GoldFinger1969

Those prices are like Crazy Eddie's.......INSANE !!! With silver at about $25, you have to pay a 60% premium to buy !! Forget the bid-ask spread, that's INSANE !!!

Premiums for AGEs are high right now ? Direct from the mint ? I think I see plenty of bullion at spot online. I knew silver was high, didn't realize it was still $6-$8.

Hundreds of millions of Asians and Africans (and maybe some Europeans) buying gold. Not Americans. Yes, I think it's a big growth area. Interest rates might be going up but if inflation is rising, that should be a net positive.

Not sure that banking regulations would increase gold holdings. A volatile, non-interest bearing asset. Does India mine gold ? Wasn't aware they had any productive mines.

Compared to "meme" stocks like AMC and GME and compared to other rare-Earths and some pricey growth stocks all in an environment of 0.25% Fed Funds.....I think gold isn't CHEAP but it sure isn't "expensive." You have a trillion dollars in BitCoin and other digital fads although a bit less now that one of Mark Cuban's favorites apparently went to $0.00 as we all slept. That has taken money out of the gold trade. I still think that "strong hands" -- Indian, Chinese, and other emerging markets populations -- want to hold some gold based on tradition, customs, etc. Ultimately, they will drive gold higher, not inflation and not a surge out of BitCoin or Central Bank buying or anything else. This is a long-term "bid" under the market. Hundreds of millions of people buying a few ounces each......a few million buying alot more.....a needle-mover.

I'm just making an educated guess -- that's what it is, a guess. I don't think $10,000 by 2030 is a reasonable price but I think that a 50-100% rise in gold is feasible in 9 years.

Microsoft went public in 1986. But point taken. However, MSFT was a real company with a real product and earnings. BitCoin is nothing but an entity in cyberspace. No intrinsic value.

Gold and coins (numismatic) over most time periods do NOT work as investments. As inflation hedges ? Well, the 2 time periods we have are unique: 1933-1971 when gold/silver prices were fixed and then zoomed for a decade after being supprssed for decades.....and 1980 to the present when inflation and interest rates collapsed for 40+ years. You can probably cherry pick the data but I doubt either works as an inflation hedge over most of the recent time period. However....if inflation goes up slowly and steadily (as opposed to a sudden burst and collapse) then I would think that gold/coins will do well. And I do believe that by 2030 or so that we could see silver at $75/oz. and gold closer to $4,000 or $5,000.

More knowledgeable folks who do some research will probably want Liberty's and Saints....but I agree, the person with little knowledge who only wants gold and fears a financial apocalypse probably isn't even aware of Saints and Liberty's as options as alterantives to moderns -- I know I wasn't until all the hullaballoo with the SS Central America and the 1933 Saint. Not so sure about that.....I worked in 2 Private Banks and managed money for some of the wealthiest people in the country....not sure they want "paper" to hedge financial catastrophes or their own high net worth which is mostly "on paper." Most billionaires are NOT worried about hedging their fortunes, it's more likely to be folks with net worths of $10 MM - $250 MM.

No way.....very few billionaires would buy crypto in size....too risky.

Yeah, I kinda overlooked his inflation hedge thing. I rather pay up a bit more for Saints even while buying them as a bullion subsitute.

Could be right, Zad....no argument. Since I like collecting Saints, that's my bullion and numimsatic vehicle of choice. But smaller denomations, if more affordable, and with lower premiums, could be a decent/better alternative. Some of them also have interesting designs, though not as nice IMO as the Saint series. Don't know about liquidity for the smaller coins, though. Probably not bad but doubtful they are as good as that for Saints.

Agreed....and yes.....buying an investment grade Morgan even at $150 is a 400% premium to the underlying silver content. Yet you can buy a nice MS66 CAC common Saint for about 100% premium to gold, or without the CAC for about 75% more. Larger total expenditure, yes, but a better buy for those who can buy 4-figure (forget about 5-figure) coins.

Another factor: rising net worth and income in the key demographic groups that do buy coins, PM's, etc. Again, how you model positive and negative forces is beyond my pay grade, but I do know that the investor class today has much more $$$ to spend on Saints and Morgans than the same class did in 1980. Though relative to the much lower-prices in the 1960's and earlier they may not have as much buying power if you go back to that period.

Really ? Interesting.....I think I read something along that line but can't recall. Surprised that a serious collector would want more than 1 of a special type/pattern/coin but I guess if he liked the coin enough or maybe he wanted one each (or more) of the 3 varieties of UHR. I guess anonymous buyers are the ones who cause the confusion with ownership quantities or specific coins, as you can't trace the lineage.

Lehman's art collection was smaller and mostly a result of Roy Neuberger (of the same money management division) and his decades-long passion for art. You could also use art to appeal to super-wealthy clients. Not sure how an oil company benefits. I saw nothing about bail out funds from C-19 being used to party in Vegas but maybe it was a business trip disguised as such. Or not. There's always fraud and questionable uses of $$$ in any government expenditure.

I just mean a bit higher turnover, which I think you might be able to make the case for (2 trades through April 2021 for record prices). Getting an MCMVII UHR or even an MS67 CAC or higher High Relief is a nice consolation prize if you missed out on the 1933 Saint or didn't bid because you wanted to spend $5 MM or less.

As for the specific comments: I disagree with John Brush that coins at the high-end or in their entirety are now an asset class, they are most certainly NOT. Too few....too small in $$$-size....too illiquid. I disagree with Jeff Garrett that it signifies a new bull market in coins. Again, I think the price is great and that it is nice hype for the hobby....but the overall return from 2002-2021 lags behind virtually all financial and tangible asset returns, including other collectibles. I agree with Bob Green that it will help grow collectors for the Saint series. But if it drags up the prices across the board down to commons in the MS66/67 area, it will tee off rather than be applauded by other collectors. I agree with Mark Feld and said so as much by listing MCMVII UHRs as a clear beneficiary (I'm surprised there hasn't been a run on them yet though the prices HAVE been rising strongly the last 12 months). I TOTALLY disagree with James Sibley that this is a move predicated on wanting "hard assets" before hyper-inflation hits. Nobody with Big $$$ buys a single coin for $20 MM or so to protect against inflation. You buy TIPs or gold or commodities or even BitCoin or even sell short fixed-income instruments. I also think he is too definitive on demographics being a major depressant on prices and being long-term bearish on prices. I do think demographics MIGHT be a headwind -- but that is all. Other forces could offset that negative. It's unclear if coins -- or at least the major coin types -- will follow stamps or art in 20 years or so.

Can't speak for foreign corps, but U.S. corporations would have a problem justifying such an expenditure. Witness the blowback some CEO's are getting for BitCoin, which at least is a quasi-digital currency. A single expenditure on a trophy asset which is clearly illiquid (and probably a very small % of your cash balances so it can't move the needle on performance) might be deemed a waste/theft of company assets by the CEO or CFO, similar to the mess Tyco got into in the early-2000's. Such a purchase just brings more headaches for any public company than it is worth. A private company, de facto controlled by a family or individual, is another matter as the person and company are interchangeable to an extent and no SEC, shareholder, or press questioning are likely if the company/individual wants anonymity.

Many buyers have to be vetted beforehand and many of Putin's allies are on those NO BUY LIST for real estate and other items in NYC and the U.S. Fears of terrorist ties and/or money laundering, and that.

One exception, Roger: I do think it will drag up the prices of MCMVII UHRs as a more beautiful coin with a very limited but more available coinage. A 1907 UHR is a very nice consolation prize. Anybody who wanted this coin at $10-$15 MM would be smart to grap one of the Top 10 UHRs at less than half of that price.

It will probably be a lousy investment as an inflation hedge, unlike art which has a much larger base of buyers. It didn't even return 5% a year over the 19 years that Weitzman owned it (4.9% a year). This is my experience with other trophy coins as well, like the Norweb 1908-S. Unless you market-time perfectly -- buying at a depressed price, selling at an inflated or high price -- you're not making any decent investment returns and are probably getting low-single digits per annum OR you are flat OR you are losing $$$.

It brought some nice publicity for the coin hobby via the sale. That's about it as far as I can see.

Prices on these coins -- Winged Liberty, High and Ultra High Relief, Silver and Gold -- have jumped in recent months. Folks who can't afford pricier coins moving down to these levels, especially the silver ones. Even seen a high-priced palladium coin and a 5 oz. silver one !

I can't tell from that photo. No bigger ones from 2002 ? I have the catalog, I'll check. EDIT: I checked, the photos match. They are a bit more subdued in the 2002 Sotheby's/Stacks's catalog and the picture(s) are only 4" -- not very large or hi-def quality. It's almost like they went out of their way to camoflauge it. HA pics would certainly have shown alot more.