Re: The 1908 Saint-Gaudens Walking Liberty Double Eagle

[Arizona Coin Collector]

"Nico" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:8469va...@mid.individual.net...

>A question if you please.
>
> The 1908 Saint-Gaudens Walking Liberty Double Eagle was minted with and
> without the motto: "In God We Trust." How many of these coins were minted
> without the motto?
>
>

Hello

Data on the $20.00 gold coin with and without "In God We Trust".

FROM:
http://www.pcgscoinguide.com/display_guidesubcat.chtml?guidecategoryid=44&end=here&category_description=Standing%20Liberty%20Double%20Eagle%20%281907%2D1933%29&subcat_description=1907%2D1908%20Standing%20Liberty%20%28Saint%20Gaudens%29%20Double%20Eagle%2C%20Regular%20Relief%2C%20No%20Motto%2C%20Short%20Rays%20%28Series%2071%29&universeid=313&guidesubcategoryid=769

1907-1908 Standing Liberty (Saint Gaudens) Double
Eagle Regular Relief, No Motto, Short Rays (Series 71)

Designed by: Augustus Saint-Gaudens; modified by Charles Barber
Issue dates: 1907-1908
Composition: 0.900 part gold, 0.100 part copper
Diameter: 34 mm
Weight: 516 grains
Edge: Lettered E PLURIBUS UNUM
Business strike mintage: 5,294,968
Proof mintage: Fewer than 5

----------------------------------------------------------

FROM:
http://www.pcgscoinguide.com/display_guidesubcat.chtml?guidecategoryid=44&end=here&category_description=Standing%20Liberty%20Double%20Eagle%20%281907%2D1933%29&subcat_description=1908%2D1933%20Standing%20Liberty%20%28Saint%20Gaudens%29%20Double%20Eagle%2C%20Regular%20Relief%2C%20With%20Motto%20%28Series%2071%29&universeid=313&guidesubcategoryid=770

1908-1933 Standing Liberty (Saint Gaudens) Double
Eagle Regular Relief, With Motto (Series 71)

Designed by: Augustus Saint-Gaudens; modified by Charles Barber
Issue dates: 1908-1933
Composition: 0.900 part gold, 0.100 part copper
Diameter: 34 mm
Weight: 516 grains
Edge: Lettered E PLURIBUS UNUM
Business strike mintage: 64,981,428
Proof mintage: 687

[Reid Goldsborough]

On 5/3/2010 4:24 AM, Nico wrote:

>> 1907-1908 Standing Liberty (Saint Gaudens) Double
>> Eagle Regular Relief, No Motto, Short Rays (Series 71)

PCGS combines the mintage data for the 1907, 1908, and 1908-D (Denver
mint) No Motto business strike Saints, so this isn't the answer to your
question about what appears to be a coin of yours. The humble and
popular Red Book provides mintage data for the 1908 No Motto Saint:
4,271551.

I have one of these myself. It was my first (relatively) big purchase
after returning to coin collecting exactly ten years ago, a fairly
beat-up raw MS-60. I've upgraded it twice and now have a 1908 No Motto
Saint that's almost certainly an MS-63. I bought it in an old PCGS MS-62
slab and broke it out. Haven't reslabbed it yet and may not.

I paid $380 for this coin in 2001 at the Baltimore Coin and Currency
Convention. Today PCGS prices an MS-63 (graded this way in one of its
slabs) at $2,040. Even though this like most coin price guide prices is
inflated, helping dealers obtain the best prices, this coin like all
gold coins over this period has significantly appreciated in value.

The information from PCGS that these coins contain 10 percent copper
also isn't necessarily correct. Some do, and those that do have more of
a "red gold" look. Others, on the other hand, contain up to 1 percent
silver (a quick search just now didn't turn up a reference for this),
which makes them slightly paler. The more recent American Gold Eagles
contain both more gold -- 91.67 percent -- and more silver -- 3.00
percent -- with their higher silver content making them paler still.

Mine has a red gold look, which was one of the reasons I bought it. The
slight irony here is that the base metal, copper, gives it a more
attractive appearance compared with the noble and precious metal,
silver. This of course is subjective, with some liking the red gold look
and others not.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

[sgt23]

For gold too be cheap again.... Maybe I'm dreaming? You did say $380
for a double eagle right?

[Reid Goldsborough]

On 5/3/2010 9:48 PM, sgt23 wrote:

> For gold too be cheap again.... Maybe I'm dreaming? You did say $380
> for a double eagle right?

Yep. I paid $380 for this MS-63 1908 No-Motto Saint in November 2001.
Fifteen months earlier I paid $325 for an MS-60 1908 No-Motto Saint and
$286.50 for a 2000 1 oz. American Gold Eagle. The times they are
a-changin'. Here's a fun little chart that shows what gold has done
during this time:

http://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_10_year_o_usd.png

[sgt23]

On May 3, 10:09 pm, Reid Goldsborough <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

What I won't give for another noise dive on that chart. I paid $260
for MS-60, 1854-P Quarter eagle just last year. I bet you could pick
them up for about $100 back then. I was collecting back then "FWIW",
but wasn't thinking much about gold yet.

[Reid Goldsborough]

On 5/6/2010 4:40 AM, sgt23 wrote:
> What I won't give for another noise dive on that chart. I paid $260
> for MS-60, 1854-P Quarter eagle just last year. I bet you could pick
> them up for about $100 back then. I was collecting back then "FWIW",
> but wasn't thinking much about gold yet.

Prices have jumped a lot over the past ten years for ancient coins as
well, though not as much as for modern gold coins. This helps if you're
selling. I'm not. It's good to know, I suppose, that there's equity here
in case needed. But for now the coins remain in the safe deposit box,
pulled out occasionally to glom over or photograph, with the photos
being the main source of enjoyment.

I discovered, by the way, my source for the tidbit that Saints include
in their alloy not 10 percent copper (as pointed out by PCGS, the Red
Book, and many Web sites) but between 9 and 10 percent, with up to 1
percent silver. This was from two discussion threads right here, the
first in 2001, the second in 2002. First R.W. Julian pointed to a 1795
statement by Mint Director Elias Boudinot (he didn't say where this
statement appeared):

"The act of Congress directs that the alloy of gold shall be of silver
and copper, not exceeding half silver. The practice, at the mint, has
been to form the alloy of copper, with the smallest portion of silver so
as barely to comply with the words of the law."

A year Tom DeLorey posted this (though he didn't mention his source):

"U.S. gold coins made before 1873 were 90% gold by weight, but they
could have no less than 1% silver or no more than 5% silver in their
alloy, the balance of the alloy being copper. This recognized the fact
that most of the gold coming in to the Mint had naturally occurring
silver in it, and up until then it was considered too expensive to
refine all of the deposits down to pure gold and then re-alloy them with
pure copper. You may notice that gold coins from the branch mints
generally look lighter in color than Philadelphia coins of the same
year; this is because they tend to have a higher silver content.
Instead, they melted a large batch and mixed it so that it was
homogenous, assayed it while it was still molten, and, if it was less
than 90% gold, quickly calculated how much pure gold was needed to add
to the pot to bring it up to 90%. If it was over 90%, copper (or silver)
could be added to bring it down to 90%. Starting in 1873, the Mint did
begin parting silver out from the gold, the value of the silver thus
recovered covering the expenses of the refining. The Mint was allowed to
leave up to 1% silver in the alloy, presumably on the theory that it
wasn't worth going after. This was done up through 1933.