When a mint error is first discovered, a predictably lengthy process is begun involving multiple recognized experts in the field to examine and scrutinize the coin’s authenticity under high magnification to separate a bona fide error from a manufactured counterfeit.

Ideally, after sufficient time and examinations have been made, the coin is either accepted or rejected by the numismatic community. But, in reality, there is a third possibility – unending disagreement among the experts. This outcome, of course, leaves many of us who are looking for definitive answers in relative limbo.

If decades go by and recognized, numismatic authorities still are conflicted as to the authenticity of the coin, what then? If, for instance, someone tried to buy or sell a specimen with this error to a dealer, another collector or at auction, how could they vouch for the legitimacy of the error and, in turn, ask a realistic price? This article is devoted to one such enigma that the author discovered by accident.

In a relatively recent attempt to determine if the Smithsonian Institute’s buffalo nickel collection was missing any specimens after all these years, an email inquiry was sent in early January to Mr. Richard Doty, the senior curator of numismatics for the Behring Center.

Sent from the American Museum of Natural History Behring Center where the coins are stored, Mr. Doty’s e-mail responded, “Your inquiry was passed to me. We do have a set of buffalo nickels, only lacking the 1934 two-legged and 1916 doubled die and 1918/7 varieties.”

Nineteen thirty-four, two-legged? When anyone specializes in one coin and finds (after decades devoted to researching that coin) that a variety exists unknown to that collector, it’s a very humbling experience.

A search of the Red Book, several Internet population reports, and reference books containing buffalo mint errors revealed many mint errors were listed but no mention of any two-legged varieties.

Determined to find one or more sources that mentioned the authenticity of the variety’s existence or debunked its legitimacy, a search was begun with e-mails and references in local libraries to provide sufficient data to pose this “discrepancy” to you readers for your evaluation.

Agreeing with the researched sources, Walter Breen discredits these varieties by acknowledging the 1937- D, three-legged variety but warning, “On the other hand, the 1935 and 1936 two-legs coins have lately been proved counterfeit, the 1936 unmintmarked and ‘S’ coins having the same obverse die. All are overweight despite apparent extreme wear, the blebs (or raised lumps) on surfaces of both dates, and the distortions of lettering, are inconsistent with mint technology of the period.”

The next obvious inquiry was to try to determine what sources Mr. Doty used from which he determined the Smithsonian’s collection was missing one or more, two-legged buffaloes. His prompt and helpful reply stated, “I found the coins mentioned in Bill Fivas and J.T. Stanton’s ‘Cherrypickers Guide” and Frank G. Spadone’s ‘Major Variety-Oddity Guide of United States Coins.”

Weeks later the second book mentioned (Spadone’s) arrived in the mail, ordered from Amazon.com, and sure enough, an alarming picture of a two-legged variety appears with both the right foreleg and right hind-leg missing. The quality of the photograph, unfortunately, wasn’t outstanding, but the “blank” area where the right hindleg should be is unmistakable.

The final piece to the puzzle, the Fivas/Stanton book, arrived later and “supported” the non-existence of the variety by its absence.

I wonder if they make prosthetic legs for Buffaloes?

I purchased an 1849 quarter in November of 2006 that I was, at the time, unable to attribute using Briggs’ “Comprehensive Encyclopedia of United States Seated Quarters” (Lima, OH 1991 ISBN 1-880731-05-3). A short article by John McCloskey in The Gobrecht Journal (Issue 98, pages 35-36) published the following March described in detail a coin from the same die pairing as the coin in my possession.

During the past two plus years I have examined every 1849 quarter that I could find, whether in auctions, at bourse tables, or on eBay (when photo quality permitted) in an effort to complete the puzzle. I now own four distinct business strike die marriages of the 1849 quarter and though there is not yet a definitive conclusion, I do have what I call a working hypothesis.

I believe that the “unknown” obverse is actually obverse 3 in the Briggs Encyclopedia and that there are a couple of typos in the description that have caused some confusion.

First, the date location of “just right of 5″ is in error and should read “6/7″. Note that date position is determined based on an imaginary line drawn along the right side of the upright portion of the “1″ in the date. The date position number then references where this line intersects the shield above with respect to the shield lines numbered from left to right.

Second, instead of “slopes up left to right” it should read “slopes down left to right.” I’ve noted that the distance measurements from digit to rock provided in the book read 0.5 – 0.5 – 0.5 – 0.6 indicating a downward slope from left to right, though the text says “up”. Figure 1 shows three dates of 1849 seated quarters, the top is obverse 2, the middle is obverse 3 (or the unlisted obverse if the hypothesis is proven wrong), and the bottom is the proof obverse (obverse 4, from the Heritage online archive, Lot 2390, Auction 1104, April 16, 2008).

It should be mentioned here for completeness that obverse 1 has a date that is much further to the left than any of those shown.

So the question remains, “Is the middle date pictured here Briggs’ obverse 3, or a new unlisted obverse (which incidentally is the obverse die of Briggs’ plate coin even though it does not appear to correspond to any of the four obverse dies described in the text)?”

Based on two years of not finding any obverse dies other than the three pictured (and obverse 1) I suspect that the date pictured in the middle is, in fact, obverse 3. However, the fact that I haven’t found another obverse die does not prove that another obverse does not exist. Can anyone produce an 1849 quarter with a date that slopes up left to right? Or that has a date position that is “just right of 5?” You can contact me at greg.johnson56@verizon.net.

We’ve entered the last year of the popular modern commemorative quarter program. For better or worse, all fifty states have created designs and the final mintages will hit the nation’s cash registers during the remainder of the year. While I find these final five designs attractive, they (like their modern predecessors) lack the historical depth and symbolisms many of their classic commemorative cousins encompassed. And, as I look over the 2008 proof set that just crossed my desk, my mind goes back to the original commemorative quarter.

The 1893 Isabella Quarter, was created for the Columbian Exposition. $10,000 of the funds intended for the Board of Lady Mangers at the Expo was delivered in the form of forty thousand of these commemorative quarters. The board had been formed at the urging of woman’s rights activist Susan B. Anthony, who felt both genders should be represented in the managerial makeup of this great national project the expo had become. The inclusion of a coin to commemorate female contributions to industry seems almost trifling by today’s standards. But the Woman’s Suffrage movement was full steam ahead at the time. In fact, women didn’t legally win the right to vote until Colorado adapted an amendment to allow them to do so, during this year, 1893. A cause Anthony had championed over the previous two and a half decades. What seems like just a novel idea now, was a veritable coup at the time. The quarter served not only to raise money for the cause, but as a sort of name recognition ad for the woman’s rights movement. And it fueled the growing fires of suffrage. The coins were to be sold at the fair for $1 each. A premium over face that was obscene to some. For this and a variety of other reasons, thousands went unsold during the fair. The balance was slowly sold off to dealers during the coming decade.

The dies were prepared by Charles Barber, presumably from sketches done by Kenyon Cox. Later research has brought this into question. But regardless of where the original ideas came from, the coin is wrought with symbolism – especially the reverse. The use of a monarch on the obverse is somewhat controversial, but considering what event the coin was supposed to commemorate, it was a natural choice. Queen Isabella was the backing Christopher Columbus needed to fund his adventure. The reverse is simply described in most numismatic literature as a kneeling woman holding a distaff, the spool used to hold unspun cotton. This image is now reported to represent “woman in industry.” This may be the case but, Barber’s image would have meant a lot more to the people in his time.

First, the word distaff carried a more pertinent meaning in 1893. We understand it to be the spools used as part of the process in making wool and cotton thread. We therefore attribute its inclusion here to emphasize women’s part in industry or more specifically the textile industry. However, in 1893 the word distaff was used to describe a woman, a woman’s work or women collectively. This definition is lost to modern collectors.

During the turn of the last century, this synonym for woman in the workplace was a powerful image. But there’s more! Her body’s position on the reverse is an obvious play on an early hard times token promoting woman’s suffrage. That alone is interesting, but this particular kneeling woman was used for its visual likeness to a similar anti-slavery movement image. The Isabella Quarter’s image wasn’t well received and surely the connection with slavery (only a few decades from the Civil War) met with mixed emotions. Again, the slavery connection is lost to all but the best read modern collector.

In 1893, The American Journal of Numismatics unfavorably reviewed the design of this and the Columbian half dollar stating, “If these two coins really represent the highest achievements of our medalists and our mints, under the inspiration of an opportunity without restrictions, the like of which has never been presented hitherto in history of our national coinage, we might as well despair of its future.” What would this reviewer say about the modern Wyoming state quarter?

Many Isabella quarters went unsold during the fair, a fact that must be attributed to the poor reception and the lack of commitment by fair goers to the woman’s liberation movement. Other factors contributed, but coin sales were initially unfavorable. These early commemorative coins have now become collector favorites. And, as I look over the 50 State quarters complete collection, no design carries the weight that this the original commemorative quarter held. In today’s world of political correctness, our over zealous Mint will likely never produce the meaningful designs that this and many of the classic counterparts cleared the way for.

© Copyright 2008, Pinnacle Rarities, Inc. All rights reserved.
(800) 724-7642 | (360) 786-5721 | Fax: (360) 786-6045 | Email: expectmore@pinnacle-rarities.com

The most gifted designer in the history of U.S. coinage never lived to see his magnificent $20 gold coins enter circulation. Augustus Saint-Gaudens died on August 3rd, 1907, three months before his first pieces were struck.

Saint-Gaudens’ pupil Henry Hering and President Theodore Roosevelt were the two people most directly responsible for the completion of Saint- Gaudens work. Roosevelt himself chose the standing liberty obverse and flying eagle reverse for the new $20 gold piece from a group of designs submitted by Saint- Gaudens.

Roosevelt also (amid extreme controversy over whether or not the motto “In God We Trust” should be included) ordered Mint Engraver Charles E. Barber to begin producing them.

The high relief Saint is considered the most beautiful of all U.S. coins. There are two varieties – the flat rim and knife rim, with the flat rim being rarer. Both have the Roman numerals MCMVII in place of an Arabic numerical date (1907) and both have concave surfaces. Although surviving populations are high, only 11,250 high reliefs were minted. It is the only Saint actually designed by Saint- Gaudens – all others were designed and engraved by Barber based on his interpretation of Saint-Gaudens original high relief.

Since PCGS and NGC started certifying them in 1986 and recording populations, there have been two revelations about the St. Gaudens double eagle series from a market standpoint. First, how common the common dates are. No one guessed that there were more than 200,000 Saints floating around in MS65 or higher condition. Or 350,000 MS64′s. Or 425,000 MS63′s. Market prices for common date Saints have adjusted accordingly over the past 20 years.

But the better dates are much scarcer than realized.

There are 52 dates in the series. 93% of the coins certified are one of 11 common dates, leaving only 7% of the coins to make up the other 41 dates. 80% of the dates are rare, yet because Saints are big, beautiful gold coins, many buyers overlook the numismatic potential inherent in better date Saints.

What follows is a breakdown of the St. Gaudens series into six categories of rarity, with recommendations. Prices listed are approximations of actual acquisition cost. Populations are combined PCGS and NGC figures from the October 2007 census reports.

Common dates

1908 no motto, 1923-D, 1924-P, 1925-P, 1926-P, 1927-P, 1928-P.

All are recommended only in grades MS66 or higher. The 1908-P, 1924-P, and 1927-P each has a current PCGS and NGC population of over 25,000 pieces in MS65 (54,569 for the 1924- P) and over 50,000 in MS64 – too many for them to be rare enough to sustain their own demand except as Type coins. MS66 samples of any of the above dates cost $3,000 to $3,300

Slightly Better Dates

1911-D, 1914-D, 1914-S, 1915-S, 1916-S. These dates are recommended in grades MS65 or higher. The 1911-D, 1914-S and 1915- S are about ten times rarer than dates in the preceding group. Each of these dates have PCGS and NGC combined populations in the 3,000 area and are all available for about $2,000 in MS65 condition.
The 1914-D and 1916-S are a bit tougher with a total PCGS and NGC population of 1,834 and 1,246 respectively. Either date runs $2,600 or so in MS65 and is twenty-five times rarer than a 1924-P or 1927-P. Four of theses dates I especially like in MS66. The 1914-D, 1914-S, 1915-S and 1916-S. All have PCGS and NGC combined populations of under 300 and the 1914-D is the toughest with just 73 coins graded MS66. It runs about $7,250 and the other three are running between $5,900 and $6,500 each.

On average these four dates are thirty-four times rarer than the three most common dates St. Gaudens yet are available for just over two times the price of a common date MS66. Better dates. 1907-P High Relief, 1907-P Arabic Numerals, 1908- D no motto, 1908-D with motto, 1909-S, 1910-P, 1910-D, 1910-S, 1911- S, 1912-P, 1913-D, 1914-P, 1920-P, 1922-P, 1923-P.

The three least expensive are the 1907-P Arabic, 1910-D and the 1922-P. 1907-P is not a low-pop. date but is a very popular first year of issue. It runs just under $2,000 in MS64 and $3,400 in MS65. 1910-D and 1922-P are around common date price in MS64 – about 1,350, but they are tougher in MS65 bringing about double common date MS65 prices.

The 1908-D with motto, 1909-S, 1911-S, 1913-D, and 1923-P, are relatively inexpensive in MS64 but jump considerably in MS65. The combined PCGS and NGC MS65 populations run 400 to 600 pieces on each of these dates except for the 1908-D which is 315. In MS64 condition, most are available in the $1,400 to $2,000 area. In MS65 the 1909-S and 1913-D run about $5,000 to $5,250, the 1908-D, 1911-S and 1923-P cost between $4,400 and $4,900.

The toughest of this better date group are the 1908- D no motto, 1910-P, 1910-S, and 1920-P. These four dates have MS64 populations between 800 and 1700. They run $1,500 to $2,200 in MS64, except for the 1920-P which goes for about $3,400. In MS65 they are hard to find especially the 1920-P with a PCGS and NGC MS65 population of just 8 coins. It would cost between $70,000 and $100,000 if you can find one. The other three – 1908-D no motto, 1910-P and 1910-S have MS65 populations between 200 and 225 and cost about $8,900, $7,300 and $7,500 respectively.

The most expensive of the group in all grades is the 1907-P HR. Even with a MS63 population of 1,654 coins it cost $23,500. MS64′s and MS65′s run about $31,000 and $50,000 respectively. It’s a very popular date because of its beauty, low mintage, high relief striking and first year issuance. A perpetual demand accounts for its higher price to population ratio.

Rare Dates

1908-P with motto, 1911-P, 1912-P, 1913-P, 1914-P, 1915-P, 1922-S, 1926-S. Not one of these dates has a PCGS and NGC combined MS65 population of more than 100. MS64 populations run just 475 to 550 pieces except for the 1911-P and 1912-P which are 630 and 703. And it’s not just the populations that are low. Three quarters of these dates have mintages of less than 200,000. For reference, note that the 1916-D mercury dime, produced at the same time as these issues, has a mintage of 264,000.
Coins in this group are scarce enough to be desirable in any grade MS64 or higher. The 1911-P is the least expensive of the bunch, costing only about $3,450 in MS64 and $16,000 in MS65. If you don’t think MS64 rare date Saints are underrated, consider that the 1911-P is more than 220 times as rare as the most common date – 1924-P – and at $3,450 costs less than three times the price.

The 1908-P with motto and 1912-P are similar in price, mintage and population. They run about $4,300 each in MS64 and $20,000 to $21,500 in MS65. Also similar are the 1914-P and 1915-P. They run $5,900 and $5,100 respectively in MS64 and about $23,500 in MS65. The 1913-P is a tough coin with just 25 coin graded MS65 by PCGS and NGC. It runs $6,600 in MS64 and $40,000 to $50,000 or more in MS65.

A 1922-S goes for about $7,000, and $40,000 in MS64 and MS65. With only 10 PCGS and 11 NGC MS65’s it might trade for even more. 1926-S is nearly as tough as the 1922-S. It’s rarer in all BU grades than the 1922-S but the services graded more 1926-S in MS64 and higher. It goes for nearly $8,500 in MS64 and about $31,500 in gem.

Very Rare Dates

1908-S, 1909-P, 1909/8-P, 1909-D, 1913-S, 1924- D, 1924-S, 1925-D, 1929-P. These Saints are rare enough so that MS63 samples are well sought after coins and the 1908-S, 1925-D and 1929-P are even sought after in MS60 and higher grades.

Yes, MS60. Don’t think that a coin has to be some arbitrary minimum grade to be a good piece. If it’s rare enough, it can be great buy in Good/VG. During the Eighties and early Nineties, dealers promoted the notion that a coin could not make a good investment if graded anything less than MS65. This notion isn’t as prevalent today and rightly so. It’s nonsense. Just as a very common coin can be a bad buy even graded MS67, a very rare issue can offer great potential graded MS62, MS61, or even circulated. A coin has appreciation potential if it is truly rare and in demand, regardless of grade.

Brilliant uncirculated MS60 to MS62 Saints are usually attractive coins and the 29-P is a good buy in any uncirculated grade as is the 1925-D in MS62 or higher condition because they’re that rare. The 1908-S is the next lowest mintage date after the 1907-P High Relief, just 22,000 made. With only 254 coins graded in all uncirculated grades it’s desirable in any grade MS60 and higher. It runs about $10,000 in MS60 and $23,000 in MS63.

The other six dates should be held in grades of MS63 or higher except for the 1913-S which I like in MS64 and higher grades. A far as price goes on this group they all cost over $30,000 in MS65 grades and the dates from the 1920′s will run closer to $100,000 or more. Yet in MS63 with the exception of the 1908-S, 1925-D and 1929-P they are all available for $9,000 or less. In MS64 the 1909-P, 1909-D, 1909/8 1924-D and 1924-S will cost between $8,200 and $15,500. The 1913-S with a mintage of just 34,000 coins, the third lowest mintage date in the series, is just $6,000 in MS64. The 1925-D in MS62 is about a $6,500 coin and in MS63 $12,000. The 1929-P in MS60 to MS61 will run $16,000 to $20,000 and about $27,000 to $30,000 in MS62. The 1925-D is around $22,000 and the 1929-P is about $51,000 in MS64.

Series Key Dates

1920-S, 1921-P, 1925-S, 1926-D, 1927-D, 1927-S, 1930-S, 1931-P, 1931-D, 1932-P. The monster dates. Take these in any grade you can get them. They trade too infrequently for you to be choosy. I can’t supply accurate prices, because they trade so rarely, but here is some PCGS and NGC population data and current Graysheet MS60, MS63, and MS65 bids, for reference only.

1920-S. 558,000 minted, but only 105 graded in all uncirculated grades combined. Four graded in MS65 and two MS66. Bid: MS60 $38,000; MS63 $58,000; MS65 $185,000.

1921-P. Only 88 certified in all uncirculated grades combined and only five in MS64 and three MS65′s. Bid: MS60 $85,000; MS63 $225,000; MS65 $800,000.

1925-S. Easy coin. PCGS and NGC population is 104 in MS63, 33 in MS64, and 3 in MS65, 2 in MS66 and yikes! 1 in MS68. Bid: MS60 $7,750; MS63 $17,750; MS65 $95,000.

1926-D. 61 MS63’s, 23 MS64’s, and 5 MS65’s and 2 MS66′s. Bid: MS60 $23,000; MS63 $37,500; MS65 $100,000. (MS65 bid went up 70% over the past 8 years.)

1927-D. The king of the series, toughest of them all and the real stopper to the complete date set. PCGS has certified only 7 uncirculated pieces and NGC population is just 5 coins 1 circulated and 4 uncs. Bid: MS60 $250,000; MS63 $1,100,000; MS65 $1,500,000. Up $800,000 in MS63 and nearly $1,000,000 in MS65 since 2000.

1927-S. 155 uncirculated pieces have been certified by PCGS and NGC. Just 22 in MS64 and 10 in MS65. Bid: MS60 $21,000; MS63 $46,000; MS65 $100,000.

1930-S. Makes the 27-S look easy. Just 56 uncirculated coins graded – most in MS63 to MS65 grades. There are 9 in MS63, 23 MS64’s and 13 MS65’s. Seems like quite a few, until you note that the total PCGS and NGC population from Good thru MS63 is just 15. Bid: MS60 $30,000; MS63 $94,500; MS65 $185,000.

1931-P. 113 certified in all uncirculated grades with just 2 in circulated grades. Not many, considering the 2.9 million mintage. Bid: MS60 $25,000; MS63 $56,000; MS65 $85,000.

1931-D. 134 in all uncirculated grades, with 34 in MS65. Actually possible to acquire one of these. Bid: MS60 $25,000; MS63 $75,000; MS65 $103,000.

1932-P. 133 in all uncirculated grades. Only 18 MS63’s and 36 MS65’s. No circulated pieces known. Bid: MS60 $21,000; MS63 $60,000; MS65 $89,000.

I did not include the 1933-P as part of the series because they are still illegal to own. Neither PCGS nor NGC consider it as part of the Saint- Gaudens set.

Of the 13 pieces known to exist one was allowed to trade in a public auction in 2002 and it brought $7,600,000. The NGC population report shows 12 graded in MS62 and the PCGS population is zero. Teddy Roosevelt authorized the series in 1907, and Franklin Roosevelt abolished it in 1933, when it became illegal to own gold in the U.S. The Great Recall and massive meltings caused the rarity of the dates 1927-1933

Most of the coins and pieces of paper money which will find their way under the Christmas tree or next to the Hanukkah menorah will not be the break-the-bank variety. Yet, some fortunate numismatists, perhaps in the Bill Gates or the Oprah Winfrey families, just might be surprised by an extremely valuable coin or two presented to them by a generous relative.

In the case of the less expensive category of numismatic fare, the concern over price versus value is not a major concern. This is not to say that purchasers of low-priced hobby items in the under–$100 range, for instance, welcome getting ripped off. After all, it’s only human nature to desire good deals during shopping experiences. No one would argue this point. But it understandably requires significantly more contemplation to decide if a coin priced at say, $50,000, offers good value, than it does to decide if a $50 coin is worth the money. Either way, the purchaser doesn’t want to overpay. But, the risk of this occurring obviously increases as costs rise.

Yet, before we even reach the point of decision when purchasing collectibles such as coins, we might ask how the values are determined in the first place. How are prices established and who is involved in this process? First, it must be pointed out that the dynamics involved are complicated and cannot be capsulized or put into a nutshell. As tangible as these collectible assets might appear, evaluating them requires many intangible considerations. Coins and other collectibles are not, for instance, similar to staples of life such as food and clothing. College marketing students, for example, quickly learn the fundamentals involved in producing, pricing, and promoting consumer goods. Established guidelines used to bring products to market are universally employed by businesses around the globe. It is a relatively simple task to calculate the costs of raw materials, manufacturing, and marketing, and add on a standard mark-up to determine the retail price of most consumer goods. But with coins, it’s not so straightforward.

In the first place, with the exception of modern gold, silver, and platinum issues tied to the spot price of precious metals, the cost of raw materials isn’t factored into the price of most coins. And obviously, there are no manufacturing costs involved, since the coins are already in existence. There are, however, marketing costs factored into the prices of rare coins, which can fluctuate from one seller to another. And, of course, acquisition costs are part of the equation, unless the seller received his coin or coins as a gift, that is. Yet, long before sellers determine what a fair rate of return would be for their holdings, price histories of their particular coins are usually reviewed. But what do these price histories reveal?

Well, in simplest terms, price histories are just what the term implies: a compilation of prices which collectors have paid in the past for the coins in question. Extending as far back in time as existing pricing data allows, we can trace the earliest prices paid for these coins. At one point in history even the rarest coins traded for prices very close to their face values. As unfathomable as this might seem to collectors in the early years of the twenty-first century, who have observed coins selling for hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, these mega-rarities once traded for fractions of the prices they sell for today.

Yet, regardless of whether a rare coin once sold for a mere double or triple its face value, or if it brings $1 million in 2007, someone, somewhere, had to set the price, and someone else?the buyer?had to agree with that price. But what criteria does the one who sets the price use in his evaluation of a coin? If we could crack this code we could perhaps remove much of the mystery surrounding the prices of rare coins.

Unfortunately, there are no set rules governing the dynamics of coin pricing. If there were, then buyers and sellers might possibly always agree, and price resistance would vanish.

Let’s examine the price history of one of the classic rarities in U.S. numismatics, the 1913 V nickel, to illustrate several ambiguities inherent in evaluating rare coins.

We are told that at least one employee at the Philadelphia Mint in late 1912 or early 1913 (perhaps Storekeeper-Clerk Samuel W. Brown or Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber, or both), arranged to have five 1913 V nickels struck, even though 1912 was the last year of issue for this design. Subsequently, in December of 1919, Samuel W. Brown, who had retired from the mint six years earlier, placed a series of ads offering to pay $500 for a 1913 V nickel. Of course, at that time he alone (perhaps there were co-conspirators) knew of the existence of these coins. To the rest of the collecting community the only nickels dated 1913 displayed the Indian and the bison. A few months later, Brown upped his offer to $600 per piece, and later that same year (1920) he exhibited one of his 1913 V nickels at a national coin convention.

Though not a single example of these mysterious coins had ever traded hands (at least to anyone’s knowledge), Brown had elevated their value from five cents to six hundred dollars?Their perceived value anyway. Yet even this value was not etched in stone. For in 1923 and 1924, a Philadelphia coin dealer named Augustus Wagner advertised the five nickels for sale, but apparently did not sell them for his reported asking price of between $400 and $500 apiece. At this time, another coin dealer, named Stephen K. Nagy, reported to have been involved with the nickels from the beginning, sold all five of them to Edward H. R. Green, the boorish, freewheeling son of the “Witch of Wall Street,” Hetty Green. Mr. Green (or Col. Green to some people) died in 1936 and noted collector Eric P. Newman subsequently purchased his five celebrated nickels in 1941 for an approximate average price of $400 apiece.

Did Mr. Newman pay a fair price for the nickels? No one could have known for sure since the coins had not exchanged hands often enough to gauge their market value. During the next few years Newman’s purchase prices for the nickels proved to be bargains, as one of the highest quality specimens traded for $900 in 1942, escalating to $3,750 in 1947. Another piece, considered to be inferior in quality compared to the finest specimens, sold for $1,000 (or $2,450 depending on the source) less than a year after Newman purchased it, and then for $3,750 around 1945.

These early transactions paled in stature compared with sales yet to transpire over the next six decades. After a rather lackluster period from 1945 through the mid 1950s, in which the price level for 1913 nickels struggled to break the $4,000 barrier, market exuberance catapulted the value first to $25,000, and then to the $40,000 to $50,000 mark by 1961.

Collectors apparently had difficulty in assimilating this sudden surge in value, however, as one of the more publicized examples failed to meet the consignor’s reserve price of $50,000 at an auction held in Los Angeles in March 1961. But, who really knew if this reserve price was too steep? It’s not as if someone could have looked up the price of 1913 V nickels in a coin values guide similar perhaps to the Kelly Blue Book for automobiles. Oh, there were price guides for coins to be sure; but none of them in 1961 ventured so much as an estimate as to how much a 1913 V nickel was worth. The only citations found in either of the two most popular price guides of that era informed readers that only five 1913 V nickels existed. So it was left up to numismatic experts and advanced collectors to determine the values of recognized rarities such as 1913 V nickels.

Six years after the unsuccessful auction attempt to sell one of the higher condition-rated 1913 V nickels, Nebraska coin dealer Aubrey Bebee chunked down $46,000 to purchase the poorest quality specimen. Two years later, in 1969, Bebee rejected an offer of $75,000 for his nickel. Three years after that, in 1972, the specimen which had failed to bring $50,000 in the 1961 auction, gained notoriety for being the first coin to ever sell for $100,000. Five years later, in 1977, this same piece sold for $200,000 and subsequently fetched $350,000 in 1985, $962,500 in 1993, $1.84 million in 2002, and a staggering $3 million in 2004.

Considering that ninety-one years earlier, the aggregate value of all 1913 V nickels in existence was twenty-five cents, the prices paid by collectors to own just one example over the past nine decades are incomprehensible, to say the least. I think it’s fair to say that no one, at any point along the way, could have predicted what these coins would eventually sell for. Although, credit must be given to World-Wide Coin Investments, Ltd., of Atlanta Georgia, the company that purchased the $100,000–specimen in 1972, for having prophesied way back then that 1913 V nickels would eventually bring $1 million. World-Wide Coin was just a little off in its projection of when this would occur, however, as it suggested that the million-dollar mark would be reached by 1980, when in fact, this did not happen until 1996 (It came close in 1993 with the $962,500 price realized).

Along the way, two 1913 V nickels were forever removed from the market; when the Norweb family donated their prized specimen to the Smithsonian Institution in 1978, and Aubrey and Adeline Bebee presented their piece, purchased for $46,000 in 1967, to the American Numismatic Association in 1989. The whereabouts of a third example, known as the Walton specimen, remained unknown for decades. And then, in 2003, in response to a massive media blitz focused on 1913 V nickels, the heirs brought this specimen out of hiding, triggering a fireworks explosion of publicity when it was displayed with the other four specimens at an ANA convention in Baltimore. As far as anyone knew, this was the first time the five nickels had been together in one place since 1942. Although hounded by auction companies, the heirs of this heretofore-missing specimen announced that it was not for sale. Even if it was, who could tell the heirs unequivocally what their coin was worth?

Throughout the long history of evaluating rare coins this has always been a challenge (Please keep in mind that we are talking here about truly rare coins, not those common issues passed off as rarities by home shopping networks, and by deceitful telemarketers). An incisive case in point can be illustrated by continuing the saga of 1913 V nickels.

During the latter half of 2006, the collector community buzzed with eager anticipation over the announcement that the finest known example of a 1913 V nickel would appear in an auction in early January 2007. This piece, reverently referred to for decades as the Eliasberg specimen, held the distinction of being the first coin to ever sell for $1 million, when an auction buyer paid $1.485 million for it in 1996. Within seven years it traded hands a couple times, more than doubling its value from 1996. Then, in 2005, it set yet another price record when Washington-state businessman Bruce Morelan acquired it for $4.15 million. After a year of ownership, Morelan felt it was time to pass it on to the next collector (He had previously owned the specimen which had failed to meet the consigner’s reserve of $50,000 in 1961. Morelan paid $1.84 in 2002 for that one.)

The question was, what kind of reserve would Morelan place on his prestigious consignment? Of foremost consideration was the $4.15 million investment he had in the coin. Knowing that by the time he received payment from the auction company he would have owned the nickel for one and a half years, he needed to calculate the time value of his money. At a simple six percent rate of interest over a period of eighteen months, $4.15 million would earn approximately $375,000, which would bring the break-even total to $4.525 million. Then, of course, Mr. Morelan expected to earn a profit above that amount, and in the rapidly evolving bull market in rare coins, this seemed like a no-brainer. A reserve price of $5 million was set, and no doubt the auction company (Stack’s) afforded Morelan other special-client comps for the privilege of handling such an illustrious coin.

No doubt, Morelan and Stack’s had their sights set on a much higher price realized anyway. The five-million-dollar reserve would serve only as a catalyst for loftier bids to transpire. It was not as if there were no precedents for numismatic items exceeding the $5-million barrier. After all, a 1933 $20 gold piece had sold for $7.59 million in 2002 and there were rumblings that certain coins could possibly bring $10 million to $15 million if offered on the market.

In some ways, the pre-sale hype focused on Mr. Morelan’s nickel, was reminiscent of the auctioneer’s publicity campaign for the 1913 V nickel that did not meet the consignor’s $50,000 reserve back in 1961. In that sale, the cataloguer declared that from all inclinations, the nickel would in all probability exceed the $50,000 mark. But, as you are now aware, the coin was not destined to break that barrier at that time.

With cameras rolling and news reporters standing by, Morelan’s nickel hit the auction block. Euphoria suddenly dissipated into disenchantment as the auctioneer closed the bidding, with not one person willing to raise his paddle for the $5 million reserve price (the total price would have actually been $5.75 million after the auction company’s 15 % commission was factored in). Once again, the coin market, as represented this time by auction participants, did not agree on the price asked for an unquestionable rarity. Would someone have paid $4.5 million (plus the buyer’s fee) for the nickel? Probably. How about $4.75 million? Maybe. But why not $5 million? Who knows? Who in that crowd of numismatic experts attending this auction could have emphatically declared that Morelan’s 1913 V nickel was not worth $5 million, or $5.75 million, or even $6 million?

These same questions are applicable for any rare coins, not just those of the million-dollar variety. Time after time, collectors have rejected a rare coin based on price resistance, only to regret their decisions later on when the coin is no longer available, or when the coin’s price rises high above the original asking price. This is not meant to imply that collectors should remove all restraints when faced with purchasing decisions. The 1913 V nickel offered at auction in 1961, for example, might not have been worth $100,000 at the time, but certainly $50,000 or even $60,000 seems reasonable, especially for well-heeled collectors who might have been interested. Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight when evaluating coin prices from the past which often makes us seem like experts, at least in our own minds.

Yet, regardless of what we might learn from evaluating price histories, there is one essential lesson that can be taught from reviewing collector experiences from the past. Ownership is key. In other words, those collectors that owned the choice rarities that we all drool over today, are the ones that reaped the dual rewards of pride of ownership and profiting from their passion. But ownership often requires stepping out and paying in excess of what everyone else is willing to pay. To reiterate, this only applies to the rarest, most desirable coins, the coins that are only offered infrequently, the ones that every collector would love to own. You need to make sure that you know which coins this refers to before you follow this advice.

Noted collectors from the past knew what these coins were and only the most resolute ones acquired them. Still, even the most successful numismatists have experienced lock-lobe at times, refusing to pay another dollar for a rarity which they so desperately desired. In the event that this happens and the collector gets a second chance, usually the mistake is not repeated, and he gladly pays whatever the cost.

The truth is, no one really knows what a truly rare coin is worth. You can speculate, you can perform mathematical analysis, you can compare price histories, you can consult an expert, and you can refer to price guides. Yet, regardless of which method you employ, in the end you will never get a clearer answer to the question regarding the value of a rare coin than this: A rare coin is worth whatever price a seller and a buyer agree on. What might seem like exorbitant prices today might cause collectors ten years from now to turn green with envy.

In light of all the choices from every category of collectibles which are available to hobbyists, few seem to offer more value than rare coins and paper money. Stamps, art, old comic books, old movie posters, old LPs, old dolls, old baseball cards, Old West memorabilia, old bottles, old firearms, and old casino chips all attract serious enthusiasts. Yet none of these fields appear to have the following that rare coins do. This trend seems destined to continue for as long as people have a passion to collect things and have money to purchase them.

This is one of the primary reasons why press releases about the sales of expensive coins will always find sufficient space in headlines, both in print and online, and will always receive adequate coverage on TV news broadcasts. Bruce Morelan is no stranger to such publicity. Witness for example the sensational coverage of his firm’s (Legend Numismatics) recent brokering of a $30,000,000 rare coin deal.

And, whatever became of his 1913 V nickel which failed to meet his reserve price in the January 2007 auction? Apparently, a Southern California collector, who may or may not have participated in the bidding, could not get the coin out of his mind and wound up paying $5 million for it three months after the auction in a private sale. So Morelan managed to sell the second 1913 V nickel pedigreed to him, recover the interest on his investment capital, and still earn a tidy little short-term profit. Curious observers will be eagerly waiting to see if he might buy one of his 1913 V nickels back in the future. And, the new owner of the rarest nickel in the world will be waiting to see if perhaps the next stop for the coin might be at the $10-million level.

Meanwhile, all of us bystanders will be trying to figure out what this coin is really worth. But will anyone other than its owner ever know its true value?

Author of this article: Rusty Goe
For more information about the rare coin market please contact Southgate Coins in Reno, Nevada, at (775) 322-4455. Ask for Marie or Amy. For information about the Carson City Coin Collectors of America club, please visit www.c4oa.blogspot.com.

Taken as a whole, the market for these issues remains extremely strong. There are clearly a number of wealthy collectors who are assembling sets and when the ‘stoppers’ become available for sale, they inevitably bring record prices. It is interesting to note that virtually every date in this series has set a new auction price record since my book was published in 2006. It is also interesting to note that, despite the strength of this market, auctions are not flooded with interesting New Orleans double eagles. The supply/demand ratio for these coins seems to be working just fine.

1850-O A new auction record was set in December 2006 when Heritage sold an NGC MS60 for $49,444. In addition, an auction record was set for an AU58 when Heritage sold a PCGS graded example for $40,251 in June 2007 (interestingly, the exact same coin had brought $34,500 in Heritage?s May 2007 sale). These prices show that demand for high grade, choice 1850-O double eagles is currently very high and if a really nice Mint State piece were to become available, I think it would easily set a record price. I have noticed some price resistance for lower end 1850-O double eagles in the EF45 to AU55. Collectors realize that they can afford to be reasonably fussy when it comes to this date and if the surfaces of a specific example are heavily abraded, the coin will sell at a discount.

1851-O I set a record price for an 1851-O double eagle when I paid $48,875 for a beautiful PCGS MS62 in the Heritage 2006 ANA sale. Interestingly, this is the only high grade 1851-O that has traded publicly since the release of my book in 2006. Until a few years ago, I used to see fairly high grade (AU55 and above) examples of this date with some degree of regularity. This does not seem to be the case anymore which leads me to conclude that either this issue is scarcer than I once believed or that most of the better pieces are in tightly held collections. The 1851-O has a similar Trends value to the 1852-O in higher grade but I feel it should sell for a 10-20% premium.

1852-O I set another record price at Heritage?s 2006 ANA sale when I paid $48,875 for a choice PCGS MS62 1852-O double eagle. Another high quality coin (this piece was graded MS60 by NGC) realized a strong $34,500 in the Heritage October 2006 sale. For a point in time between 2005 and early 2007, it seemed that unattractive, overgraded AU55 and AU58 1852-O double eagles were everywhere. These were selling for levels up to $12,000-14,000 for 58?s which, if you ask me, is a lot of money for a not very nice and not very rare New Orleans double eagle. I believe that nice, accurately graded AU55 and AU58 examples are still scarce but they seem fully valued at current levels. In Uncirculated, the 1852-O is clearly a rare and very desirable coin.

1853-O If there is one New Orleans double eagle that needs a major adjustment in Trends, it is the 1853-O. Current Trends values are $2,000 in EF40, $2,500 in EF45 and $4,500 in AU50. These numbers were probably accurate in 2000-2002 but they are long out-of-date. In 2007, Heritage sold two EF45 1853-O double eagles in their auctions. The first was an NGC EF45 that brought $4,025 in August. The second was a PCGS EF45 that sold for $5,750 in February. Both were decent but neither were PQ or nice enough that they were purchased by dealers as potential ‘crackout’ candidates. I would suggest that Trends be raised to at least $4,000 in EF40 and $6,000 in EF45. A new auction price record for this date was set in August 2006 when an NGC MS61 realized $34,626 in Heritage’s ANA sale. I personally think the 1853-O is a tougher coin in AU55 and higher grades than I once believed and I would not be surprised to see values continue to rise for this issue.

1854-O I’ve come to a pretty major revelation as far as the 1854-O goes. For many years I believed the 1854-O was actually the second rarest double eagle from New Orleans, both in terms of overall and high grade rarity. After carefully observing these two dates for the past few years I now believe that the 1854-O is very slightly rarer in terms of overall rarity and unquestionably scarcer in terms of its high grade rarity. In looking at auction records, it is interesting to note that since 2002, a total of ten 1854-O double eagles have sold in comparison to nine 1856-O double eagles. In this same period, I know of another three or four of each date that have sold via private treaty. I feel that my estimate of 25-35 known for the 1854-O may be a bit on the high side and that the total number known is possibly as low as 20 or coins. In higher grades (in this case AU50 and above) the 1854-O is clearly a rarer coin than the 1856-O. PCGS shows a total of nine coins in AU but only three grade AU55 with none better. I have seen the majority of the 1854-O?s graded AU50 by PCGS and almost all of them are underwhelming, to say the least. I know of only one relatively choice 1854-O (the Dallas Bank Collection coin now owned by a prominent Midwestern collector and graded AU58 by NGC) and only one or two others that, by my standards, grade AU55. (NOTE: I have never seen the NGC AU58 from the S.S. Republic so I do not feel qualified to comment on its quality).

A new auction price record was set for the 1854-O double eagle in August 2007 when a PCGS AU55 sold for $494,500.

1855-O Something odd has happened with this date in regards to its availability. As recently as a few years ago, 1855-O double eagles were seen fairly regularly in higher grades. In fact, at one point (around 2002) I owned two very nice PCGS AU55?s at the same time and right after I had sold the second of these, I bought yet another. But in the last few years, the supply has almost totally dried up. Heritage?s auction archives shows a total of 17 having been sold since 2002 but I am certain this includes a number of re-offerings plus at least a few lower grade or problem coins. The strong demand for higher grade 1855-O double eagles was clearly seen a month ago when a PCGS AU55 brought $57,500 at auction which is a pretty impressive price when one considers that Trends is only $40,000. This amount is an all-time auction record and I think if a nice AU58 were to become available in the next few months it could bring close to six-figures.

1856-O As I mentioned above, I am now of the opinion that while very similar in overall rarity to the 1854-O, I think my original estimate of 20-30 remains accurate with the total number known probably somewhere in the low end of this range. In AU50 and better, the 1856-O is more available than the 1854-O and there are definitely a few more ‘nice’ examples known than for the 1854-O.

In my book, I think I did a poor job of providing Condition Census information for the 1856-O and here is a listing of the best pieces of which I am currently aware:

1. Private collection, ex: Heritage 6/04: 6372 ($542,800). Graded SP63 by NGC.

2. Midwestern private collection. Graded AU58 by PCGS. Probably ex: Eliasberg: 889. PCGS shows a second coin having been graded AU58. I am reasonably certain that it is not coin #2 but am not aware of its pedigree. NGC also shows two coins graded AU58. One is listed below; the other is not listed as I am not yet certain which example it is.

3. New England collection, ex: Doug Winter 12/07. Graded AU55 by PCGS.

4. Arlington collection, ex: Heritage 7/05: 10399 ($431,250), Bowers and Merena 10/99: 1711 ($105,800; as PCGS AU53), Harry Bass collection. Graded AU55 by PCGS. There are two other coins listed as AU55 by PCGS. I am not certain that these exist but it is possible that coin #6 below may have crossed from an NGC holder to a PCGS holder.

5. Private collection, ex: Bowers and Merena 3/07: 5597 ($356,500; as PCGS AU53). Graded AU58 by NGC.

6. Heritage 7/02: 9472 ($132,250), ex: ?Midwestern collection.? Graded AU55 by NGC. One of the coins listed above may be the example from the Amon Carter collection listed in the first edition of my New Orleans book.

1857-O No new Condition Census quality examples of this date have turned up in the last two years. There have been a few nice AU55 and AU58s that have sold at auction and I can recall at least one MS60 coin trading privately. I have yet to see any of the Uncirculated coins from S. S. Republic and would be very interested to know how they compare to the non-salvaged high grade pieces that exist. In my opinion, Trends in lower grades needs to be raised significantly. The current listings show $2,500 for an EF40, $4,000 for an EF45 and $5,500 for an AU50. Given the fact that examples in these grades bring way over Trends when they are sold at auction, I would suggest that levels be raised to $5,000 in EF40, $7,000 in EF45 and $10,000 in AU50.

1858-O The all-time auction price record for this date was tied in February 2007 when an NGC MS61 sold for $50,600. This is the same amount that Bass III: 795 brought when it was sold back in May 2000. The difference in quality between these two coins is very significant, however, as the Bass piece is extremely choice. A fair number of nice AU55 and AU58 1858-O double eagles have been available in the last two years and these have brought nearly full Trends (or in some cases over this amount). In EF40 and EF45, Trends seems low ($3,500 and $4,500, respectively) and these values need to be increased.

1859-O The 1859-O has remained an extremely scarce coin in higher grades and the last two choice pieces that have sold at auction (an NGC 55 and a PCGS 55) brought $54,625 and $66,125, respectively. My guess is that the current auction record of $92,000 (set in January 2005 with the sale of a very high end PCGS AU58) will probably be broken within the next year or two; or whenever a Condition Census example becomes available. The certified populations of this date seem to have become somewhat inflated. PCGS shows a total of 42 graded but 26 of these (or almost 62%) are in the various AU grades. My guess is that both AU50 and AU53 populations are inflated plus these include some pieces that are enthusiastically graded. The NGC populations in the higher AU grades are, as expected, a disaster. The current census shows ten in AU55 and eleven in AU58. The less said about these figures, the better.

1860-O A new auction record was set in November 2007 when a PCGS AU58 sold for an astonishing $83,375. But as high as this price seems, when one considers that there are only four 1860-O double eagles graded AU58 by this service, you have to figure that the demand level for high grade 1860-O double eagles will continue to soar. Interestingly, in January 2004, Heritage sold another PCGS AU58; it brought $48,875. The finest known 1860-O remains the PCGS AU58 in a Midwestern collection that is ex: Eliasberg and Atwater. I hate to harp on NGC and their population figures, but here is another date where the current figures from this service are ridiculous. 16 coins graded AU58? I don?t think so…

1861-O The previous auction record of $37,375 has been broken no less than six times since the publication of my book. The current auction record is $51,750 set by Bowers and Merena in March 2007 for the sale of a coin graded AU55 by PCGS. Auction records for AU examples have been fairly plentiful in the past few years. I attribute this to a few factors. The first is that prices have raised enough that a few choice pieces have come out of hiding and onto the market. Secondly, a few of the AU53 to AU55 coins have bounced around from auction to auction; in some cases morphing from NGC to PCGS or upgrading. Finally, I believe that grading standards have loosened more for this particular date than probably any other New Orleans double eagle.

1879-O A very important newly discovered 1879-O was handled by myself and dealer John Dannreuther at the 2006 ANA. This coin was conservatively graded MS60 by NGC and it was notable for having lovely original color and surfaces as well as uncharacteristic satiny luster. It was sold to a New England collector. There are now four or five Uncirculated 1879-O double eagles known to me. Price levels for this date have skyrocketed in nearly all grades in the last few years. In the not-so-distant past, you could buy a decent VF 1879-O double eagle for $3,000-4,000, an EF40 for around $5,000 and a nice EF45 for $7,000 or so. Today, marginal quality VF?s are bringing $20,000-30,000 at auction while EF?s are now worth $30,000+.

New Orleans double eagles have become one of the more popular areas in the current coin market. They are also clearly one of the more challenging and expensive coins to collect. There are only thirteen issues in the series but virtually all of them are hard to find in higher grades and nearly all are expensive as well.

What does the future hold for this area of the market? I wouldn?t be surprised to see prices for marginal quality coins begin to drop as I find it hard to imagine that collectors will, for example, continue to pay $25,000 for a not especially attractive VF example of an 1879-O. But I would not be surprised to see prices continue to rise for the very rare issues (1854-O and 1856-O) and further price increases for the second-level rarities as well (1855-O, 1859-O, 1860-O).

For more information on New Orleans double eagles please feel free to contact me at dwn@ont.com.

He called me to report his find on the same day and mailed two of the coins to me for attribution on the next day. Upon inspecting one, I found that it was not only a doubled die that was similar to the Adams doubled die that Chichinski had seen in Billy Crawford’s, Die Variety News #9, (the variety alluded to on the www.coins.about.com web site) but that it was almost identical to an earlier find that was reported by my co-columnist, John Wexler in his August 20 Varieties Notebook column that we share alternately in the first and third issues of Coin World every month.

Both the Washington and new Jefferson reverses displayed arrowhead shaped hub doubling (and some traces of hub doubling to the west on the Jefferson dollar) that appear to have their origins in the folds of drapery bunched up on Liberty’s right arm directly below the doubling.

The area of doubling on all the Presidential dollar doubled die varieties reported thus far (which is at least three for the Washington dollar and one for the Adams dollar) represents the virtual dead center of the coin’s design. This is an important key their attribution because specialists believe they are the result of tilted hubs that were seated into proper position during hubbing.

In 1997 when the first doubled die cent was discovered that was produced from dies presumed to be made via the single-squeeze hubbing process, (showing on the coin as a doubled earlobe along with over a dozen other areas of doubling in Lincoln’s hair), I first proposed that a tilted hub seated into position by the force of the single impression of the hub was the most probable cause. Since that time most specialists have come to agree that this is the most probable explanation for most (if not the vast majority) of significant single-squeeze produced doubled dies.

Tilted Hub Doubling restricted to such a small area of design within the center region of the die might also be possible due the hub being backed off after the initial kiss of the hub into a tilted die blank being reset into the press properly and hubbed again. However, with the Presidential doubled dies, we are so far into the single-squeeze hubbing era that researchers feel the doubling would have most likely occurred when a tilted hub/die seated into proper position within the single-squeeze of the hub. As the name implies, the single-squeeze hubbing procedure, impresses a complete design into a die with just one pass of the hub.

It should be understood that the face of a die blank (referred to as a “die block” in Mint jargon) is machined with a slightly conical configuration to aid in the flow of metal during hubbing. This would indicate that the initial kiss of a hub into a die blank would be restricted to this centralized area before continuing on to fill out the rest of the design. During this process the tip of a titled die blank would be positioned slightly off location away from the center of the hub into a different area of design than intended and thus the misplaced area of doubling on the affected die.

Chichinski’s find has been listed into the Variety Coin Register for date, denomination and design type as VCR#1/DDR#001.

1986 saw the introduction of a completely new type of US coin. Actually several, if you think about it – the Walking Liberty Dollar, and the Saint-Gaudens $5, $10, $25, and $50. I’m talking, of course, about the American Eagle series of coins – the US Mint’s ultimately successful entry into the well-established market for coins as bullion. These coins contained a specific amount of a precious metal; one ounce of silver, and 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 or exactly one ounce of gold. Face values? Yes, they were visible on the coin, but neither you, I, nor anyone we know has ever spent one of these pieces.

1997 saw the introduction of the Platinum American Eagle. Again minted in 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 or one ounce sizes, these were the first and, with the exception of a single commemorative piece, currently the only platinum coins minted by the US. Face Values were a slightly more logical $10, $25, $50, and $100, although again the face value meant nothing while the metallic content of the coin meant everything. I once owned one of the one ounce pieces, having bought it at what in retrospect must have been a serious bottoming out of the market at about $370, I sold it some years later for about $650, thinking I’d made a pretty good return. And I did… until you look at the price of platinum today and realize that it’s over $1,400. Wonder if I can get this coin back for what I sold it for?

The Platinum Eagle also saw a new design concept; instead of unchanging designs for the entirety of the coin’s run, the reverse of the proof coins changed every year. I suppose the folks over at Krause would back up the notion that it is necessary to have a complete year set of proofs to technically own a type set of US bullion coins. For most of us, though, owning a single platinum piece or perhaps a piece of each denomination is sufficient for our collecting needs; I’ve since bought a tenth ounce piece, and yes it’s a proof.

2006 saw another new type of bullion coin. While the silver and platinum American Eagle coinage had long been manufactured in virtually pure fineness, the gold American Eagle was minted in 22 karat gold, or .917 fine. To add a competitor in the market for pure gold bullion, the American Buffalo gold coin was introduced. One ounce of gold, .9999 fine, a $50 face value, and we’re already familiar with the design – much like the 2001 Buffalo Dollar, it’s essentially the same as what appeared on the nickel from 1913-1938. There are slight differences in the two modern designs other than merely the face value; E PLURIBUS UNUM has been returned to where it originally appeared on the nickel; IN GOD WE TRUST has been moved below the bison’s head; the reverse lettering is in a different, slightly bolder font, and the mintmark has been to the obverse.

Now, in 2007, there is an entirely new kind of coin. No, I’m not talking about the Presidential Dollars, which are circulating commemoratives much like Bicentennial coinage and the Statehood Quarters. The First Spouse coins are what I’m referring to, and while they clearly do not circulate and are intended for collectors, these are, in fact, bullion coins, yet analogous to circulating commemoratives. Minted in .9999 fine gold, each of these coins contains exactly one half ounce of gold. The face value is unusual for a half ounce gold piece, at $10; an equivalent American Eagle is $25. The reverse of each of these pieces is unique; while pertinent information such as the issuing country, the face value, the composition and fineness of the piece, and the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM appears in a peripheral ring, the inner portion of the reverse contains a design unique to the issue, usually a second image of the First Lady pictured on the obverse. Figuring out which side is heads or tails might be a challenge!

I’ve seen three of the coins so far – Martha Washington, who has appeared on numerous US patterns, now appears on a true coin, as does Abigail Adams. However, the coin minted for Thomas Jefferson is different. As his wife had died some years before, Jefferson did not have a First Lady during his presidency. Instead, an image called “Thomas Jefferson’s Liberty” appears on the obverse. Many numismatists, particularly copper collectors will know the image; it is the Draped Bust version of Liberty used on copper coinage during the bulk of Jefferson’s 1801-1809 presidency. The reverse shows Jefferson’s gravestone, along with his epitaph. Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Chester A. Arthur, and of course the bachelor James Buchanan also did not have First Ladies, and we will other “images of Liberty” from their presidencies. My money is on the Capped Bust and Seated Liberty designs to reappear for Jackson and Van Buren respectively, and there are several images to choose from for Buchanan. Arthur’s coin is scheduled to feature Alice Paul, a suffragette who is a curious choice because she was not born until the waning days of Arthur’s presidency.

Additionally, two presidents had more than one First Lady, losing a wife and then remarrying while in office. Somehow I suspect that John Tyler’s and Woodrow Wilson’s wives will get along far better on our coinage than they might have had they known each other in real life.

Martha Washington First Spouse $10 Gold Coin
First Lady, 1789–1797

Born Martha Dandridge on June 2, 1731, the future First Lady of the United States married Daniel Parke Custis when she was 18 years old, and was a mother of two surviving children when her first husband died in 1757. She married George Washington two years later, and for much of the next 40 years, Martha Washington fulfilled her role of a military and political wife with ease and grace.

She and husband George retired from public life at the end of his second term as President, and lived out their lives at Mount Vernon, not far from the capital city that would soon bear their name.

Abigail Adams First Spouse $10 Gold Coin
First Lady, 1797–1801

Abigail Smith was born in Weymouth, Massachusetts, in 1744. As was customary for the time, Abigail did not receive formal education, but her quick mind and her curiosity for the world around her were nurtured in her family’s library, and her desire to read and learn was encouraged. She married John Adams, a young Harvard-educated attorney in 1764, and lived with him in Braintree, Massachusetts, while he built a successful law practice.

She joined him in Europe from 1784 to 1788 as he served as an American diplomat in France and as the first United States Minister to Great Britain. The couple returned to Massachusetts in 1788. After her husband became President, they were the first couple to live in the White House after they arrived in Washington in November 1800. Abigail returned to Braintree in 1801, now called Quincy, where she lived until her death in 1818.

Thomas Jefferson’s Liberty First Spouse $10 Gold Coin
President, 1801–1809

The Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 contains a provision to provide continuity of the First Spouse Gold Coin Program during those times in which a President served without a First Spouse. This provision applies to Thomas Jefferson, whose wife Martha died in 1782. Married in 1772, Thomas Jefferson was a widower for 19 years when he became President in 1801.

The gold coins issued to accompany any President who served without a spouse will each feature a design emblematic of Liberty on its obverse, as depicted on a United States coin originally issued during the President’s time in office. For Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the selected image appeared on the Draped Bust Half-Cent coin from 1800–1808, and was originally executed by United States Mint Chief Engraver Robert Scot.

Dolley Madison First Spouse $10 Gold Coin
First Lady, 1809–1817

Dolley Payne was born in North Carolina in 1768, though her parents returned the family to their home colony of Virginia when she was still an infant. The woman who captivated Washington, DC, society, and is remembered as one of the most charming and entertaining First Ladies of her era, was raised in Philadelphia as a Quaker.

Dolley was a widow when she met Representative James Madison, co-author of the Federalist essays and often called the “Father of the Constitution.” The couple was married in 1794, and during her time in Washington, DC, while her husband served as Secretary of State, Dolley sometimes served as hostess in President Thomas Jefferson’s White House. She also served as First Lady during her husband’s Presidency.

Photos used with permission and courtesy of Heritage Auction Galleries

You know you have too much time on your hands when you find yourself creating an Excel spreadsheet just to calculate the total number of Buffalo nickels minted from 1913 to 1938. But you can always defend yourself by telling the world you have a good excuse.

In this day and age of so much emphasis placed on perfection, what serious collector would turn down an opportunity to own an MS or PF-70 specimen if his or her checkbook would allow it? So, if you’re a Buffalo nickel fan and haven’t been exposed to the harsh reality, you incorrectly assume that out of over 1,200,000,000 nickels (yes, that’s Billion) minted in those 25 years, mathematical probability alone would predict at least a few MS-69 or 70 specimens, wouldn’t you conclude?

But as population report after population report of the major grading services are scanned in desperation, the Buffalo fanatic is sadly resigned to the fact that in countless decades of searching, not one MS-70 has yet been recorded. Does this mean that no such specimen exists? Probably an accurate assumption. But, if one were ever found some time in the future in an obscure safe deposit box and later assigned to a major auction, can you begin to imagine how spirited the bidding would be for that coin regardless of its date and mint mark? Seven figures has such a nice ring to it (okay, maybe six.)

On further examination of these population reports and coin publications, it’s made statistically obvious that there are many year/mint mark combinations of the Buffalo nickel where the highest grade recorded goes all the way “down” to MS-65 level. Having to sadly accept these realistic maximums is the source of the article’s title.

The only solace we can get is from at least knowing why our favorite coins were evidently “doomed” to less than a “perfect” strike even as the blank planchets were about to be hit by a die with tons of pressure behind it “back in the day”.

After contacting several sources who have bought, sold and graded high-end Buffalo nickels over many decades, the consensus of opinion is that there were three contributing factors explaining the complete absence of any recorded MS-70 “treasures”: One – Weakness of the strike partially contributed to by the design itself.

Two – The copper-nickel alloy hardness wasn’t as conducive to allowing the deep, defined strike so critical a requirement to an MS-70 specimen.

Three – The technology of the stamping machines themselves was as good as it could have been for that time. To compare those machines’ sophistication and preciseness capabilities to the machines of today that punch out MS-70s with relative ease is a battle lost.

So, let’s say you have unlimited funds and decide to build (or have been building) an uncirculated Buffalo collection to eventually be regarded as the fi nest known (the ultimate dream). Based on your research, pouring over auction catalogs, visiting coin shows and making your desires known to several dealers who specialize in buying and selling high-end specimens, you realize that, in many cases, the finest known Buffaloes are graded (sadly) no higher than MS-65 for certain year/mint combinations.

How difficult would it be (after years of searching and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested) to proudly add that last coin to your collection (probably the 18 over 17-D) and finally be able to proclaim to the numismatic world, “I have the finest Buffalo collection known.”? Probably very difficult if not impossible.

This article reprinted with Permission from The California Nunismatist – Official Publication of the California State Numismatic Association and the Numismatic Association of Southern California Fall 2007, Volume 4, Number 3

The California Numismatist is an educational journal published four times per year and distributed to all California State Numismatic Association (CSNA) and Numismatic Association of Southern California (NASC) members as a membership benefit. www.calnumismatist.com

Hawaii has always been an exciting place in my imagination. When I was a pre-teen, I was collecting coins, stamps, and old books. In those days, there seemed to be rare stuff all over the place. I would dig through piles of old books and came up with treasure after treasure for 10¢.

By the time I was 12, I often could spend as much as $5 or $10 for a coin, stamps, or a book. For me, the trio was a natural to collect. I found A New Voyage, Round the World In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770, and 1771 Undertaken by Order of His Present Majesty, Performed by James Cook, In the Ship Endeavour. The title goes on, but the really rare things about this book is not only the subject matter, but the fact that it was printed in New York by James Rivington in 1774. Books printed in America before the Revolution are rare, and this subject was very popular.

Four years later in 1778, Cook discovered Hawaii and was killed there shortly thereafter. For a few dollars I had purchased Cook’s Voyages With an Account of His Life by A. Kipps published in Philadelphia in 1838. This was followed by History of the Sandwich Islands With an Account of the American Mission Established There in 1820. This rare little book was printed in Philadelphia in 1831 by the American Sunday School Union.

The coming of the Missionaries doomed the Hawaiians. Soon most of the Missionaries and their families spread fatal western diseases that all but wiped out the Hawaiian population. Then the men of God and their families grabbed most of the land, and eventually overthrew Hawaii’s last ruler, Queen Lilinokalani in 1893 with the help of U.S. Marines from a U.S. warship in the harbor at Honolulu. Read Full Article