Now That's One Serious Indian Head!

Because the 1933 St Gaudens was never released to the public. With rare exceptions, any 1933 in circulation can assumed to have been stolen. In the case of this coin, it is highly probable these were done on purpose for a collector or polital figure. If memory serves me correct, there was a time when congress members preferred to be paid in $2.50 gold pieces, this may have simply been a request by a Representative or Senator for something "different" than the usual $2.50 gold coin. Seems plausible

It looks more like a proof to me.

I agree @DNA, he needs the best offer thing.

Mike Byers doesn't need a flashy website or thousands of ebay feedbacks to cement his reputation as, along with Fred Weinberg, the top of the food chain when it comes to true "errors." The fact that some of these "errors" were deliberate does not subtract from their numismatic significance or value, in the broader opinion of numismatists.

Mike has turned his concentration on gold recently. The last time I saw his table - at FUN last January - gold was all he had on display. Not just gold, but Gold - ever seen a "Specimen" strike from Dahlonega? Likely not; there's only one. He's got it for you, if you've got $1,000,000 to spend.

There are horticulturalists who create new new types or strains of roses. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and an error by any other name will still be an error, methinks. In other words, the means, being intentional or not, doesn't define the end result ... eh, what?

I'll hang with you on that; rather than calling them (the stuff you and I are both referring to) "errors," we should probably call them "deliberates." It's truth. The historical significance is probably up for debate, and opinions on either side are of equal strength. IMO the numismatic significance doesn't change either way.

The "Proof" 1921 Morgan issues are pretty much proven to have been executed specifically because two people, Farran Zerbe and Henry Chapman, wanted them. They had nothing to do with any official plan on the part of the Mint, and indeed it appears that no bespoke "Proof" dies were produced to that end. But there they are, unofficial as anything, yet considered part of the numismatic mainstream.

That couldn't happen today. Yet, back in that time, such unofficial operations *did* happen regularly - examples abound - and it's in the context that they're considered somewhat "normal" operations of the Mint in that era where their numismatic value accrues. I feel that it's a mistaken application of modern morality (probably a poor word for this) to a far different time where one finds argument against coins like this as having genuine importance of some type.

In my opinion, this type of coin should be referred to as an 'Undocumented Pattern.'

I think this coin came up a few weeks ago, the general consensus is that they're just trying to drive up the price with no real intention to sell.

$600,000!! wow!