Guess The Grade 1924 St. Gaudens

Please explain how a Saint Gaudens Double Eagle that has spent its entire existence in a sealed mint bag can have "wear!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If that was what they meant by impaired luster...then you would think they would list that in that definition since they refer to impaired luster in their guide.

 

I'm not trying to justify anything...especially an excuse. Nowhere in the ANA guide that I have seen do they give their definition of "impaired luster." They do mention what you quoted under "luster" but nowhere do they define what they mean by impaired.

Rather than make an assumption to fit my point (like you are doing)...I used the webster's definition of impaired. That is "being in a less than perfect or whole condition." So, by using the accepted English definition of impaired...and applying that to what is said in the ANA guide, the obvious conclusion is that they will allow St Gaudens Double Eagles to grade MS60-63 if the luster is "less than perfect or whole." That means breaks in luster. They never say wear, so just like the TPGs they are making the assumption that this "less than perfect or whole" luster is the result of something other than wear.

 

Mint bags are sealed. If the seal is unbroken, it is safe to assume that the coin has spent its entire existence in that bag. You are one of very few people I know who believes that "wear is wear" regardless of where it happens to occur. And all of the others who subscribe to that philosophy are members of this forum who you have indoctrinated with your special brand of lunacy. Virtually everyone else in the numismatic community believes that a coin that has never seen circulation should be considered a mint state coin. And since every St Gaudens shows high point friction, by default, everyone else believes that those St Gaudens which show high point friction but have never circulated are in fact MINT STATE coins. Now this is the point of the debate in which you typically attack my experience, but in case you don't remember, both Leadfoot & Kirkuleez both publicly agreed with the PCGS statement that all St Gaudens show some level of high point friction. I bring this to light since you respect their opinions and experience.

The US government did nationalize gold and recall all gold coins, and virtually all of the sealed bags of St Gaudens in US banks were turned into the government. But many of the coins that were sent to European banks remained in sealed bags and they account for the large majority of mint state Saints that exist today. The number of sealed bags that ended up in foreign banks was huge and they would not have circulated in a foreign country so why would the bags be opened?

 

Agreed--the definition of an uncirculated coin is not one without a contact or friction mark on it (related to the mode and method of storage) , or a luster break that is considered acceptable by the most accurate TPG (related to the fact that the Saint is an enormous coin with a high surface on a soft metal, and they were not struck uniformly all the time). An uncirculated coin is one that has never been out in the hands of the public, circulating. It has nothing to do with bag contact marks, strike issues, or luster breaks. Those are mint issues, and storage issues.

 

FWIW, I always check for wear on Saints on the eagles chest. Many Saints have rubby obverse knees and breasts, yet absolutely full luster onthe reverse. Come to think of it, I don't remember ever seeing a Saint without obverse rub.

But, aren't the TPG grading these in relation to other Saints? In other words most have obverse rub, so the nicest of these they give the highest grades. Not as nice, lower grades. Overlooking the rub- unless severe or in the fields. If they didn't grade them this way, (virtually) all Saints would be AU58. If value is mostly due to grade, how else could the TPG distinguish the OP coin from all the other ho-hum examples?