Home› U.S. Coin Forum

Comments

  • Options
    neildrobertsonneildrobertson Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is this a clerical error, or is there really a 70+?

    IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
    "Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me

  • Options
    HemisphericalHemispherical Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 24, 2019 2:13PM

    Snapshot:

    ————-

    Commentary by Ron Guth, note the last paragraph, possibly the 70+ is to say PL before PL was an option?

    “Ron Guth:
    SPECIAL NOTE: Prior to March 2011, PCGS designated all 2009 Ultra-High Relief Double Eagles only as "Mint State." In recognition of the special appearance of some pieces, PCGS added (in March 2011) the Prooflike (PL) designation to qualifying coins.

    The 2009 Ultra-High Relief was a reprise of the extremely rare, double-thick, small diameter patterns proposed by Augustus Saint-Gaudens in 1907. Only two such patterns remain today, both of which are part of the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution. The original patterns weigh as much as a normal $20 gold piece but they were struck to the diameter of a $10 gold piece. Thus, they are much thicker and smaller in diameter than a normal $20 gold piece. The 2009 version is slightly different than the original patterns in that the rim is slightly flattened and does not come to the sharp, knife edge as seen on the originals.

    Public response to the new Ultra-High Reliefs was tremendous. Though considered bullion coins, they were sold by the Mint at a hefty premium over the value of the gold they contained.

    The finish on the modern version is unlike the brilliant Proof finish on the original patterns. Though not quite matte, the surfaces have more of a satiny appearance. Because of the increased depth of the designs, the Ultra-High Reliefs sport a medallic appearance quite unlike that of a normal coin. The striking, unusual appearance is a large part of the coin's appeal.

    Some question exists as to whether these coins were intended to be struck as Mint State or Proof. There is no status indication anywhere on the Mint's website (www.usmint.gov). In the literature that accompanied each of the coins is a small facsimile of a letter authorizing the minting of the coins which contains a reference to "Proofs." However, the Certificate of Authenticity that was issued for each and every coin states clearly "business strike". Thus, PCGS recognizes these remarkable coins only in Mint State (and now with the Prooflike designation).”

  • Options
    keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    it is almost certainly a PCGS data entry error. the Lot at GC shows an MS70 and checking the cert number at PCGS yields the same.

  • Options
    morgandollar1878morgandollar1878 Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Didn't you guys know that you could have better than perfect? :D

    Instagram: nomad_numismatics
  • Options
    robecrobec Posts: 7,058 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jkrk said:
    I wouldn't buy a 70+ without a CAC sticker. >:)

    CAC disregards the +.

  • Options

    We will have this corrected shortly. thank you for bringing it to our attention

    Heather Boyd
    PCGS Senior Director of Marketing

  • Options
    Moxie15Moxie15 Posts: 331 ✭✭✭

    ...That which was to occur here was deleted by Herr director...

  • Options
    rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It certainly is a beautiful coin......For anyone that has one, it should be in a display case, prominently shown for all to enjoy...Cheers, RickO

  • Options
    coinpalicecoinpalice Posts: 2,469 ✭✭✭✭✭

    check out the auction record, some fool paid 5,800 on e bay just over 3 months ago for this coin

Leave a Comment

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