival but S mint is actually higher than D and O. That is interesting but not compelling. The difference is 2.27% P vs. 1.57% S (all years) 1.82%P vs 0.47% S (excluding 08/16 per your instructions). Amusing statistical oddity. The bigger difference is against mintages: 0.02% P mint vs. 0.004% S mint (all years) or 0.015% P mint vs 0.001% S mint (excl 08/16).
This suggests a survival rate that is 5 to 10x higher for the P mint coins - as best such a thing can be determined from PCGS submissions. This is against a factor of 2 to 4x the rate for submitted coins.
Of course, one would need to weight things by the price difference, which encourages submissions, and adjust for resubmissions of the gem population. So, in the end, the entire analysis is hogwash and not worth anyone's time.
jmlanzaf: Thank you your summary. it is something I have always wondered about and had never seen any articles about. While it may not be worth anyone's time, It does interest me. Thx!
I thought PCGS undergraded this one. This is the highest graded one I have owned of the $5.
I have a MS64+, but it is graded by PCGS as well. Don't have a photo of that one. insider2 take it easy on our host.
I'm 75 years old, so there is nothing new about me.
It is curious and some of the cranky old timers may know better about survival here. The survival of a single bank bag could easily sway any of these numbers. Did P hold on to more bags for some reason? Is there really much higher marketing of the S mint coins? Why?
Total mintage of $5 P&D Indians are roughly the same yet total PCGS submissions show a huge disparity. Did they really melt 10x as many S mint coins?
I shouldn't really ask. The colonel doesn't want us sharing information.
The OP has to do with lack of MS 67 quarter indian and those numbers have remained remarkably steady over the last 10 years. 10 years ago 4 graded MS-67 and now 5 in the whole series. The 1914-D quarter indian had only 3 stickered at ms-65 about 10 years ago and now only 5.
@jmlanzaf - Actually, yes. Get off your ass and do a little work of your own. Some here won't buy a Redbook. Or look up any picture in the HA archives. Or even check effin' CoinFacts.. You're clever and often amusing, albeit it representative of those similarly uninformed..
Some so-called experts here look at mintages, remember what they've seen over 30-40 years, remember what they learned as they studied under and competed against the greats., then come here and discover they are willing to tolerate just so much before they decide, like @specialist, that chatroom chimps are not worth the time.
Why am I good (even if I'm over-the-hill)? I was there. I listened. I acted. I learned.
Disabuse yourself of the idea that you are contributing anything else besides attitude and what you read in Coin World or CDN. Go read another book. Screw me for having real world empirical knowledge reinforced by research.
I'll learn from anyone - if they have anything useful to know.
When the bag of 1915-S $5 breaks, you can have first shot.
@RogerB might give you an actual number less than you thought. Remember those bags of $20's only contained $500..
That would be my answer. Your analysis shows your question, insofar as you are able to deduce, has no proper one word answer, or any at all. By the power vested in me by my self-importance, I pronounce the question, as non-answered by yourself, as inane.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Actually, I just don't want to waste time with someone so disinclined to show much ambition or willingness to supply much in the way of hard data themselves. I've been out on the bourse floor and the auction room kicking ass and taking names with and against the greats. I made my bones.
Go sit in a corner? You can sit by your terminal maundering, just don't project your lackadaisical manner onto me.
I, sir, am not only a black-belt curmudgeon, but a knowledgeable and often useful wise-ass.
Actually, I supplied far more hard data to this thread than your self aggrandized person.
Your entire screed rings of falsehood. You call us (me) a chimp not worth your time yet you are the one who answered a question not even asked of you and continue to waste time justifying your intrusion with insults.
The correct answer that you should have given is that you don't know and don't want to spend more than 10 minutes perusing pop numbers.
But thank you for your limited contribution of hollow words.
Actually, I've known the answer for decades, and one hoard of '16-S is all that's ever turned up.
That's the only such group since Dave Akers wrote his "Handbook of US Gold Coins 1907-1933". Published by Bowers and Merena in 1988. It's likely still available from StacksBowers.
The one book on the subject EVERYONE must read if you have more than a cursory interest in the subject.
The pop reports, often in disrepute, are close enough to validate reality as mirrored by his observations,
Remember when I said much earlier in the thread that I wondered if there were 17 pieces of 1909-O $5's as yet unwaxed? I went and casually checked the CAC pops and was amazed at how close my wild-ass guess happened to be.
You remain unconvinced
. 
Your contempt means more to me than some peoples' praise.
nd casually checked the CAC pops and was amazed at how close my wild-ass guess happened to be.
LOL. That's sweet. But I have no contempt for you. I'm just unsure of why you felt the need to blather.
Oh, and to end any confusion, I did not mean to imply the arrival of any future hoards. I was more referring to past "hoards". The presence of a disproportionate number of P to S coins need only require a few bags of $5s from Philadelphia skipping the melting pot in the post-1933 period.
You can see what the hoard years did to the P/S ratio in 08. In 08, 14.7% of submitted S mint coins are 64+ vs. 5.32% of 08 P mint. As a percentage of the original mintage, it is 0.1% of S surviving in 64+/better versus 0.06% of P. So, due to one hoard, the Gem S population is higher than the Gem P population (adjusted for mintage).
Great topic😊
I happen to love the quarter and half eagle designs. I have a few and would like to add several more.
Yes I also find the grading extremely tight. I often wondered the same thing as why so few gems. My 64’s do look lovely. I have happily settled for those.
Further, the Philadelphia Mint made more QE and HE than the other mints; and, when Congress discontinued the QE, Mints melted all that were in stock.
.> @RogerB said:
Glad you finally chimed in.
Can you offer a bit more about S-mint mintages and melts.
I'm assuming the vast majority of $20's went overseas. T/F?
The mintages are huge for the $20's compared to $10's and $5's.
Were left-overs melted at the Mint annually? My supposition (if yes) is therefore that survivors came only via distributions to banking entities with lower-volume needs. The date or the official round ingots (to the bank) was then irrelevant. Just another small canvas bag from the Head Cashier's lock-box in the vault. Your mintage and melt figures for 1908 sandblast proofs was revelatory to this old fart. Are similar records available for circulation strikes at SF from 1908-1916?
It's interesting that the first-year-of issue for all three Roosevelt designs from the SF mint left behind a disproportionate amount of very high quality survivors from exceptionally low mintages that have been documented and well-publicized for decades.. This anomaly is at least somewhat ordinary in its distribution. The lower the denomination, the higher the number of "super-survivors". I added it up. The aggregate for all three denominations of 08-S in gem (65 and up) is $1345 in face value, chump change personally and commercially even in those days when the city was rebuilding. The much larger 11-S and 16-S groups have miniscule gem survival rates compared to these. 1908-S $5's to the number of 51 in MS65. Likely one holding, and surely long dispersed.
Please delete this.. Admin
I'm 75 years old, so there is nothing new about me.
Trying to delete this.
I'm 75 years old, so there is nothing new about me.
covfefe... I just turned 75 myself
Very informative thread about a topic I know nothing about .
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Interestingly no 67s have stickered, which is a bit surprising. NGC has also graded 6 in MS67.
If you take out the 1908 date, there are only 19 total Indian quarter eagles stickered at 66 from both services (40 if you include 1908). A gem or near gem all CAC Indian quarter eagle collection would be very challenging to complete.
Looking a Indian Half Eagles there are 6 dates in the series that have a grand total of one stickered at 65 and one date (1913-S) that has nothing stickered over 64.
Not curious at all - old-timers survive for a reason ye know
OK done, see how nice we play here ?
I like the thread. I want this specific post removed as it contains nada ... nothing...
I'm 75 years old, so there is nothing new about me.
since the thread seems to have a lot of interest---curious what others think of the challenge of building a gem proof Indian QE set?