Options
Sainty sits down at the table for some fresh "CROW PIE"!
saintguru
Posts: 7,727 ✭✭✭
OK...I have to confess to being wrong about a much disputed coin that has been the topic of numerous threads here.
It's the infamous $20 1921 Proof/Specimen/MS Saaint that sold for $1.7MM last year.
I had felt that it was an undocumented coin and after seeing it never even considered the strike of the coin to be other than an MS....not until it sold for 5x what I expected!! I was in the camp that it was not a proof.
Well, I saw the coin again at ANA and I am here to say that it is like no other business strike Saint I have EVER seen. The sharpness of the features make it look more like a modern Saint bullion 'whatever they're called' than anything else. Every ray is sharp defined and fully struck. The rays above the sun, which is generally the weakest area of the coin was as crisp as a draftsman's drawing! The obverse rim was razor sharp and certainly far more prooflike than any business strike. And every other feature of the coin was simply deeper and more defined that the best of any date in the series by a mile. And how the coin was graded MS63 is beyond me because it's as nice as any 65 I've seen.
The coin is now in an NGC Specimen 64 holder. What the hell is a "specimen"? It's either a business strike or a proof and this observer's conclusion is that it was a proof strike made on a standard planchet. That may be the point where the confusion starts. It's certainly not a matte finish like most proof Saints but more like the Roman finish of the 1909's. Why it's undocumented I don't think anyone will know but I know that this coin has a look far superior to any other I've seen and I must conclude that it is, indeed a PROOF coin! I've talked to RWB about this and he can't trace the proof either but the eyes don't lie.
I stand corrected and I applaud the people who made this discovery. Now what happens is up to the parties involved to wrangle out the proper designation but I'm on the side of "spectacular".
It's the infamous $20 1921 Proof/Specimen/MS Saaint that sold for $1.7MM last year.
I had felt that it was an undocumented coin and after seeing it never even considered the strike of the coin to be other than an MS....not until it sold for 5x what I expected!! I was in the camp that it was not a proof.
Well, I saw the coin again at ANA and I am here to say that it is like no other business strike Saint I have EVER seen. The sharpness of the features make it look more like a modern Saint bullion 'whatever they're called' than anything else. Every ray is sharp defined and fully struck. The rays above the sun, which is generally the weakest area of the coin was as crisp as a draftsman's drawing! The obverse rim was razor sharp and certainly far more prooflike than any business strike. And every other feature of the coin was simply deeper and more defined that the best of any date in the series by a mile. And how the coin was graded MS63 is beyond me because it's as nice as any 65 I've seen.
The coin is now in an NGC Specimen 64 holder. What the hell is a "specimen"? It's either a business strike or a proof and this observer's conclusion is that it was a proof strike made on a standard planchet. That may be the point where the confusion starts. It's certainly not a matte finish like most proof Saints but more like the Roman finish of the 1909's. Why it's undocumented I don't think anyone will know but I know that this coin has a look far superior to any other I've seen and I must conclude that it is, indeed a PROOF coin! I've talked to RWB about this and he can't trace the proof either but the eyes don't lie.
I stand corrected and I applaud the people who made this discovery. Now what happens is up to the parties involved to wrangle out the proper designation but I'm on the side of "spectacular".
0
Comments
greg
www.brunkauctions.com
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
I would defy anyoone to produce any other business strike that is even close in strike.
If I owned it I sure wouldn't put it in a case so every schmoe could weigh in with their opinion. You can understand that if it was yours?
<< <i>Not ever remotely. Unless you make your scrapple with feathers.
I don't.
While on the Topic of writing this thread... where you listening to Tupac
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
Did you see my posting back then about the 1921 $20 given to the neice of the Superintendent of the Philly Mint?
TD
<< <i>Production presses cannot make coins that mimic ones made on a medal press. >>
But the very first coin off a business die will undoubtedly be much, much more crisp than the 40,000th, correct?
Edited to add: Especially if its struck multiple times and is a large diameter gold planchet.
Jay, What specific evidence did you see leading you to call it a proof? Evidence of being struck more than once? A polished or otherwise prepared planchet? A distinct matte/satin appearance? Or is it all strike? Just wondering...MIke
<< <i>
<< <i>Production presses cannot make coins that mimic ones made on a medal press. >>
But the very first coin off a business die will undoubtedly be much, much more crisp than the 40,000th, correct?
Edited to add: Especially if its struck multiple times and is a large diameter gold planchet. >>
I HIGHLY doubt that's the case.
And there would be no reason to do multiple strikes. If anything it would probably distort the detail like a high relief.
It's obvious that the Mint knew exactly how to make a proof when they wanted to do so - why anyone would pay BIG bucks for a coin that may or may not be a proof is beyond me.
<< <i>Just because a coin is better struck than it's bretheren, doesn't make it a proof.
Jay, What specific evidence did you see leading you to call it a proof? Evidence of being struck more than once? A polished or otherwise prepared planchet? A distinct matte/satin appearance? Or is it all strike? Just wondering...MIke >>
The perfect strike unlike any Saint (other than a proof) I have ever seen before. Look at any Saint you want and tell me if the rays above the sun afe absolutely razor sharp and have depth. You won't. The obverse rim was exactly like a proof coin's as well. You have to see it to "get" it.
Why didn't you see these features the first time?
<< <i>"Well, I saw the coin again..."
Why didn't you see these features the first time? >>
The power of the holder.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Well, I saw the coin again..."
Why didn't you see these features the first time? >>
The power of the holder. >>
Looks like Roger may have shed some light.
I looked too fast and I made a wrong assesment. That's what this is about.
PffffffffffT!
Now there's a surprise.
I wonder what that NCS fee ran...
<< <i>I wish I was the consignor selling a regular ole minted 1921 for 10X what I payed for it for someone who thinks it MAY OR MAY NOT BE a proof. Especially all these "experts" who see it one time and then another time, and keep changing their mind. Where were all these "proof" experts of the 1921 coin 80 YEARS AGO??? What a joke. But some rich hedge fund manager will be told it was the first struck, and pay $3 million for it. >>
there's some truth in much of that, Lloyd.
Had the very same thing happen to me when looking at a large group of seated halves. The 1850 in that group was also in a MS63 holder but was proof like with some hairlines. I just assumed it was lightly cleaned with the luster stripped off and then retoned. Nope...it was an original proof coin that was misattributed. That same coin appeared in the Platinum night auction this past week.
The holder did indeed blind me as well.
roadrunner
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There was a bad recession at the time from the over-inflated economy as a result of WWI.
The FED didn't want to release currency/coins into the market to try to lower money supply and many rare dates resulted.
The 1850 Double Eagle owned by forum member Northcoin was the first one struck, and saved by designer James Barton Longacre.
As RWB pointed out (and I concur) the striking of proof coinage on a steam press would not allow for a second exact striking on any previously struck coin. The United States Mint in Philly struck all proof coinage (well into the 1890s) on the large screw press that was housed in the medal department.
The term "Specimen" is a modern Walter Breen terminology that has absolutely no meaning. It is similar to Max Mehl's "semi-proof".
Strike is just one consideration in which to validate a proof coin. When there are no official U.S. Mint documents to validate, then the item in question should be considered suspect as being a real proof.
To repeat my story on the 1921 Saints: At some time in the early 1980s a lady came to ANA headquarters with a 1921 Saint that she said had been given to her as a birth present, in 1921, by her uncle who was the Superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. She gave a name which I later looked up. He was indeed one of the two Superintendents in that year.
Unfortunately, she had polished the coin repeatedly over the years. I gave her some information on the coin and why it was rare, gave her some pricing information and told her to stop polishing the coin.
Today, one of the three(?) reported proof 1921 Saints is cleaned and impaired. I do not know if it is the same piece I saw back then, but hope to get to look at it someday.
Can't you imagine the Superintendent of the Mint telling his chief clerk that he has a newborn neice he would like to give a coin to, and eventually receiving a Proof from the boys downstairs trying to make a good impression? Naturally they would make a couple extras, just in case the first one did not turn out perfect, or the bossman decided he wanted an extra one?
Utter speculation? Of course it is. But it is plausible.
TD
However, I know nothing about Gold, so I should keep my mouth shut.
Respectfully, John Curlis
Walter Breen validated his usage and description of a "Specimen" coin based on an 1836 letter from Mint Director Robert M. Patterson, when he sent specimens of the latest coinage from the new steam press to Treasurer Levi Woodbury.
Breen further validates "specimens" as being factual proofs in his Proof Encyclopedia on pgs. 22-23.
He never understood that the word specimens merely referred to examples of coins that were being sent to various government officials.
Conveniently, the TPG's have used this designation when they are not sure.
"Specimen Proof" was first seen in American numismatics in the 1992 Floyd Starr - Philadelphia Estate catalogue by Stack's. That only muddied the waters even further.