jpkinla: your 1921 is still in a green label holder! It looks like a lock 65 to me.
Just kidding. I can't tell by the photo in your registry set if it deserves an upgrade or not. I do know you haven't tried it or else it would not still be in a green label holder.
CaptHenway: Great story! Did you buy that coin? Even polished it sounds like a special coin...
<< <i>jpkinla: your 1921 is still in a green label holder! It looks like a lock 65 to me.
Just kidding. I can't tell by the photo in your registry set if it deserves an upgrade or not. I do know you haven't tried it or else it would not still be in a green label holder.
CaptHenway: Great story! Did you buy that coin? Even polished it sounds like a special coin... >>
We didn't buy or sell coins. She just came to the ANA to get some idea of what it was worth. She really had no numismatic knowledge (obviously), and did not know that it was a rare date. I explained the story about how very few of that date had been released, and showed her some price guides. I also explained as gently as possible that the polishing had greatly reduced the value, and suggested that she NOT DO THAT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TD
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
I have been told my 1921 has a 20% chance at a 65 grade with NGC if all the stars are aligned properly.....I have NOT tried to regrade and may leave it alone as I am happy with it the way it is....
This 1921 story will get interesting.....I have to believe someone will come out on this besides the consignor.....Lets assume it IS the sole 1921 proof. What is it worth then? experts, let's hear it....
maybe there is something special about it that some people noticed. Sometimes a coin will bring 3x normal money if it has no room to upgrade but it is a really nice coin, but 5x.... and on such an expensive coin is unheard of
Cleaned or Proof strikings. Everyone better get it right. Of course owners will say it is a Proof for sure. How will this get manipulated, and what is actual FACT??? And Prove it. Again, MS are worth more than Proofs, IMO.
This is a tough one. I thought the Morse sale 1921's in 65 and 64 were with a lot of nicks and scratches. The 66 was awesome. But this coin, I thought was beautiful with NO nicks and scratches, and I couldn't figure it out. The "experts" were telling me "rubbed". I don't really know what that means. I thought for a rubbed coin, it was spectacular...
<< <i>Here's one of the other possible proofs. I wonder if it's the same coin CaptHenway saw years ago.
>>
Could be. Do you know who has the coin now? If I could see it in person, I might be able to say yes or no. TD
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>1) In 1921 George Morgan prepared one satin proof double eagle as gift for Mint Director Raymond T. Baker. Apparently, this was done to curry favor with the director on the birth of his daughter, Gloria. (Baker’s wife was Margaret Emerson Smith Hollins McKim Vanderbilt, the widow of Alfred Vanderbilt who went down with the Lusitanian in 1915.) The coin remained with Baker’s heirs until the 1990s. >>
<< <i>As I mentioned before, the one KNOWN existing proof sold in June, 2000. Todd Imhoff bought it for a client. >>
Saint....is the provenance known for the coin sold in 2000?
Is it the Baker coin?
Does it have the same characteristics as the B &M coin?
Ok having read this thread twice and knowing less about Saints then Mr. Jack Chit I see that the experts here say:
It needs a bath It has a funny color It's been rubbed It has questionable color No wire edge so not a proof It has matte surfaces so its a specimen Wait a minute its not really a matte proof specimen A prominent expert believes it to be a proof It has a special strike One of the sharpest graders believes it to be a proof It's been wiped but has an exceptional strike
So all this expert banter makes me wonder if a funny color in your specimen is proof that it is not clean?
You know who will get screwed with this. If it doesn't work out for the dealers/owner of this coin, they'll sell it to some wealthy uneducated client who wants to start a set, and leave him holding the bag.
You know who will get screwed with this. If it doesn't work out for the dealers/owner of this coin, they'll sell it to some wealthy uneducated client who wants to start a set, and leave him holding the bag.
Lloyd - You may find this hard to believe, but wealthy uneducated clients willing to blow a couple million on a raw coin are few and far between.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic. Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I am going to stay out of the discussion of what it will grade becuase I have heard it COULD grade PF64 someday. But what is the value if it does? I am not a proof collector so I have no idea but I would suspect at that point the buyer would come out fine.....
But what if it doesn't? The buyer (and underbidder) must have felt VERY comfortable.....
Hey, I am happy to just have a 1921 circulation strike....
In the 1921 era, de-burring of the master hub or master dies and finishing of working dies produced slight differences from one die pair to the next. “Satin” proofs (gold or silver) were made by putting new dies in a medal press and striking on selected smooth planchets at above normal pressure – commonly 130 to 150 tons/square inch. Dies wear quickly in these conditions and no two coins will likely be identical. The uselessly-named “Roman” proof is the same thing. (The mint called these “bright” proofs.)
A “sandblast” proof was made by sandblasting a satin proof. Each coin is sandblasted individually, so specimens differ slightly from each other. (The mint called these “sandblast” proofs.)
The key concept is that although these were the only two methods use to make “proofs’ in this era, and there are commonalities, every satin or sandblast proof coin has a unique surface.
A “matte” proof was made by sandblasting a working die before it was hardened. This was used exclusively for cents and nickels 1909/1913 - 1916.
The Baker coin has both appearance and documentation in support of it being a satin proof. Any other alleged example would have to be a close match.
The Philadelphia Mint did not make brilliant proofs from 1916 to 1935.
Frank Leach complained about excess silver in the alloy for some years. Something Sptdt. John Landis mentioned also and it is mentioned in a couple of the assay reports for 1908-09. Also, there was no standard size grit, sandblasting distance, air pressure or detailed process, so each batch (likely each coin) could be different.
Unfortunately, whatever details were involved are probably lost.
<< <i>Frank Leach complained about excess silver in the alloy for some years. Something Sptdt. John Landis mentioned also and it is mentioned in a couple of the assay reports for 1908-09. Also, there was no standard size grit, sandblasting distance, air pressure or detailed process, so each batch (likely each coin) could be different.
Unfortunately, whatever details were involved are probably lost. >>
I always presumed that the "other" was totally copper; was silver in the mix, too? A 0.5% variation in copper would definitely move the color spectrum, would it not?
The 1909-1910 satin proofs were not popular with gold collectors (at least the vocal ones). William Woodin got Asst. Treas. Sec. Andrew (the Mint Bureau came under his supervision) to revert to sandblast proofs for 1911, but it took a resolution from the ANA before Andrew would give in. Philadelphia Superintendent John Landis didn't like any of the sandblast or satin proofs. Sandblast was too unusual to allow leftover coins to be put in circulation, and satin proofs were not distinctive enough to please collectors. Quite a few of both versions have been abused.
Correction - In an earlier post in this thread, I wrote: 1) In 1921 George Morgan prepared one satin proof double eagle as gift for Mint Director Raymond T. Baker. Apparently, this was done to curry favor with the director on the birth of his daughter, Gloria. (Baker’s wife was Margaret Emerson Smith Hollins McKim Vanderbilt, the widow of Alfred Vanderbilt who went down with the Lusitanian in 1915.) The coin remained with Baker’s heirs until the 1990s.
This is incorrect; the result of my writing from memory and not checking the documents first. The Sotheby's version from their June 2000 auction of the "Baker" coin should be considered accurate unless demonstrated otherwise. Sorry for the delay, but I just happened t see this old post and did not want anyone mislead.
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
Old Thread Alert. Several interesting comments herein. Be sure to see Burdette's correction at the end of the old thread.
Bump for the new 1921 Double Eagle thread.
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@CaptHenway said:
I'm still waiting to see the circ. one.
TD
Long after I made this comment, somebody sent me a picture of the circulated one. I am now 90% sure that this circ. Proof is not the heavily polished 1921 $20 that the "little old lady" walked into the ANA with in the early 1980's, with the credible story that it was given to her upon the event of her birth in 1921, given by her Uncle who was one of the two Superintendents of the Philadelphia Mint in 1921. She gave his name, which I looked up in the Coin World Almanac, and as I recall it was the first of the two Superintendents who served in that year.
Because Proofs were not yet known in the early 1980's I did not check for the possibility that it might have been a Proof. Because of the Baker new baby gift story it is quite possible that the "little old lady" coin was also a Proof, but this remains to be seen.
TD
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@CaptHenway said:
Old Thread Alert. Several interesting comments herein.
Bump for the new 1921 Double Eagle thread.
It was fun to revisit this thread. And a large part of the reason is that I knew who bought the coin, and was able to view it in hand, shortly after it was removed from its holder. It took me only seconds to come to come to the belief that I was looking at a Satin Proof. And I was surprised that it took a long time to be recognized as such.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm having a hard time downloading the TV on my phone but here is a lower resolution picture and partial write up from Coinfacts.
In 2006, a second example with matching characteristics appeared at a Bowers and Merena auction, then graded PCGS MS63. The piece sparked spirited bidding and was ultimately purchased for $1,495,000 by dealer Dan Ratner. Fellow dealer Brian Hendelson also competed for the coin, recognizing it as a Proof, and later entered a partnership with Ratner to co-own the piece. The coin was subsequently crossed to NGC, where it was graded Proof 64+. Years later, per their agreement, the coin was listed for sale via Heritage Auctions to allow the market to determine its fair value; Hendelson ultimately placed the winning bid to take full ownership. He now considers the piece "the highlight of his collection."
Comments
Just kidding. I can't tell by the photo in your registry set if it deserves an upgrade or not. I do know you haven't tried it or else it would not still be in a green label holder.
CaptHenway: Great story! Did you buy that coin? Even polished it sounds like a special coin...
<< <i>jpkinla: your 1921 is still in a green label holder! It looks like a lock 65 to me.
Just kidding. I can't tell by the photo in your registry set if it deserves an upgrade or not. I do know you haven't tried it or else it would not still be in a green label holder.
CaptHenway: Great story! Did you buy that coin? Even polished it sounds like a special coin... >>
We didn't buy or sell coins. She just came to the ANA to get some idea of what it was worth. She really had no numismatic knowledge (obviously), and did not know that it was a rare date. I explained the story about how very few of that date had been released, and showed her some price guides. I also explained as gently as possible that the polishing had greatly reduced the value, and suggested that she NOT DO THAT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TD
I have been told my 1921 has a 20% chance at a 65 grade with NGC if all the stars are aligned properly.....I have NOT tried to regrade and may leave it alone as I am happy with it the way it is....
This 1921 story will get interesting.....I have to believe someone will come out on this besides the consignor.....Lets assume it IS the sole 1921 proof. What is it worth then? experts, let's hear it....
$20 Saint Gaudens Registry Set
Don't assume that. If this coin is a proof, there are definitely at least two others, as I mentioned earlier.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This is a tough one. I thought the Morse sale 1921's in 65 and 64 were with a lot of nicks and scratches. The 66 was awesome. But this coin, I thought was beautiful with NO nicks and scratches, and I couldn't figure it out. The "experts" were telling me "rubbed". I don't really know what that means. I thought for a rubbed coin, it was spectacular...
<< <i>Here's one of the other possible proofs. I wonder if it's the same coin CaptHenway saw years ago.
Could be. Do you know who has the coin now? If I could see it in person, I might be able to say yes or no.
TD
So many savvy coin people here and no one has figured it out or more likely no one wants to get bammed?
Tom - Yes, and I'll ask the owner if he wants to show it to you. I think he would welcome the opportunity to ascertain the provenance of his coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>1) In 1921 George Morgan prepared one satin proof double eagle as gift for Mint Director Raymond T. Baker. Apparently, this was done to curry favor with the director on the birth of his daughter, Gloria. (Baker’s wife was Margaret Emerson Smith Hollins McKim Vanderbilt, the widow of Alfred Vanderbilt who went down with the Lusitanian in 1915.) The coin remained with Baker’s heirs until the 1990s. >>
<< <i>As I mentioned before, the one KNOWN existing proof sold in June, 2000. Todd Imhoff bought it for a client. >>
Saint....is the provenance known for the coin sold in 2000?
Is it the Baker coin?
Does it have the same characteristics as the B &M coin?
Has Akers see the coin that sold in 2000?
Heck, I love the 1921 date not because of anyone I know but because the 1921 date is of lore in coins. One of the rarest in all of numismatics.
But not $2 million plus rare!!
It needs a bath
It has a funny color
It's been rubbed
It has questionable color
No wire edge so not a proof
It has matte surfaces so its a specimen
Wait a minute its not really a matte proof specimen
A prominent expert believes it to be a proof
It has a special strike
One of the sharpest graders believes it to be a proof
It's been wiped but has an exceptional strike
So all this expert banter makes me wonder if a funny color in your specimen is proof that it is not clean?
We need a clankeye repartie on this one.
A one coin set.
Lloyd - You may find this hard to believe, but wealthy uneducated clients willing to blow a couple million on a raw coin are few and far between.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>" . . . some wealthy uneducated client . . . "
Cute...VERY cute...
Who ever said anything about it being raw???
<< <i>
<< <i>" . . . some wealthy uneducated client . . . "
Cute...VERY cute...
Time for a new alt, SaintCombOver.
But what if it doesn't? The buyer (and underbidder) must have felt VERY comfortable.....
Hey, I am happy to just have a 1921 circulation strike....
$20 Saint Gaudens Registry Set
A “sandblast” proof was made by sandblasting a satin proof. Each coin is sandblasted individually, so specimens differ slightly from each other. (The mint called these “sandblast” proofs.)
The key concept is that although these were the only two methods use to make “proofs’ in this era, and there are commonalities, every satin or sandblast proof coin has a unique surface.
A “matte” proof was made by sandblasting a working die before it was hardened. This was used exclusively for cents and nickels 1909/1913 - 1916.
The Baker coin has both appearance and documentation in support of it being a satin proof. Any other alleged example would have to be a close match.
The Philadelphia Mint did not make brilliant proofs from 1916 to 1935.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The B&M coin and the impaired Heritage coin are indeed close matches.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Unfortunately, whatever details were involved are probably lost.
I wouldn't make that generalization. The proofs of 1910 are more "brilliant" than those of 1909.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Saaaaay - isn't SaintGuru Italian?
<< <i>Frank Leach complained about excess silver in the alloy for some years. Something Sptdt. John Landis mentioned also and it is mentioned in a couple of the assay reports for 1908-09. Also, there was no standard size grit, sandblasting distance, air pressure or detailed process, so each batch (likely each coin) could be different.
Unfortunately, whatever details were involved are probably lost. >>
10% Other ???
I always presumed that the "other" was totally copper; was silver in the mix, too? A 0.5% variation in copper would definitely move the color spectrum, would it not?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
In an earlier post in this thread, I wrote:
1) In 1921 George Morgan prepared one satin proof double eagle as gift for Mint Director Raymond T. Baker. Apparently, this was done to curry favor with the director on the birth of his daughter, Gloria. (Baker’s wife was Margaret Emerson Smith Hollins McKim Vanderbilt, the widow of Alfred Vanderbilt who went down with the Lusitanian in 1915.) The coin remained with Baker’s heirs until the 1990s.
This is incorrect; the result of my writing from memory and not checking the documents first. The Sotheby's version from their June 2000 auction of the "Baker" coin should be considered accurate unless demonstrated otherwise. Sorry for the delay, but I just happened t see this old post and did not want anyone mislead.
TD
In a PCGS SP holder...
<< <i>Gee, I wonder what ever happened to this coin? >>
Maybe here is the answer to your question.
Old Thread Alert. Several interesting comments herein. Be sure to see Burdette's correction at the end of the old thread.
Bump for the new 1921 Double Eagle thread.
Long after I made this comment, somebody sent me a picture of the circulated one. I am now 90% sure that this circ. Proof is not the heavily polished 1921 $20 that the "little old lady" walked into the ANA with in the early 1980's, with the credible story that it was given to her upon the event of her birth in 1921, given by her Uncle who was one of the two Superintendents of the Philadelphia Mint in 1921. She gave his name, which I looked up in the Coin World Almanac, and as I recall it was the first of the two Superintendents who served in that year.
Because Proofs were not yet known in the early 1980's I did not check for the possibility that it might have been a Proof. Because of the Baker new baby gift story it is quite possible that the "little old lady" coin was also a Proof, but this remains to be seen.
TD
It was fun to revisit this thread. And a large part of the reason is that I knew who bought the coin, and was able to view it in hand, shortly after it was removed from its holder. It took me only seconds to come to come to the belief that I was looking at a Satin Proof. And I was surprised that it took a long time to be recognized as such.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm having a hard time downloading the TV on my phone but here is a lower resolution picture and partial write up from Coinfacts.
In 2006, a second example with matching characteristics appeared at a Bowers and Merena auction, then graded PCGS MS63. The piece sparked spirited bidding and was ultimately purchased for $1,495,000 by dealer Dan Ratner. Fellow dealer Brian Hendelson also competed for the coin, recognizing it as a Proof, and later entered a partnership with Ratner to co-own the piece. The coin was subsequently crossed to NGC, where it was graded Proof 64+. Years later, per their agreement, the coin was listed for sale via Heritage Auctions to allow the market to determine its fair value; Hendelson ultimately placed the winning bid to take full ownership. He now considers the piece "the highlight of his collection."
chopmarkedtradedollars.com