-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
GoldFinger1969
-
Posts
8,805 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
NGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by GoldFinger1969
-
-
On 11/6/2022 at 2:41 PM, RWB said:
LBMA does not recommend stamping the weight on bars. Each par is weighed on receipt and that is its official weight. This allows for transportation wear, damage, and weight discrepancies. During the gold coinage period, the only accepted weight was that taken by the Mint or Assay Office - not what was stamped on a bar.
So if you had 1,000 bars....could they weigh them all at once or maybe a few hundred at a time....and then know in the aggregate that they were up to spec...or did they do it bar-by-bar ?
-
On 11/6/2022 at 11:07 AM, RWB said:
Specifications/rules were established by London Bullion Market Association in 1947. Prior to that it was informally set by various association of bullion dealers and London Gold bullion Guild. The bar weight was not actually 400 T oz, but approximate based on convenient mold sizes. Bars were intended to be of convenient weight and shape for shipping with minimal movement between bars. The modern trapezoidal shape was adopted to minimize shipping movement and improve security in holding a bar for stacking. Here are a few photos from 1896-1901 showing rectangular gold bars. Notice the variety of sizes.
Are you saying they actually measured the weight of ALL gold bars that were used in trade ? That must have been a huge PITA.
-
On 11/6/2022 at 11:03 AM, Oldhoopster said:
Great. Now we lost the opinions of a very knowledgeable and experienced dealer, former grader, and numismatic insider, but we will still get feedback (some of it occasionally relevant) from a guy talking to his rooster. Great tradeoff. Wonderful [sarcasm].
I think Mark is just not responding (any more) to THIS thread. I am sure he'll continue to post elsewhere.
He better. Or else I'll sic Teddy (see avatar) on him.
-
On 11/6/2022 at 7:52 AM, MarkFeld said:
I realize you didn’t ask me but I’ll answer, anyway.
Always value your expertise and opinions, Mark, so ALWAYS feel free to chime in !
On 11/6/2022 at 7:52 AM, MarkFeld said:I see a great many coins that have been submitted for grading and/or to CAC, where the cost was more than any potential added value to the coin. In some cases, the submitters simply weren't aware that the added value would be less than the submission fee. In other cases, they didn’t care, because they wanted to test their grading skills. They wanted to see how their grading/assessment compared to that of a grading company or whether their coins were nice enough to sticker. They viewed their submissions as potentially valuable learning/grading-sharpening experiences.
Makes sense and I kinda agree. Thanks Mark !!
-
On 11/5/2022 at 9:16 PM, EagleRJO said:
I was looking for common Saint around $1,800 to $1,850 including a seller markup including the TPG slab, and the BP or dealer markup as previously noted. But they were going for alot more, so I passed and bought some Morgans. I will see where gold Saints or Indian head half eagles are at after the winter.
I think gold was about today's price back during FUN 2020 and I got the 1915-S MS-63 for like $1,650.
Check out some LCS and maybe coin shows (if they are near you).
-
On 11/5/2022 at 4:17 PM, EagleRJO said:
I was going based on this post, but I do remember an earlier post where you talked about the 3% difference that you can neglect.
If a deal is fairly-priced for the coin and grade, the 3% isn't usually a deal-breaker.
If a coin was raw it might be.
-
On 11/5/2022 at 10:28 PM, Quintus Arrius said:
Q.GF1969: Thanks. You've been, er, very helpful.
Wasn't that what Billy Ray Valentine told the limo driver in "Trading Places" ??
-
On 11/5/2022 at 10:33 PM, zadok said:
...yes in many cases depending on the series the price differential for cac versus non-cac outweighs the cost...each series has its own biases....
Would you think there's an incentive for that even if the price differential is minimal ? I'm talkinig common Saints in MS-62 and 63.
-
On 11/5/2022 at 10:21 PM, EagleRJO said:
I don't think bullion bars and coins would be an alternative asset class.
"Alternative asset class" would refer to anything other than traditional asset classes like stocks, bonds, cash/MMFs, precious metals, currencies, etc.
So....baseball cards, NFTs, art, Kanye West , etc. etc.
-
On 11/5/2022 at 4:17 PM, EagleRJO said:
I was going based on this post, but I do remember an earlier post where you talked about the 3% difference that you can neglect.
IMO...if you have a good price the 3% isn't a deal-breaker. Especially for 1 or 2 coins that you really like.
Now...if someone is buying 10-20 coins as a bullion subsitute, maybe that 3% and the other premium are more important.
There's also something to be said for the value of the holder, which is at least $30 in materials and grading labor involved. Something to be said for NOT getting a modern bullion coin in those little soft plastic fold-overs.
-
On the subject of CAC stickers and submittances.....is there a reason people/dealers would send in common coins in low-MS for a CAC sticker ? I've seen a bunch of 62's and 63's lately with the green bean.
-
On 11/5/2022 at 2:52 PM, EagleRJO said:
You were the one who was telling me to use the actual weight at 0.9685 oz of gold.
I think I said BE AWARE of it...but I said if the price was good and you were OK with the coin, the 3% differential at today's levels isn't a deal-breaker. Just be aware of it. It's about $60 less per coin if you sold it to my LCS than a modern bullion coin.
-
On 11/5/2022 at 6:47 AM, EagleRJO said:
Current spot hovering around $1,650 times 0.9685 ounces of gold for a Saint would be $1,600 plus that $100 would be a $1,700 hammer price you noted, plus a 10% BP at GC would be about $1,850.I
I usually disregard the gold differential since it's only 3% or so. But that's me.
On 11/5/2022 at 6:47 AM, EagleRJO said:But they have been going for around or over $2,000 so I am taking a pass for now and will see what they are going for after the winter, and how much cash I have left over after filling holes in my Morgan collection and heating oil plus electric prices skyrocketing.
I posted above a bunch of Saints ending last Sunday went for mid-$1,900's including bp. Should be more this week and the rise in gold this week might not reflect the final bidding.
These are at prices right now that keep the total cost under $2K:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1258659/1927-Saint-Gaudens-Gold-Double-Eagle-NGC-MS-63-CAC
-
The Forgotten Depression: It gets TOTALLY overlooked because it followed WWI, comes right before The Roaring Twenties, and 8 years later you have The Great Depression.
But The Great Recession or even Depression of 1921 gets totally overlooked. Yet it was a unique downturn, unlike any other, in that wages and prices adjusted on their own and as a result James Grant (financial commentator and author) calls this book The Forgotten Depression: 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself. I had meant to get this book for years but re-reading RWB's section on The Roaring Twenties (Ch. 4) re-spurred me.
I need to read the book, but as a trained economist and former Fed Watcher, it is often said that prices and wages are sticky to the downside. I have to think that this "miracle adjustment" was aided by the fact that coming out of WW I less than 3 years later the U.S. was in the strongest position globally and this helped our competitive position and allowed for the adjustment process within the country to be much less painful than in other countries.
You can see James Grant talk about his book on YouTube on CNBC and Bloomberg most likely. Prior to striking out on his own, he was the first CURRENT YIELD (column on interest rates) author for BARRON'S.
Anyway....I thought this might be of interest to any Saint or Peace Dollar collectors of the early-1920's.
-
400 OZ. BARS: Does anybody know why the UK and US and most other nations used 400 ounce gold bars to settle trade during the Gold Standard era ? I'm just wondering why it wasn't a different number, like 100 ounces or 500 ounces.
-
On 11/4/2022 at 3:29 PM, EagleRJO said:
Some of the NGC older holders I don't like but that's just me personally. I love many of their modern holders.
On 11/4/2022 at 3:29 PM, EagleRJO said:Also, I would have been okay with a hammer price around $75 to $100 over spot with a Saint being slightly less than 1 troy ounce.
If that made the hammer price $1,700 or so....then add in the 12.5% GC commission and you're just at over $1,900, so should be about what you're willing to pay. If the difference is $50-$75 or so, I think that's swallowable.
-
On 11/4/2022 at 11:51 PM, Tyrock said:
Happy to clarify my post. John Albanese actually said to Ben the Coin Geek that the new CACG service should give an A coin a plus grade and a B coin should receive a straight grade in their new holder. A "C" coin, which has slight problems, shouldn't end up in a holder, but if it does it will end up in a details holder if the problems are serious enough or a holder with a lower grade as Mark explained. So, this is his current thinking, but he definitely isn't a fan of net grading. He feels that coins with stickers are fine as they are, or they can be crossed over to CACG. He hopes to roll out the new service in January 2023.
I thought "C" coins were just weak for the grades, the result of gradeflation.....nothing to do with details, alterations, dipping, etc.
-
On 11/4/2022 at 9:39 PM, MarkFeld said:
While I was a grader, I had plenty of complaints about grading and I do now, as well. And I’m confident that at least some current graders feel the same way.
I'll bet -- I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised -- that most of the anger about grading is where there is an inflection point about the price. When thousands of dollars (or more) are at stake, that's where people show passion.
MS-64 and MS-65 for a gold coin with a $200 difference....who cares. MS-66 vs. MS-67 with $7,000 at stake....ka-ching.
-
On 11/4/2022 at 4:34 AM, EagleRJO said:
Sounds like "speculation" to me!
id notice that both of the big boys are dropping their guide prices, with NGC at a more realistic $1,950 for common Saints now, but still over-valued imo. Savvy dealers are also lowering prices to clear stale inventory (e.g. several LCS's and larger online dealers like Apmex). However, PCG$ still has their head stuck in the sand at over $2,500 for common Saints as well as across the board out of touch values. 
I don't think anybody uses TPG prices except as a historical database. And quite frankly, actual sales prices or historical prices in archive history like HA is better. Best of all, for Saints, is RWB's DE book price matrices.
The only thing I wonder about is if the high-prices you quote are all-in prices (including bp and/or liquidity premiums) and not just hammer prices. As I cited above, that differential is about 15-18% right now (high).
-
On 11/4/2022 at 9:01 AM, MarkFeld said:
I think that in general, grading (including CAC assessments) is based on a combination of how a given coin stacks up against others of the same date, as well as those of the same type.
Mark, in your experience as a grader was there ever talk amongst the graders or TPG personnel that things had "changed" in a few years time with regard to overall grading standards, coins, etc. ? There had to have been articles or dealer-talk about stuff like that in the 1990's and early-2000's I would think.
-
On 11/3/2022 at 10:56 PM, Coinbuf said:
There are some layers to the stickers, more than just confirming market grading. Keep in mind that JA was primarily making a market and in effect prescreening coins with the sticker business. It grew to be something larger than that but when started CAC was simply a mechanism to find the best coins with the hope to buy and sell those A and B coins. If your goal is to be a market buyer then you have to work with what that current market is, the new CACG is slightly different in that it exists not to be a market buyer but rather to act as a TPG. I think that many people are trying to equate CAC to CACG, but these are not the same organizations with the same goals. So, it's important to remember, different goals result in different methods and standards.
Good analysis....while you can never tell what grade a coin that was submitted to CAC and did NOT get a sticker will grade with CACG.....it stands to reason that no CAC-stickered coin could possibly be graded LOWER by CACG. JA/CAC have already said they are strong for the grade ("A" coins).
On 11/3/2022 at 10:56 PM, Coinbuf said:Depends on your view, I disagree with your assertion that some coins that are known to have striking issues should not have that held against those coins in the grading room, it is that exact type of thinking that has led down the rabbit hole of market grading. In fact, it should be held against it, when there is a certain year or mint where the production was so poor that the best coin is no better than MS64 because of striking issues then so be it, MS64 is the top. Giving a lofty grade of MS66 or MS67 to a garbage looking coin that is the result of poor craftsmanship and quality is (in my mind) the same as giving out participation trophies, I don't believe in the theory that everyone is a winner because they showed up.
Your POV is also fair, I can't say it's wrong. I think there are merits to both POVs.
The main problem is when you grade "on a curve" for a particular year or mint...and then it "bleeds" into other coins. THAT'S gradeflation.
On 11/3/2022 at 10:56 PM, Coinbuf said:It can work, but only if the collectors and dealers accept it, that is going to be a very big wall to climb over, time will tell.
Agreed.....but if coins have been considered MS-66 for a while (maybe it was a "B" or "C" coin) and didn't sticker...I can't see CACG suddenly calling it an MS-64. MAYBE an MS-65 but a surge of coins that most consider 66's or were in fact 66's suddenly even showing up as 65's would be problematic for CACG and the market.
-
On 11/4/2022 at 6:26 AM, JT2 said:
dude you are right on the money there.. with most of the market being down anywhere form 16 - 22 % I-bonds are paying off at 10 %... Someone has been doing their homework....
I-bonds are limited to $10,000 a year per person. No more than a niche investment for lots of investors.
-
On 11/4/2022 at 2:06 AM, EagleRJO said:
All the markets (stocks, bonds, precious metals) are trash right now, which is why I went with the I-Series.
Setting up for a great investment opportunity. It's at least OK/Good right now.
-
On 11/3/2022 at 10:13 PM, VKurtB said:
I offer you … the United States dollar. Beating every major currency and metals too. Cash is quite literally King. Just think about what has gone on since March. Federal Reserve Notes (and circulating coins) are beating the stuffing out of gold and silver. And most equities and bonds. Apple? Not s’much.
Cash is King, but Bonds have been trash. Worst year in the last 100 years for the U.S. bond market, if not ever (Civil War ?).
The Lehman Aggregate ETF (AGG) is down 17% YTD. That's unheard of for bonds.
id notice that both of the big boys are dropping their guide prices, with NGC at a more realistic $1,950 for common Saints now, but still over-valued imo. Savvy dealers are also lowering prices to clear stale inventory (e.g. several LCS's and larger online dealers like Apmex). However, PCG$ still has their head stuck in the sand at over $2,500 for common Saints as well as across the board out of touch values. 
Roger Burdette's Saint Gaudens Double Eagles Book
in US, World, and Ancient Coins
Posted
I have no doubt about that. But gold isn't asbestos so probably less damage via the unseen than just regular hazards.