Dan's Treasure Corner & Podcasts

It could be the coins stolen from the San Francisco's mint in 1901.

I do talk about that in the show! The U.S. Mint says they aren't the same coins. The coins stolen were all the same year and all had an S mint mark - these range over several decades and have other mint marks, too.
 
Nothing around here except pull tabs and bottle caps man. Ain't seen any coins, don't know what you're talking about.
 
I would love to see the order and condition of the coins out of each can...but that won't happen.

What I can tell you from looking at the dates and condition of the coins is that they are with a very high degree of certainty not stolen and that they were collected over many years and just put away in cans instead of a bank.
Say the coins were stolen from a stagecoach or a bank in one or two big heist, you would see a average regression in the condition of the coins from the latest date to the earliest . Gold coins were used as money and did not set around, especially in California.

Take the 1866 S in MS 62 for example, It would be very hard to find this coin in the 1890s in such great shape, but if you got paid in 1870 and put it in your savings can plan... yes .All of the coins I have seen from the 40s and 50s looked pretty beat up, so I would guess the savings plan was started in the late 60s.
 
From what I have read, many of the coins have been damaged through improper cleaning methods.

(Improperly cleaned) is a generic grading term, it does not mean that they were necessarily improperly cleaned. It is more a description of the damage to the coin.

Most coins when they are buried or stored in the dirt will come out with small hairline scratches from many years of contact with the soil (freezing and thawing etc.) The slight movement against soil will cause damage that appears to a grader the same as if it were cleaned or rubbed with a mild abrasive at some point...which it was, just by dirt and mud.
 
But weren't these coins stored in cans? I'd imagine that removed damage by the freeze and thaw cycle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure it helped reduce the damage but if you look at the can on the top of this thread you can see that water dirt and time defiantly compromised the container at some point.

Graders are very picky and put the coins under bright light with magnification and what appears to be a beautiful coin to the naked eye is labeled (cleaned)
 
Sss

Wouldn't the three S's rule apply in this situation ?
:?:
 
Wouldn't the three S's rule apply in this situation ?
:?:

Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up?

There is an adage about the TRUE professional treasure hunters - they stay under the radar, keep their mouths shut, nobody has ever heard of them. And in this case anyway, the true professional would be $5 million richer than these people. (and there would be no photos, no stories, no nothing)
 
Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up?

There is an adage about the TRUE professional treasure hunters - they stay under the radar, keep their mouths shut, nobody has ever heard of them. And in this case anyway, the true professional would be $5 million richer than these people. (and there would be no photos, no stories, no nothing)

Spoken like a true professional.
 
(Improperly cleaned) is a generic grading term, it does not mean that they were necessarily improperly cleaned. It is more a description of the damage to the coin.

Most coins when they are buried or stored in the dirt will come out with small hairline scratches from many years of contact with the soil (freezing and thawing etc.) The slight movement against soil will cause damage that appears to a grader the same as if it were cleaned or rubbed with a mild abrasive at some point...which it was, just by dirt and mud.
I'm talking about the fact that the finders physically rubbed loose dirt from the coins, not environmental damage.
 
I'm talking about the fact that the finders physically rubbed loose dirt from the coins, not environmental damage.

I did not hear, did the finders say they cleaned some?

They may have to a few but either way looking at the container some of them would have damage from dirt contact. I know I heard a guy from PCGS say he was cleaning until his fingers bleed and I'm sure he was doing it proper ...with acetone, toothpicks, warm baths in distilled water and such.

Also I thought someone said they or their family were in the coin business, if so they would have surly known better.
 
I did not hear, did the finders say they cleaned some?

They may have to a few but either way looking at the container some of them would have damage from dirt contact. I know I heard a guy from PCGS say he was cleaning until his fingers bleed and I'm sure he was doing it proper ...with acetone, toothpicks, warm baths in distilled water and such.

Also I thought someone said they or their family were in the coin business, if so they would have surly known better.
I jumped the gun and misread a report. I admit that I was wrong when I wrote that the finders improperly cleaned some of the coins. The report I read mentioned that some of the earliest dates had gone through some sort of cleaning, and there was no way of knowing whether this happened before the coins were placed in the ground, or after they were removed.
 
Saddle Ridge: Why Did the Finders Tell?

7016403


The biggest question about the Saddle Ridge Hoard (1,427 gold coins shallowly buried in seven metal cans) is, Why did the finders publicize their find?

Was that a stupid move, or a smart one?

My latest podcast explains the reasoning behind the public announcement, and it also discusses a few theories on how the coins got there in the first place.

Listen at http://thetreasurecorner.com.
 
Back
Top Bottom