Options
What's wrong with this gold ingot?
sellitstore
Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭✭✭
It purports to be from S(ebastian) Koenigsberge(r) who was an assayer in CA and NV, 1862-74. Mr Koenigsberger testified as to his occupation in a S Dakota Supreme Court case in 1885. He also worked at the US Assay Office in Deadwood sometime after 1898 when it opened. The IRS tax stamp would date it to 1864-68, his CA/NV days.
It looks too good to be true, so I'm very suspicious. Does anyone know this to be a fake? I know Kagin-Holibird are the folks to contact but they are in the middle of an auction today and tomorrow, so I'm wondering if anyone here might have some info.
bar photo #1
bar photo #2
bar photo #3
It looks too good to be true, so I'm very suspicious. Does anyone know this to be a fake? I know Kagin-Holibird are the folks to contact but they are in the middle of an auction today and tomorrow, so I'm wondering if anyone here might have some info.
bar photo #1
bar photo #2
bar photo #3
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
0
Comments
But I really do not know. Does anyone have one to compare with? Past auctions?
bob
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
<< <i>Crude looking bars for an assayer of his stature. I too would be suspect.
But I really do not know. Does anyone have one to compare with? Past auctions?
bob >>
The obvious choices to compare it to would be both genuine and known fake ingots. The Ford XXI catalog (also online) would be one choice, and the Clifford catalog (not online) would be the other. I am, shall we say, far from an expert on these, so I won't say what I'm looking at on it yet.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
You would do well to consult with the experts at Kagins.
MOO
TD
Pros
has an assay chip (IRS stamp side, SE corner)
uses a single punch for his name/company
the weight/fineness/value calculates to a gold value of $20.67, which is correct for the time
punches do not match any of the well known modern fake company bars
Cons
two-sided
"FINE" is punched in by individual letter punches
"8" punch looks somewhat "modern"
Neutral/Unknowns
assayer not known for previous bars
edges appear somewhat irregular
I don't know what to compare the IRS stamp to
Of course, as I and everyone said, this needs an expert, and you do know who the expert is, so that's a good thing.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Fred Holabird of Holabird-Kagin Americana (as mentioned) would be someone to talk to. During the Mints and Mines tour he led to Carson City, Fred said the following about the order of punches on an ingot (this from my notes). This is the order in which an ingot was stamped after being knocked out of the mold:
1) serial #
2) assayer house/name
3) assay chip (always by machine)
4) weight
5) assay to *3* decimal places (Fred was explicit about this)
6) fineness, gold and silver
7) dollar value
At some point in this process, the bar was flipped over. I don't recall when exactly that would occur, but it's probably a safe bet that serial # and assayer house/name should be on the same side. They are not on that bar. I would think weight, assay, fineness and dollar value would also be on the same side as well. Having the weight on the opposite side of fineness and dollar value is a puzzle.
Also, with a stated fineness of .758, it makes me wonder if this was supposed to be a dore' bullion bar. If so, it would possibly have had some silver content making up the remaining 242 thous., which would likely been stamped with a separate dollar value, and then the total value of silver & gold.
In short, to my super-limited knowledge & experience of these things, I don't like it. Don't pass the sniff test.
I have the Ford XXI catalog and can see similarities and differences between this bar and others but can't draw definite conclusions. Several useful photos of the treasury stamp appear in this catalog and this appears to match the earlier of the two designs used 1864-68. A problem with the Ford catalog is that some of the items are of questionable authenticity according to Mr. Kleeberg.
Kleeberg's essay on fake Western assay bars is perhaps the most useful paper that I have located on this subject. The case that he makes for certain gold bars being fake is convincing and I believe his conclusions to be mostly correct. However, he makes some generalizations that may be based on faulty reasoning. For example, the bars from the Central America are the largest group of geniune bars known by far, however they may not be representative of all gold bars (or surviving gold bars) from the 19th century West. The assayers who poured these bars likely knew that they were to be transported by ship and likely poured large bars which would make more sense for shipping.
Kleeberg's claim is that bars valued under $100 were not often produced by assayers because $100 was the minimum deposit required by the US mint or assay offices. He supports this with the fact that only 3 of the 500+ bars recovered from the Central America were valued under $100. The Central America may have represented a typical large shipment of gold bullion but I believe that assayers produced plenty of smaller bars as individual miners would often have smaller quantities to be refined. Remember, prior to the Central America, most of the few known genuine gold bars were small-a few ounces. I think that this size range was more common than Kleeberg claims. Smaller bars are what I would expect to survive as expensive souvenirs as larger bars would have been even more expensive souvenirs.
Of the cons sighted, the only one that struck me was the word "FINE" being from individual punches rather than one die. Kleeberg says that the assayers logotype should be from a single punch, which is the case with this bar, but one would presume that "FINE" would also use a single punch as it was used repeatedly. Although this is not what we might expect from this bar, I don't think it condemns it, either. Some smaller assayers may not have had a "FINE" stamp made.
Two sided makes sense to me on a bar of this size. The six elements that should be on this bar won't fit on one side. I think that the claim that genuine bars should be one sided, should be more like genuine bars are often one sided. We just haven't seen enough genuine ones to make definitive statements on this point.
but it's probably a safe bet that serial # and assayer house/name should be on the same side. They are not on that bar. I would think weight, assay, fineness and dollar value would also be on the same side as well. Having the weight on the opposite side of fineness and dollar value is a puzzle.
Perhaps, but I don't think that there was any standard that was in use as to what info should appear on what side. Bars, especially smaller ones, varied in size and shape and it doesn't seem as sensible to dictate where information should appear as much as it was important to dicate what info needed to appear. Again, it would be helpful if we had more genuine bars to study.
Also, with a stated fineness of .758, it makes me wonder if this was supposed to be a dore' bullion bar. If so, it would possibly have had some silver content making up the remaining 242 thous., which would likely been stamped with a separate dollar value, and then the total value of silver & gold.
This occured to me, too. However aren't dore bars often/mostly? silver bars with a little gold, where the value of the gold was more significant? The known genuine gold only bars are all of somewhat reduced fineness, too, however show no value for the other metals as they were a very small percentage of the bars value. If the remaining 25% of this bar was silver, it would be valued at about $1 at the time but it isn't. There are definite coppery highlights in this bar. Maybe the 10-20 cents extra (if that) in silver wasn't worth extra effort/expense to determine silver content, too?
It's good and I'll likely consign it for auction this fall.
It's quite an exciting discovery, even for this numismatist of 4+ decades.
<< <i>I am not qualified to judge the piece, but would really be interested in what you find out... Please be sure to let us know. Cheers, RickO
It's good.... >>
Cool! Can we get more details?
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Assuming the Mint did require a deposit of $100 melt value or more, one would think that they would accept a deposit of two or more bars with a total value in excess of $100. After all, they're going to melt them.
John J. Ford did have some questionable bars in his collection. Stack's was aware of this, and they were quite concientious and professional in their catgaloguing. Questionable bars were not included in the sale catalogue.
TD
A presumption on my part is that dust and nuggets would have been purchased by exchange brokers at a deeper discount than assay bars because of the former's uncertain fineness. Another presumption is that once purchased by an exchange broker, nearly all ingots were headed to the melting pot due to their high value and zero collectibility which accounts for their extreme rarity today.
Unfortunately, I don't have many more details to provide. I bought it through a third party, so I really don't know who the previous owner was but my best guess is that it is an estate source as opposed to a collector or dealer, but I don't know with certainty. Yes, I can tell you that I paid more than melt value, this was not sold as bullion. Most of the other information is from research or my speculation based on my 44 years as a numismatist.
<< <i> The IRS tax stamp would date it to 1864-68, his CA/NV days.
[/L] >>
I think that the 'IRS stamp' proves it is fake.
The IRS is a 20'th century creation, is it not?
And when and where has the IRS ever had anything to do with the refining and assaying of bullion?
That plum is TOO ripe.
Sellitstore, so what persuaded you to determine legitimacy?
Have you performed a density and metallurgical test?
1.The MAIN thing I don’t like, that wasn’t previously mentioned, is that there are THREE different punches used for zero/letter ‘O’. This is NOT economy of motion and strikes me very peculiar. Note that the 4 was the same punch on both uses. Otherwise, the punches look really good. Regarding ‘FINE’, it almost looks like the FINE was punched once with a stamp that had all four letters, but the E didn’t take due to that little depression/divot and so he went back and double stamped the E from a single punch.
2.From what was already mentioned, I really DO NOT like the fact that the fineness/amount are on different sides and that the bar looks artificially aged (see more below for possible explanation).
3.What I DO like that wasn’t previously mentioned is that the correct dollar sign for the time was used. Only good counterfeiters would know this.
4.DORE
Gold Dore was produced in the 1860s.
5.IRS
Lincoln and pols created the IRS via the Revenue Act of 1862 to fund his war.
By 1864 the IRS was already taxing cheques/markers via stamps so it isn’t a stretch to believe they had their tentacles in specie circa 1864, not by a long shot
6.One other important resource not mentioned here:
Have you asked Tom P. in Hawaii?
7. There is always the possibility, though a long shot, that SK stamped AFTER initial punch. This would explain why the fineness/weight are on different sides. Under this scenario the dore was punched for weight, then weight was verified by IRS. At some point down the road, possibly when SK moved to SD, he then assayed and punched the assayed fineness and his stamp on the other side.
SUM
For my money, I lean as "best counterfeit seen" until density/metallurgy prove out the stamps within one sig digit. Even then, a counterfeiter of this caliber would know the proper weights/ density.
This is why chem. analysis is so important. Metallurgy will basically show you (mass spec) how the dore fingerprint matches other known SD d/ore.
But at that point, if the right gold amount/mass spec show a legitimate source of ore, the only thing fake is the attribution to Koenigsberger. This is where the lack of provenance really hurts the claim for legitimacy. A very good counterfeiter is making hay on the lack of previous samples of this type – playing to the collector base, which seems a higher probability then something of this rarity just now coming out of the closest.
all imo. great piece either way, thanks for showing!!
Sellitstore, so what persuaded you to determine legitimacy?
First, a legitimate cash offer at substantially more than I paid from a knowledgable party. Second, the pronouncement of authenticity from the top expert in this field. Third, an offer to sell it at a major numismatic auction. Fourth, my own experience from working with treasure from the Atocha, Feversham, Central America and thousands of US gold coins while I was consultant to Christies Coin Dept., 1986-98. The color and patina of this bar are 100% right for .758 fine gold despite the terrible photos. It actually has a wonderfully attractive natural patina.
Are you referring to the "O" of "KOENIGSBERGER" as the third "O"? That was part of a gang punch with the name on it, not a free-standing letter punch. You can tell that it was a part of a gang punch by the way the letters get stronger or weaker as the surface of the bar rises and falls beneath it.
The relatively small "o" of "No." and "140" match. The large "O" of "Oz." matches the size/font of the large "N" of "No." I would say that the engraver/puncher was deliberately trying to use upper case/lower case typography, and that the use of two different "O" punches on that side make perfect sense.
TD
Having studied the "Franklin Hoard" material for decades, and working on a book about John J. Ford, Jr. which is due out later this year, I feel that I can offer a few insights for consideration.
First -S. Koenigsberger was an assayer for the Goldsmith Bros. in San Francisco, as can be found in the 1864 San Francisco directory. He was not making bars or ingots for his his own account at this point. Further research is needed to determine exactly when he left California.
Second - as mentioned, the circular OIR stamp seen on this bar was used from 1864 to 1868, when the law was rescinded. There is also a square version, as the law did not state anything definite on the design, just that it had to be on the bar.
This means the bar in question can only be from these years, IF, it is to be considered a genuine 19th century item.
Please note - The round Office of Interenal Revenue stamp has also been used on known fakes coming from the "Franklin Hoard", so the appearance on this bar does not confirm authenticity.
Third - All legitimate assayers stamped the fineness of the gold and silver on the bars and ingots. That was their job. They also figured the total value of each bar and stamped that information into the surface. This bar, stamped at $54.52 is suspect, since there is no silver fineness and value stamped on.
With gold at $20.67 for an ounce, and silver at $1.29 an ounce, the value amount can't be accurately determined just from the 758 fineness of gold.
There are numerous fakes that have been made in the past 60 years (many have been made by assayers I might add) that have proven to be modern fabrications (S.S. Brother Jonathan, Knight & Co, Thorne, Star Mining, C. Wiegand, Parsons & Co., etc) so caution is advised, especially when contemporary information about the item in question is completely lacking; but then again, we have a multitude of unconfirmed stories already.
As for Kleeberg's research, he couldn't even get the name of Gerow Paul Franklin correct.
sellitstore - Please name the "expert" that verbally authenticated this piece (#2 on your list) and please get that in writing if you are going to sell this at auction; otherwise, your promotion on the boards won't work. A cash offer for more than you paid is certainly not validation for genuineness!
Not that it means anything at all, but this comes from one who has more than 44 years experience in American numismatics.
No, I was not referring to the name and agree with you this was a single gang punch; I should have been more specific.
I do see your points, but disagree. Namely:
1. I do NOT believe the O from No and the 0 from 140 are the same. Look at the difference in thickness of the letters. Though, I certainly could be wrong here based on my viewing of a picture, they are pretty close.
2. My stronger point would be that the 0 from No and the 0 from Oz are clearly different.
As to your point that the engraver wanted upper and lowercase to match…fine.
But if he was so grammatically/numerically careful about using a different punch for lower/uppercase, why was the engraver then so sloppy by interchanging the zero from 140 as a letter in No? That logic is inconsistent.
One possibility that sprung to mind is that if a professional counterfeiter wanted the piece to look ‘oldtimey’ that would be one way to go about it (along with artificially aging the piece).
Though frankly, the concern over the punches is not near as large as other concerns mentioned.
Thanks for the reply.
(IMO solid metallurgy analysis would settle the question. Everything else is idle speculation one way or another, as fun as that might be).
Ciao
Are you saying that using the same punch to form both the lower case "O" of "No." and the "0" of "140" (my two punch theory) is a bad sign, or that NOT using the same punch to form both the lower case "O" of "No." and the "0" of "140" (your three punch theory) is a bad sign?
A microscopic examination of the floors of the valleys formed by the two smaller "O's" should establish whether or not the same punch was used to form them.
I certainly agree that matalurgical testing is in order. There should be tons of trace elements in the piece. If the piece is merely gold and copper, it is immediately condemned.
Of course, a clever counterfeiter would use natural, unrefined nuggets to make his casting from, so the presence of trace elements will prove nothing.
TD
Third - All legitimate assayers stamped the fineness of the gold and silver on the bars and ingots. That was their job.
This isn't true. How do you explain all those Central America bars with gold value only marked, like this one? And there are others. Nearly all of the ingots in the 2007 Ford sale that have both gold and silver value marked, are primarily silver ingots with a little gold. Silver ingots often have small percentages of gold that represent significant percentages of the bars value due to the higher price of gold. There are many gold ingots that contain small amounts of silver and other elements while only the gold value is shown. The silver value is not significant compared to the gold value in bars that are mostly gold. This particular Blake & Co ingot contains about 3/4 oz of something else (likely much of it silver) that is not reflected in the value shown on the bar. This was the norm for small gold ingots, according to Central America finds.
Please name the "expert" that verbally authenticated this piece (#2 on your list) and please get that in writing if you are going to sell this at auction; otherwise, your promotion on the boards won't work. A cash offer for more than you paid is certainly not validation for genuineness!
I have approached several major auctioneers, am still talking to some, and don't care to name the expert at this time or promote this item. That will and should be done by in due time by the auctioneer. I rightly expect to find more critics than customers here for this item and show it partly to draw criticism and scrutiny. I also am excited about it's discovery and want to share it with others who would appreciate it. This practice seems to be more prevalent on the CU currency board, where we often post images of items of Not For Sale just to share with fellow collectors.
A cash offer from a knowledgeable party indicates that another knowledgeable party believes strongly enough that this is real to offer a lot of money for it, nothing more, nothing less. I don't claim it's definitive proof of authenticity, just one of several indicators consistent with a "genuine" assessment of this ingot.
Not that it means anything at all, but this comes from one who has more than 44 years experience in American numismatics.
Experience doesn't mean anything? I couldn't disagree more. To me, experience is the most important factor in determining authenticity of an object. I learned to spot fake gold by looking at thousands of genuine coins. I learned to detect added mintmarks by looking at lots of genuine ones. I learned the difference between the luster and look of a sharply struck 1880s San Francisco mint dollar and a frosty, weakly struck New Orleans mint Morgan Dollar by looking at thousands of these. Experience means everything to me and I suspect that it does to you, too. Why would you start your post with "Having studied the "Franklin Hoard" material for decades, and working on a book about John J. Ford, Jr. which is due out later this year, I feel that I can offer a few insights for consideration."Yes, I agree, experience is important.
Thank you for the response. I was offerng some insights about what might be wrong with that particular bar; as that is what the thread was supposed to be about.
If you wish to sell it, that's fine. As it stands now, there are dozens, if not hundreds of bars and ingots with virtually nothing known to validate them. This would just be another; because in this case, you have offered absoluetely nothing in the way of solid verification for this bar. That is a problem in itself and fits in directly with the OP.
I know that this assayer was only in California for a few years before he went elsewhere (not Nevada as you claim). Perhaps, you should do some research about this assayer.
As I mentioned, please get the authenticity in writing before you sell...it will help to sell it and get you more in your pocket, which is what I presume you are trying to do here. I'm not authenticating or condemning this bar, only providing some insights for consideration by you and others.
Now...How about a thread titled, what's right about this bar?
Edited to add - IIRC, all of the S.S. Central America gold bars were only stamped with the fineness of the gold. This is because they were on their way to the New York Assay Office for further melting and refining. Therefore, my statement is quite true that the assayer's job was to determine the gold and silver fineness for each bar to determine a dollar amount, or else we would end up with nothing on the bars. Because they were made primarily for shipment back East, the SSCA gold bars were not the norm when compared to regular bars done by hundreds of other Western assayers (and yes, I already know there were exceptions).
TD
Criticism of this bar is indeed what I was looking for. However I don't see the name, IRS stamp or lack of silver value on the bar as out of the norm or the expected at all. That doesn't mean that the bar is good but I don't see anything wrong, let alone disqualifying, about any of these elements.
As I mentioned, please get the authenticity in writing before you sell...it will help to sell it and get you more in your pocket, which is what I presume you are trying to do here
That's actually what the auctioneer does. It's been my preferred method of selling since the 1980s. If they accept it and put their reputation behind it in selling it, that's good enough for me. We are talking about top tier numismatic auction houses that regularly sell these things, not auctioneers that don't specialize in numismatics. They have the experts and put the authenticity in writing, as you suggest, in the auction catalog as part of their services.
Interesting speculation on why the Central America bars weren't marked with a silver value, but without any evidence, I would expect that it's incorrect. I believe that the norm was not to mark silver content on bars that were primarily gold. Pretty much all of the dozens of bars with both metal values marked are silver with trace amounts of gold. Your theory doesn't address this point at all. Perhaps you should revise your theory.
He then went to Idaho City, Boise, Idaho Territory in 1867 and was there until he went to Helena Montana in 1871-1873. This comes from the Pacific Coast Directories.
These are the primary source documents in which any authenticator will check. Google isn't always accurate, but, you can believe what you want.
Yes, this doesn't match what he said, but the facts do remain in contemporary print, and not too surprisingly, people do lie.
Koenigsberger ended up going to South Dakota in 1885 and died there in July of 1923.
Auction companies can quaratee the authenticity of the items they sell, but that doesn't mean they always sell genuine items. I won't get into that discussion on a public forum.
Hope this helps.
City directories are available for free online and are wonderful research tools. The ANA has a comprehensive library and there are currently efforts led by Wendell Wolka (ANA Board of Governors) to start to make parts of the ANA library available online, and I recently posted on the PCGS Currency board strongly in favor of this. It would have a serious negative effect on sellers of numismatic literature but be of a far greater benefit to the collecting community. Did you read my comments and see my position and beliefs as a threat to your business?
Is this why this discussion has turned towards research methods and tools? If so, we can start another thread about that but let's try to keep comments confined to this bar in this thread.
Any further information or comments on this ingot? Contrary to firstmint's comment, I don't wish to promote it, but I do want to learn as much as possible about it.
It's actually the third 19th century gold/silver that I have owned. I sold a Virginia City, NV "For Ben" silver presentation ingot about 20 years ago, but have this one and another silver one. (See 2011 Esylum article)
esylum
--Severian the Lame
Could you post new photos, please? The old ones don't appear to be active.
Click on the E-Sylum link.
By the way, the E-Sylum is a great online publication. I strongly suggest that everybody subscribe to it.
TD
That does not show he was not here and there were plenty of assayers to go around so it's like looking for that needle you know where.
bob
I decided to not to sell for now as I really like these offbeat numismatic-related items as a collector. If the right opportunity came along, I'd consider parting with it, but for now I'm enjoying owning it.
Here's the requested update:
Have received three offers over the years for this item. Fred Holabird was the expert who authenticated and valued it shortly after it's discovery ten years ago. Don Kagin was interested, too. Fred's auction estimate was in the low five figure range (not enough for me) and I think that the item is really neat. I don't need the money and that's why I haven't sold it. Indeed, I have acquired another 19th century ingot, this one silver, from a tiny Canadian town near the Idaho border. It's the third that I've owned. I guess that I collect them now.
I understand the skepticism, and all I'll say is I'm an interested buyer. I consider myself expert enough to pay well for these, if I like 'em. I pay stupid money for obsolete bank note rags, too. Let this rube surprise you pleasantly with large cash offers for junk and fakes.
President Lincoln asked Congress to create a position called Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 1862 if this helps any
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
The IRS Treasury stamps on these, 1864-68, is an interesting aspect that deserves more research. I suspect that U.S. Gov't. archives would shed much more light on their usage. I also suspect that these smaller, early bars were used more as currency than previously known and newspaper accounts would be a good source for this research. By the 1870s and later we see many more of these bars with inscriptions, made for presentation purposes, at least that's what survives today.
I've lived a sheltered life
.
Missed this thread the 1st time around.
Interesting piece - here's a silver piece I own, Blake, from southern Idaho with a similar revenue stamp, if not identical.
Thanks for the post. Yes, this offers more evidence for the authenticity of this bar. I'm convinced it's good and would buy more bars like these, but none have been offered since my post four years ago. You would think that someone would see the opportunity to take advantage of me, but the bar is real and nobody here seems to have access to any other fakes or pictures of fakes that look anything like this.
@CaptHenway is the only person who commented previously who I see as still quite active today and I would be interested in hearing his comments and thoughts on the IRS stamp posted by @Lakesammman. Most of the other folks who previously condemned this bar seem to have moved on to greener pastures.
Have to go get the wife's car fixed. WIll comment later.
Years ago a prominent board member phoned me regarding this bar. He wanted to know if I knew who owned it. I told him how to contact you. He was interested in purchasing it. So he must have thought it was a legitimate piece of history.
After reviewing the thread and the pictures I am afraid that I am in no better position than my original comments, that I see nothing to make me doubt it BUT I am not an authority on these bars and an opinion should be sought from the authorities in the field, Kagins.
TD
Thanks, @CaptHenway for the update.
I did run this by Fred Holabird when I acquired it around 2011 and am pretty sure that he ran it by Don Kagin at that time, too. They wanted to buy it or put it in one of their sales but the estimates that they were suggesting was not a price at which I wanted to sell the item. I'm pretty much 100% sure that it's good at this point.
That National Life of VT satchel is really cool as well - I bet the company would like it back for their archives 😁