By Q. David Bowers
As you read these words I am immersed in writing a book for Whitman about the numismatic world from 1932 to date. In that year the world was in the depth of the Depression, and in America, many would consider the year and the beginning of the next to represent the point when the economy touched bottom. Elected president in November, Franklin D. Roosevelt was to effect changes that would have far-reaching implications on numismatics, especially areas involving gold coins. The American Numismatic Association was to see few changes during the year, except for a slight drop in membership. The Numismatist continued to represent the association to the average member, as only a very small percentage of individuals ever attended the annual conventions. The usual format of the publication, under the editorship of Frank G. Duffield, of Baltimore, continued, serving up a miscellaneous mixture of articles, fillers, reprinted newspaper articles, and other items. They were not arranged in any particular order, with little editorial commentary inserted, and with little or nothing in the way of lead-ins to tie an installment with that in a previous issue, for the enlightenment of new readers. It seemed to be time for a new occupant in the editor’s chair, but this was not to happen soon. Club news was carried in detail, and each issue offered numerous pages of dealer advertisements.
In 1932 the Washington quarter made its debut with production at the Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco mints. It was intended to be a one-year commemorative issue honoring the 200th anniversary of the first president’s birth, but the design became the standard and in various modifications has been continued to the present day. There was hardly any interest in investing in coins, so quantities were not saved. Years later the branch mint coins became highly prized and priced as key issues in Mint State.
America’s leading dealer continued to be B. Max Mehl, who had started in business in 1900. In the January 1933 issue of The Numismatist he proclaimed that he had spent $17,500 for a coin advertisement on Sunday, January 8, 1933—a four-color advertisement appearing in six million copies of various Hearst Sunday newspapers. He offered the Star Rare Coin Encyclopedia for sale for a dollar—a guide listing the prices he would pay, including $50 for a Liberty Head nickel minted in 1913 (an offer later upped to $500). Today as you read these words that particular nickel has been well documented. Only five are known to exist. In 1996 I was the auctioneer that sold the specimen in the Louis Eliasberg Collection—the first coin to ever cross the million-dollar mark.
In 1933, Barney Bluestone, of Syracuse, New York, announced that he would be selling at auction the collection of the late Dr. George P. French, of Rochester. Earlier French had sold the crème de la crème of his collection, his cabinet of large cents, to B. Max Mehl for a reported $50,000, and Mehl had, in turn, distributed the coins by means of a fixed price list. Ambrose J. Brown, of Marblehead, Massachusetts, offered various United States coins for sale at fixed prices, the most expensive of which was a Very Fine 1868 $3 piece at $6.50. Brown was to remain a prominent mail-order coin seller for decades thereafter. M.H. Bolender, of Orangeville, Illinois, advised readers of his forthcoming 80th auction sale, while J.C. Morgenthau & Co., New York City, solicited consignments for its own sales, noting that the pieces were cataloged by Wayte Raymond and J.G. Macallister, “men who know their business.”
William Rabin, a Philadelphia dealer, offered bulk quantities of common issues of various denominations, all coins in Good grade, except gold coins which were Fine. There were no grading standards in place at the time, and “Good” and “Fine” meant “nice,” or desirable to own. A group of 10 gold dollars could be had from Rabin for $20, the same number of $3 pieces could be purchased for $47.50, and the following were his prices for groups of 100 specimens: half dollars before 1840 $60, quarter dollars before 1840 $45, 20-cent pieces $50, dimes before 1840 $20, nickel three-cent pieces $6, two-cent pieces $4.25, large cents $5, Flying Eagle cents $5, copper-nickel cents $2.50, and half cents $19.50. John Zug offered quarter dollars for sale, including a Proof 1796 for $50 and a Very Fine example of the same date for $20, a Proof 1825 for $12.50, Proof examples of 1856 and 1857 for $3.50 each, and an Uncirculated 1878-CC for $1.25. A Proof Isabella quarter was priced at $3.50, and an Uncirculated example was listed for $1.50.
A. French, of Garden City, New York, offered gold and other coins for sale. This was the trade name of Arline French, the wife of Charles French, a coin dealer, who traded under his wife’s name. Both had changed their last name from Lehrenkraus to French after Charles had a dispute with the law in 1935, was convicted for fraud in the real estate market and had spent some time in Sing Sing Prison in Upstate New York. C. (Charles) E. Green of Chicago, Illinois offered a booklet for sale, Mint Records of U.S. Coins 1793-1931, Inclusive, which listed the number of pieces struck of all United States coins. Numerous facts given were not available in any other current publication. Lee F. Hewitt, also of Chicago, advised that he would be selling a collection of United States coins by mail auction on February 15. Hewitt would go on to great fame in the numismatic hobby with the launching of the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine in 1935.
The above gives you an idea of what to expect. There is a lot more to come! Tune in to the Whitman website to find publication and availability details. Or check it right now for many interesting titles, including dozens of my books.
If you wish to contact me or send any inquiries, you may direct them to my e-mail qdbarchive@metrocast.net.
❑
Buddy says
It simply does not matter what the mint asks for the 20xe privy mark 2020 gold eagle, whether it’s $2500, $2750 or $3000. Dealer bounties will be in effect, demand will far outstrip supply and the aftermarket price will rise for for 3-4 weeks from issue, where it will plateau. From there, do not expect a dramatic price decline this time – 1945 is simply too low a mintage for that to happen.
Buzz Killington says
@Buddy — Are people collecting complete sets of 1 ounce gold proofs from 1986 to current? Low mintage is nothing without demand. And I have a feeling that 1945 is going to be a HIGH mintage for gimmick coins in 5 years. I’m glad I quit when I did!
I wonder what the Dealer bounties will be for this issue. Usually, they pale in comparison to what you would make on ebay selling a hot new issue. The dealer bounties also tell you when a flip is guaranteed.
But since I couldn’t manage to get in line for a coin with a 30K mintage, I don’t expect to be able to buy this, either. And I won’t lose a wink of sleep over it.
longarm says
Step right up and spin the wheel, round and round she goes and where she stops nobody knows, maybe on a gold eagle with a privy. I’ll give it a shot.
Coinasaurus says
This privey Gold will be as rewarding as owning Proof Buffaloes. The mintage keeps dropping each year. No body cares in the least bit. The Mint rakes it in though.
For those that enjoy throwing away money, go for it.
Buddy says
Buzz normally you’d want to judge a coin within its series ( in this case 1 oz PR gold eagle) but 1,945 makes this a deep, deep key as the lowest mintage (non error) American Eagle in ANY metal. So it that way it trenscends its series. 1945 is not alot of coins knowing that hardcore speculators will endevour to get multiples as early as they can to hold. When viewed in that light only a few hundred people will end up owning this coin. The trick will be getting your hands on one. The closest analog to this coin is the 06 RP gold eagle which once traded for $3K raw when gold spot was less than $1k, which also has 6 times the mintage.
Buddy says
Sorry, 5 times the mintage.
Buddy says
Coinsaurus
Those fortunate enough to get one ftom the mint and sell 30 days later will reap a reward and a sizable one.
Coinasaurus says
I dont like the Eagle Bullion Pieces. Put a limited Pimple on it , so what? Is it special? Still just another hunk of Gold.
Now if we could get a numbered certificate of authenticity and $2 Bill with some sort of Special Over Print !
BUT a little Privy Pimple ?
Please.
Buddy says
I agree but that will not stop the aftermarket from promoting it Buzz.
When the 08 reverse of 07 ASE was discovered I blew it off at the time thinking it’d never catch on since the differences were so minute. Big mistake! In hindsight that was the single best modern US mint PM opportunity ever, better than even the 2019 -S RP.
Promoters NEVER miss an opportunity to split hairs, that is one thing I’ve learned in 16 years of this.
cagcrisp says
Newmont Mining (NEM) just hit 52 week High…
The RCB says
Silver proof set is now on backorder and says it will be available on 5/20 so they must be busily cranking them out now…
John Q. Coinage says
Good luck player getting this is like hitting 21 in Blackjack…… Next the Mezak privy issue
There is also a ASE coming as well…….another issue of 1945 so SELL you RARE one’s now, the really “rare” stuff is a coming….
Coinasaurus says
Franklin Mint Fans rejoice ! The Rare Collectibles Market is Ramping up.
I’d still like to see some nice Walt Disney Characters on Coinage of America.
A Mickey Mouse $100 Gold Coin with a small Cheddar Privy Mark would be cool.
IJTR says
No mintage limit given yet for the 20XF.
Maybe there will also be some emergency varieties as well.
Get rid of all your high mintage stuff from the past.
True low mintage is coming.
How about 100 made with numbered COA’s?
No set is complete without these gems.
Buddy says
Yes lower mintages are coming but in gold, your new key will be safe for a year at least. But again the idea is not to hold for a year, it’s to hold for a month and no more.
Larry says
1945 coins. Someone at the mint is a sadist. Should I even try?
Qui Transtulit Sustinet says
@MarkinFloridasays claims in a recent post that:
“Rachel Carson’s campaign against DDT caused tens on millions, mostly children, to die of malaria because there was less DDT used. DDT eliminated malaria in several countries before it was banned….”
While this invective claiming Rachel Carson is complicit in the continuing existence of malaria and is
responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people for pointing out the dangers of insecticides may make
people watch a television program with righteous alarm, it does not square with established facts,
For those interested enough to read it, here is a rational rebuttal of that sensationalized claim that does not
rely on factual misrepresentations of history and epidemiology, overreaching logic and sweeping generalized
conclusions. It was written in 2016 by the late author, Michael Palmer, MD.
Many of the scientific observations on the methods necessary for the effective prevention of widespread
malaria contained in it are very relevant to the techniques required today to control the current novel
coronavirus pandemic.
“On various websites dedicated to science and politics, usually of conservative persuasion,
it is often alleged that the ban of the insecticide DDT, motivated by concerns about its
damaging effects on the environment, has caused tens of millions in avoidable malaria
fatalities over the last couple of decades. This position is untenable in light of the following
scientific and historic facts:
1. DDT is banned internationally for use in agriculture, but its use in malaria control remains permitted under the regulations of the Stockholm Convention. The production
of DDT and its use in malaria control have never been discontinued.
2. While DDT is cheaper than most other insecticides, cost of manufacture has risen
in proportion to that of petroleum, the major required raw material. Moreover, like
other insecticides, DDT selects for resistance in the targeted insect vectors. Rising
cost and widespread resistance, not regulation, are the key reasons for the limited
and declining worldwide use of DDT.
3. Most malaria fatalities occur in Africa. On this continent, no comprehensive effort has
ever been made to control or eradicate malaria; instead, all such projects occurred
only on a local or regional scale, and many were abandoned after only a few years.
4. In the most severely affected parts of the world, only a small fraction of malaria cases
are actually seen by health care workers or recorded by health authorities. Regardless
of the tools employed, effective malaria control is impossible with such inadequate
levels of organization and preparedness.
Malaria remains rampant because control efforts lack resources and political support, not
because of the choice of insecticide. Where insect resistance to it is not yet widespread,
DDT remains a legitimate weapon against malaria. However, DDT is not a panacea, and the
limited restrictions imposed on its use are not a significant factor in the current deplorable
state of affairs in malaria morbidity and mortality.
The concerns about environmental damage, first brought to the fore by Carson, persuaded the US Environmental Protection Agency to ban DDT use in 1972. However, this
ban only applies to agricultural use. In contrast, DDT use in malaria control was exempted,
and it remains permissible to this day under the Stockholm Convention [13]. Indeed, considering that DDT has become something of a poster child for misguided environmentalist
activism, it is a little ironic that it is one of very few organochlorides to retain such approval.
In contrast, dieldrin and several other organochloride compounds have categorically been
banned under the Stockholm convention.
So, how did the limited ban on DDT affect malaria control? Firstly, it is worth noting that
DDT never went out of production, and it remains commercially available from suppliers in
India and elsewhere. Secondly, the ban on agricultural use may quite possibly have slowed
down the development of insect vector resistance and thus preserved the usefulness of
DDT for malaria control for longer than would have otherwise been the case.
…case numbers in Sri Lanka rebounded after1963, the year that general DDT spraying of houses was discontinued. Why, then, didsomeone decide to stop it in the first place? This was in fact part of the official strategy: after reduction of malaria incidence to below a certain threshold, the focus was to be shifted
to detection and medical treatment of malaria cases, that is, from the insect reservoir to
the human reservoir of the parasite [19]. Considering that the official nation-wide figure
for malaria cases was well below 50 in 1963, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the
human reservoir had been brought under control sufficiently for allowing this shift to occur.
However, as it turned out, the decision was premature and based on flawed data.
It is obvious that proper execution of such a strategy crucially depends on exact and
comprehensive surveillance. The protocols for surveillance and preventative drug dispensation had been laid down in detail by the WHO. Surveillance workers were to visit every
home, every two weeks, to take blood samples and administer treatment to every person
reporting a fever. In addition, random blood samples were to be taken from 10% of the
population every year. Similarly, health practitioners were instructed to take diagnostic
samples and administer antimalarial drugs to every fever patient.
Harrison [1] vividly describes the shortcomings and failures in the implementation of
this system. He focuses on India and Sri Lanka, but there is no reason to assume that his
observations do not apply elsewhere; in fact, the situation is even worse in many African
countries (see below). Surveillance workers were underpaid and overworked. Remote and
pathless rural areas of both countries were neglected—a situation that seems to prevail even
today [20]—and surplus samples collected in more easily accessible locations to cover up
the neglect. Understaffed laboratories were swamped with large sample volumes; backlogs
ensued, so that patients went undiagnosed and continued to function as disease reservoirs.
Other major crises interfered with proper execution as well. Floods, droughts, famines,
cholera, India’s war with Pakistan—such urgent events diverted attention and resources
from malaria control. Beginning in the 1970s, soaring oil prices caused rising cost of DDT
production. Simultaneously, DDT resistance began to spread, necessitating the use of yet
more expensive insecticides such as malathion—now itself afflicted by resistance (see Figure
5A). So did resistance of Plasmodium to the major, cheap antimalarial drugs. The window
of opportunity for malaria eradication, which the WHO had correctly identified in the 1950s,
and the use of which it had valiantly attempted, had closed.
The WHO program to eradicate malaria succeeded in some countries such as Cuba and
Taiwan; it failed in others such as India and Sri Lanka, and it was never even properly
implemented in large parts of Africa. DDT was an important element of this program, but
its significance has since faded due to widespread mosquito resistance. This resistance has
most likely been promoted by its use in crop protection, just like resistance to antibiotics
has proliferated due to their widespread use in animal husbandry [23]. The ban on the
agricultural use of DDT, first promulgated in 1972, came too late to avoid most of this
negative impact on malaria control.
Deplorable as the loss of DDT, chloroquine, and other formerly reliable weapons against
malaria may be, we should note that success in our fight against epidemic infections hinges
not so much on individual compounds as on our capacity to properly implement coherent
strategies of disease control. For example, all affluent and well-run countries have managed
to eliminate cholera, and to reduce tuberculosis from an endemic disease to a sporadic one.
They achieved this through hygiene and surveillance, long before the advent of antibacterial
chemotherapy. However, the same diseases have remained widespread in third world
countries long after.
To eradicate malaria, we cannot rely alone on novel drugs and insecticides, important as
these would be for providing transient relief and mitigation. Ultimately, success will depend
on economic development and on peace, on lifting countries out of misery. Looking at the
world maps of prosperity and health, it is abundantly clear that both go hand in hand.”
Buzz Killington says
@QST, while I appreciate the sentiment, you just have to learn to ignore these fools. They won’t be educated, no matter what you say.
SteveW says
20XF proof Silver Eagle with “75” privey info is available. 75,000 mintage limit. 1 per household.
cagcrisp says
I Always thought the American Silver Eagle E75 would be 75,000
That was Almost a given…
Foxman69 says
Thanks for heads-up on availability of 2020 Silver proof set…checked eBay…early on some paid over $100 just for the 10-coin set! They must be crying in their beer now…
cagcrisp says
I would think we are Very close to Launch of the 2020 E75 coins.
IF the coins were to Launch next week the Proof American Gold Eagle is Tracking a price of $2,375.00
IF it was me, I Know the Mint isn’t going to follow my ideas of a set price and then a drop…
…SO…For a mintage of 1945 for a 1 oz. American Gold Eagle I would put the price at $3,375.00 and turn o the Sale Sign.
They will Sell every coin they have in under 5 minutes if the Sale Sign is Anything Less than $4,000.00…
cagcrisp says
In ^ V75 coins…/
Buddy says
Yeah try under 2 minutes. The 2015 Plat eagle with a 4000 mintage limit sold out in 4 minutes. Others claimed it was closer to 8 minutes but I was testing it real time.
cagcrisp says
From CW article:
“Although the Mint product schedule also identifies a Proof WWII 75th Anniversary silver “coin,” that issue will actually be a silver medal.”
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/1-945-coin-limit-for-american-eagle-gold-issue-marking-anniversary-of-wwii-end
From the United States Mint:
“End of World War II 75th Anniversary American Eagle Silver Proof Coin”
From the United States Mint:
“Denomination: $1 Coin”
…SO…It appears to Me that the United States Mint is correct and CW is wrong…
Zephin says
Off topic…. I’m looking into purchasing a desktop magnifier…any suggestions?
cagcrisp says
GLD hit $164.80
That would be a 7.5 year High…
Numismatrix says
ZEPHIN : Off topic…. I’m looking into purchasing a desktop magnifier…any suggestions?
I would recommend Amscope : SM-1TSZZ-144S-10M
If you need something basic look for Donegan Co OptiVisor products.
Please try to buy American made products.
Hidalgo says
@cagcrisp
Since many of the major buyers of US Mint products are coin dealers, you can bet that there will be a quick sellout. Money will be no object to them.
With such a low mintage, the US Mint knows exactly what it’s doing. Unfortunately, in the hopes of generating excitement among coin enthusiasts, its plans may backfire and cause more to lose, rather than gain, interest in the hobby.
cagcrisp says
@ Hidalgo says,”Since many of the major buyers of US Mint products are coin dealers, you can bet that there will be a quick sellout. Money will be no object to them.“
Anything less than $4,000 and I’ll be there. Anything less than $3.000 and I don’t have a Snowball’s chance.
A Mintage of 1945 for an American Gold Eagle will make the 30k for the 2019 Enhanced Reverse Proof American Silver Eagle look like Child’s Play.
“With such a low mintage, the US Mint knows exactly what it’s doing.”
Agree 100%. The Mint knew exactly what they were doing last year with the 2019 Enhanced Reverse Proof American Silver Eagle.
On a percentage basis, attempted purchases vs. successful purchases, the 2019 Enhanced Reverse Proof American Silver Eagle will be pale in comparison to the 2020 V75 American Gold Eagle…
cagcrisp says
On a percentage basis, attempted purchases vs. successful purchases, the 2019 Enhanced Reverse Proof American Silver Eagle will be pale in comparison to the 2020 V75 American Gold Eagle…
I think everyone knows what I mean…
I was able to Eventually get 3 of the 2019 Enhanced Reverse Proof American Silver Eagles.
I’m Not delusional about my chances this time…
HarryB says
Anyone have any info on what the mint will price the V75 gold eagle at? @cag appears to expect a substantial markup over the already substantial markup over spot. I expect a feeding frenzy no matter what the price. Even $5k would still be an instant sell out. I foresee enterprising individuals going into the “Clone” business adding a privy Mark to genuine 1oz proof eagles…..
Coinasaurus says
Instant LOCK UP on that Gold Pimple piece
Offers to sell PF 70’s at $10,000.00 !
1st sale at$19,450.00 ? Some one with more excitement than sense will jump at that level.
Coinasaurus says
And you thought it was bad to be able to put the ’09 ERP SAE into your basket and then “lock up”.
That AGE is already sold out. Probably all Flipped Out….. also?
johnaz says
On the 2020 silver proof set, to get first day of issue,does it have be in the first 30 days of issue.