Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which is worth more the 2025 S advanced release PF 70 signed by gaudiso or the one signed by Damastra
Executive Summary
The available analyses indicate the 2025 S Advanced Release PF70 signed by Michael Gaudioso is not consistently listed or priced, while coins signed by Emily Damstra and other artists appear in market listings with varied premiums; current data does not decisively show which signature commands a higher value. Based on the provided sources, values depend on marketplace listings, specific coin variants (W vs S mint), autograph prominence, and seller pricing, so a definitive winner between Gaudioso- and Damstra-signed 2025 S PF70 coins cannot be established from these documents alone [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What claimants say about the Gaudioso-signed PF70 and market visibility that matters
Market excerpts present a single, specific listing for a 2025-W PF70 Ultra Cameo signed by Michael Gaudioso, but they do not consistently show the 2025-S Advanced Release PF70 signed by him across the dataset. One source lists a 2025-W with a price point ($550) and highlights the pristine finish as a value driver, while another marketplace shows a PF70 UCAM advanced release with different signatures and pricing ($385 for an Anna Cabral-signed example), illustrating that mint mark differences (W vs S) and autograph name significantly affect visibility and advertised value [1] [2]. The dataset lacks a clear marketplace entry for a 2025-S PF70 specifically signed by Gaudioso, which reduces the ability to compare directly [5].
2. Damstra’s presence: design credits, slab signatures, and listing examples
Emily Damstra appears frequently in the provided analyses as the designer of modern reverse motifs and as a named signatory on slabbed coins, with specific product listings citing Damstra-signed Silver Eagle items such as the ASE Eagle Privy First Day Issue and a Sunflower Medal, suggesting collectors accept her autograph as a recognized premium. One entry links Damstra’s design and signature to earlier issues where her name on the slab correlated with increased appeal, though no single market price for a 2025-S PF70 she signed is provided in the dataset. This shows Damstra’s autograph is market-recognized, but specific 2025-S PF70 pricing data is absent [3] [4].
3. Price snapshots: disparate listings and what they imply about relative value
The supplied price points vary: a 2025-W NGC PF70 UCAM advanced release is listed at $550 in one analysis and $385 for a differently signed PF70 in another, while a 2025 MS70 with a privy mark reached $699.99 in a separate listing. These snapshots demonstrate that seller pricing and variant specifics (mint mark, proof vs MS, privy or first-day labels, autograph identity) dominate value determination, and that signatures alone do not create a single market price. Because the dataset lacks a direct, contemporaneous pairwise listing of a 2025-S PF70 signed by Gaudioso and an identical coin signed by Damstra, no reliable single-number comparison can be made [1] [2] [6].
4. Rarity and mintage context: why mint marks and release programs change premiums
Sales reporting notes a 2025-S Proof American Silver Eagle mintage cap of 110,000 for public sales, which establishes a baseline scarcity factor for S-mint proofs. Advanced Release or First Day Issue labels and W-mint proofs from West Point carry their own scarcity and collector appeal that shift premiums. The provided material shows Gaudioso and Damstra have both been associated with artist roles or slab signatures on recent issues, but without matched mintage and autographed-population data for the specific 2025-S PF70 examples, one cannot isolate autograph-driven scarcity versus intrinsic mintage scarcity when assessing value [7] [4].
5. Seller behavior and potential agendas: watch listings carefully
The marketplace excerpts reveal close ties between seller descriptions and price setting—listings emphasize autograph names, advanced-release tags, and privy marks to justify price differences. This suggests sellers may highlight certain signatures to extract premiums, creating an agenda to present their inventory as rare or more marketable. Because the dataset includes multiple seller-sourced analyses with differing price points, buyers should interpret listing prices as seller-driven signals rather than settled market consensus [2] [1] [6].
6. What evidence is missing and how it limits a clear verdict
Critical data gaps prevent a decisive conclusion: there are no concurrent, verified sales records or price guides directly comparing a 2025-S PF70 signed by Michael Gaudioso with the same grade signed by Emily Damstra, and population reports showing how many autographed slabs exist are absent. The provided material contains isolated listings and historical analogues but not matched comparables, so while some listings suggest both signatures can add value, the present documents do not contain the precise transaction history or population statistics needed to declare which signature is worth more [5] [8].
7. Practical recommendation for buyers and sellers based on available evidence
Given the evidence, the prudent approach is to seek direct comparables: authenticated, slabbed 2025-S PF70 sales or recent auction results showing which signature fetched higher realized prices and to verify mint mark and release designation. The dataset implies signatures can influence price, but market prices vary by listing and variant; therefore any assertion that one signature is definitively worth more lacks support in these analyses and requires more targeted sales data or certified population reports [1] [6] [7].