GoldFinger1969

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. https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Depression-Crash-Cured-Itself/dp/1451686463/ref=sr_1_3?crid=12UHGQFY7TG1K&keywords=james+grant&qid=1667662400&s=books&sprefix=james+grant%2Cstripbooks%2C135&sr=1-3 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.

Some of the NGC older holders I don't like but that's just me personally. I love many of their modern holders. 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.

I thought "C" coins were just weak for the grades, the result of gradeflation.....nothing to do with details, alterations, dipping, etc.

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.

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).

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.

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). 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. 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.

I-bonds are limited to $10,000 a year per person. No more than a niche investment for lots of investors.

Setting up for a great investment opportunity. It's at least OK/Good right now.

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.

I can't say I've gone in regularly, but when I do goto my LCS, prices reflect market prices. Isn't that what a dealer SHOULD be...a guy who sells at market prices, making a small spread buying and selling, not gambling on the price itself....like a bookie doesn't wager on the actual outcome of a game ?

Is that the going rate at LCS and at local/regional coin shows ? I was able to buy an MS-63 Saint for basically spot at FUN 2020. Gold was rising then and would make a run of a few hundred more dollars to top $2,000. So with the wind at its back, dealers were willing to sell for spot. Today, with gold doing NOTHING for years and down lately, "weird" premiums seem to be at play, though nothing like with silver. The quoted premiums in BARRON'S each week are higher than in the past but only by about 3%; these are for regular national bullion coins.

That's interesting because the CAC stickers were pretty much given out for grades consistent with market grading. If the strike for a particular coin or year or mint is "weak" throughout all the coins, then it's really not held against the coin compared to a year or mint that has a "strong" strike. Having split grades (obverse/reverse) or mentioning strike separately is just confusing collectors and Balkanizing the hobby. JA is well-respected but given his past at NGC and CAC, I don't see how he can suddenly "harden" grading even though I am completely in favor of ending gradeflation.

Rates are rising as forecasted. Only a person ignorant of financial markets -- of which there are many -- would have thought rates were staying at zero.

You can always annuitize investments but it generally doesn't pay to try and get the mortality benefit until your 70's. And with investment grade and high-yield bonds now able to give you a 7-8% yield, it's not as important.

It's one of the best-performing asset classes YTD.

Why is it hard to believe she/they believe coins are a bad "investment" when that is backed up by historical numbers ? Devane (great in MARATHON MAN and "24") is talking gold bullion. Haven't paid much attention to the ads but unless he's saying they are better than stocks and bonds not sure he's in the wrong. SEC would have something to say about it. Worse are the infomercials selling overpriced numismatics.

Didn't you mention over the years to your sister that the car(s) were valuable ?

Bunch of generic commons in lower-grades (MS-63 and below) sold for a total cost (including bp) of just under $2,000 on Sunday, Eagle. Hammer prices are $75-$100 over spot gold but the convenience of buying online....the value of the holder....the grade itself....and year....are making some people comfortable paying a 15-18% premium over spot.

I'm aware of that....but as a defined benefit plan, it doesn't affect you (unless SERS/PA go broke).

Harry, many of us are not expert graders in general or on your particular coin type. Toning adds another degree of difficulty. Good luck with your submission and report back.

Doesn't matter. People including many immigrants (like my family) were forced to turn in their gold at an unfair exchange price. How would you like your stock portfolio or state pension to be bought out from you at 60 cents on the dollar ?

Right, the price Americans got for their gold was $20.67/oz. while the true value was closer to $35/oz. (probably $32 oz globally). Are you defending the hand-ins of gold at gunpoint, Roger ?

Roger finds some very interesting and obscure stuff.