GoldFinger1969

I think you're an outlier. Actually, I KNOW it. Given when you bought and your excellent knowledge, if anybody could generate those returns, it would be you. Congrats !

I disagree that losing 50% of one's purchase price is expected. Maybe CB meant after inflation, opportunity cost vs. owning other assets, etc. He'll have to clarify for us. But most collectors are not as savvy or as smart as you, Zad....nor did they start in the time period that you did. So the returns you have are definitely an outlier. I think I am ahead on my 50% of my collection....down on the other half. I have lots of commemorates for gold/silver so those are very volatile in price. The one thing that helps is if you are smart or lucky you can make 200% or 500% or 1,000% or even more on your winners. But you can only lose 100% (and probably less) on your losers.

There is so much money in private equity firms, I would not be SHOCKED if a firm decided to spend a few hundred million on numismatics, art, NFTs, baseball cards, etc. Surprised, but not shocked.

Smart points...this is a HOBBY not an INVESTMENT. Again...for anybody buying now or in the last few decades, you might realize low-single digit gains. At least that's been the experience with trophy coins like the ones I mentioned above. Coins tied to silver or gold prices will track those metals, depending on the grade/scarcity.

Well, of course you have the common years. Question is what grade you want ? A 1923-D is a great-looking coin....in AU-58 it might look 65'ish but you avoid the premium to bullion.

Just to use Saints as an example because I know some deep historical pricing....if you go by ultra-rare Saints in top condition (i.e., 1929-32).....annual return from the late-1940's is about 10% per year....11-12% if you pick them up for under $100 in the 1930's. Even an MCMVII picked up for $25 in 1922 only works out to about 10% a year if you have a top coin. Less if it's Top 10'ish or thereabouts. What hurts coin returns over long periods of time is the lack of dividends/income. As you might know, 30-40% of the stock market's total return comes from dividends. Without them, coins -- and other commodities -- struggle over long periods of time, even if you buy low and sell high.

BTW...in answer to the OP....the vast majority (maybe all) of the NEWER collections are probably money-losers for their owners. And I doubt they care. We have a Trophy Collector here on these forums....who owns the 1933 Double Eagle.....we should ask him a few questions, maybe he'll give us a general response.

You may have bought very smart...some people are good at timing or just get lucky.....did you buy coins pre-1973........if you could buy in size in the 1960's or earlier, you would have made a killing on those coins even after they came off their highs.

Not sure you are talking about Bob Simpson, but just as an example.....he is worth a few billion dollars so even if he spends $100 million on his coins it's like the average person here spending a few thousand or so. It won't impact his life.

The classic coin collections that were sold in the 1970's, 1980's, and later.....were the beneficiaries of being purchased pre-WW II and then benefitted from the Baby Boom and the Coin Boom. Some of the returns were fantastic, Eliasberg and John Jay Pittman among them. I estimate that JJP's return on coins was about 20% a year, which is outstanding and beats stocks and other assets over that time. But again, Pittman benefitted from buying coins in the 1950's and 1960's....AND....focusing on gold & silver coins whose price was artificially kept low and reaped huge profits in the 1970's. Forget the bubble-spike prices.....if you use $20 (silver) and $500 (gold) as the 1980 price, these assets returned about 26% and 28% respectively in the 1970's. The prices rose and fell over the next few decades and this hurt returns (no capital appreciation + no dividends).

As I have posted elsewhere, coins tend to be POOR INVESTMENTS that you should not count on appreciating. Even for coins where the heavy-hitters play and prices are less prone to declines -- like the 1933 Double Eagle or the 1908-S Norweb Saint -- the annual gain is 5-7% tops for such coins. And the time periods involved are pretty lengthy, so timing bias is eliminated. You'd have to be VERY LUCKY to buy at a depressed time period (harder where ultra-HNW coins are bought) and then sell at a good peak to make a return comparable to stocks or even quality real estate. Of course, a mid-single digit return is NOT horrible -- comparable to bonds decades ago but considering the illiquidity and lack of dividends/income, a bad risk-reward play.

My 1923-D:

If you are ever ignorant on anything to do with coins (or anything else involving an outlay of $$$).....don't do it...don't buy it....don't pursue it. Educate yourself or ask a professional in person, on these Boards, or a friend or family member with experience.

Do you have a budget ? I've seen the MS-65's under $3K but the MS-66's (got one at FUN 2020) are now closer to $4K.

How are you defining Table of Contents vs. Index ?

Roger, using your Saints book as an example, what type of index -- and how big -- would you want ? Now...that book is 640 pages. And the annual review of Saints by year/mint is very easy to locate.....1907's at the beginning, 1933's at the end. Nobody needs to know what page the 1924 commentaries start -- it's easy to find. If anything.....the interesting commentaries you had WITHIN the annual reviews -- plus the Special Chapters -- and other specific items would be of interest in an index. For instance, on the 1921 it might pay to have in the index the names of Goddard and Comparette. Someone remembering their names but not remembering what Saint year they are associated with might find that useful in an index. Outside of being able to find minor details, names, and curious incidents within your chapters....I really didn't see the need for an index in your Saints book since the bulk of the pages were chronological yearly reviews of Saints. I do believe in FMTM it is much more useful since it would be helping to locate complicated processes involved in coin striking.

Did you see my post which quoted JA on XF coins and grades ? EDIT: Yup, you did.

I don't disagree with you, OldH. But as we know, graders miss things and at other times focus on different variables. A coin with a few extra dings or rim damage might escape a lower grade because of great luster, etc. I'm sure the expert graders are good at what they do. But a newcomer....recently hired...or someone getting tired at the end of a long day ? People make mistakes and miss things. It happens -- humans can't be perfect.

I think we're in agreement. Stories are OK so long as they are NOT presented as fact. And some stories or information that is not 100% verifiable is definitely being used with some coins. I remember that 1921 Saint Specimen sold earlier this year had some questions raised about it. However, I assume whoever bought the coin (7-figures) was aware of that.

Always best to buy a coin that is in front of you when possible. Try attending a coin show or visit your LCS or even an auction that has Hi-Def pics like at HA and GC. You may pay a bit more (maybe not)....but you'll LOVE the coin.

Have you checked out the 1923-D ? Much better surface appeal and luster than a comparable 1924, IMO. And I too got a 1924 Saint as my 1st. Also....how it looks TO YOU is most important -- lighting and camera angle can change a good-looking coin to mediocre or vice-versa for us viewing the pics.

I'm not talking about clearly false stories or facts that don't pan out, like on Pawn Stars . Just "flesh on the bones" so to speak. For instance, when Heritage auctioned off that bag that once contained 1928 Double Eagles, the speculation was that the bag MIGHT have once held the 250 Saints that were swiped from the Philly Mint. The commentary (which Roger worked on) told the story of the theft.....Dressel the Super......etc. I loved the story -- I learned alot even if not 100% of the information/commentary was absolute fact. Now, maybe it's really just a bag that had NOTHING to do with the 250 Saint theft. But I certainly appreciated the story.

Agreed. Caveat Emptor !!

No, it's just that it seems logical that as a coin shrinks, it is harder to see imperfections. Especially when human judgement is involved.

You don't think that the much smaller fields play a part ?