GoldFinger1969

I think you answered your own question. Quite frankly, if I was an ASE collector or if I just wanted a 1995-W as a conversation piece, I would almost certainly go for a 68 or 69. ESPECIALLY when you consider the risk of milk spots or something developing down the line. One thing to have a $2,500 coin get cut in half price-wise....but to spend $12,000 and have it go down by 75-80% would be too much unless I had just won PowerBall.

A few weeks or months ago one got NO BIDs asking I think $13,000 or so on GC or HA. So figure total cost of about $15K was too steep. For a total cost of about $12,000 (give or take 10%), you can get the 70DCAM. 69-69's will run you $2K-$3K all-in.

One of the MCMVII UHR's is graded PF58.

Bobby, are you considering a purchase of some grade of 1995-W ASE ?

It was also a bubble. Most of the sales took place at about $30,000 or so, which even that was still bubble-like. And we are talking very few sales even at $30K. Once the supply hit (see my post above), the price really took a tumble. Folks who thought maybe only a few dozen or even a few hundred coins would get the top grade and DCAM add-on suddenly recognized that (especially when you add in NGC) you could be talking THOUSANDS. They'd still sell at a premium because of all the set registry collector demand....but not at multiple 5-figure pricing.

The RATE of increase percentage-wise has clearly slowed. The PCGS PF70DCAM population was 8 in 2013........23 in 2014.......381 in 2018....and 424 in 2021. When that ASE sold for $86,000 in 2013...lots of coins came out of the woodwork !

Mike was looking at a certified coin, right ? The only dispute was whether or not the lighting was making it look much nicer ?

What's their return policy ?

Would you agree that the "market grading" slide for the most part has NOT been a change within MS or AU of 2-4 grade increments....but the JUMP from the AU to the MS bucket ? It's not the downgrade of 1 or even 2 increments that is leading to this polarized debate...it's the entire issue of MS vs. AU and the definition or tolerance for the slightest wear/friction/rub on the highest points of the coin. Nobody is getting animated about a coin being EF-40 or EF-45...it's the downgrade from MS to AU by CACG that is causing the friction (no pun intended ).

Well, this is something where the professional organizations should get off their butts and create something to give buyers confidence that someone is legit. I guess if there is a very easy/liberal return policy that isn't bad but a seal of approval from an overseer would eliminate unhappy purchases. Word spreads, especially in on the Internet, Social Media, forum message boards, etc. If a dealer didn't have the necessary certification it would speak volumes. Kind of surprised there isn't. I see it in other fields -- I have money management certifications (CFA, CFP) for instance -- jewelers have their Gemological stuff, etc.

Isn't there some numismatic "Better Business Bureau" seal of Good Housekeeping or something.....PNG or ANA or something....that tells people the person abides by a code of ethics ? I mean...doctoring coins and NOT saying they are....if I tried that with investing/money management, I'd lose my certifications and probably be fined/prosecuted.

So this is one of those "Coin Doctors" that Laura S. was always complaining about, I take it ?

Some of these guys may really love coins and the artistry associated with them....for others, it may have simply been a job to get a paycheck. Also, political appointees.

Mike, you have to shorten your OP subject titles....or I'm gonna wait for the movie version to hit !!

No, except maybe that 2019-S Reverse Proof. Not sure what has happened to pricing post-Covid for that one but I recall 70 DCAMs were maybe $1,500 or so ? The thing with the 1995-W: lots of people collect the ASE coins. Once you start collecting every year's issue, then you had a built-in excuse to stretch to buy a coin that costs a few thousand dollars in 69 and maybe $10K for those with more $$$ to keep the streak going. It's not like collecting Saints where most coins are under $5,000 and then to get any 1932 or other rare one you are talking 6 or 7-figures for any condition of the coin and that is something that 99% of people simply can't afford to do. That's one reason why there are so many more ASE collectors than other coin collectors and/or gold coin collectors.

It's a condition scarcity thing, right Sandon ? You had the 70DCAM/UCAM sell for $86,000 which was clearly a bubble when there were < 10 coins with that pedigree in 2013. Today, there are over 400 !!! Like you said...we KNEW the supply would increase and the total pop numbers would jump -- just not by how much. Some 68's, 69's, 70's, and 70DCAM's. Read Doug Winter's "What's Hot, What's Not" column for 2023 published a few days/weeks ago. He mentions the scarcity degree for a Libertty Head DE that is not a common but not rare or very scarce. Basic point was that it was 60x scarcer than the Liberty Head DE common but didn't sell obviously for 60x as much. https://raregoldcoins.com/blog/2023/12/29/the-annual-dwn-whats-hot-whats-not-list-2023-edition Also noted that commemoratives are literally the razor's edge: no demand....not much supply...nobody promoting them. Prices down 50% for Lewis & Clark from a decade ago so caveat emptor.

How would you compare each as far as being "friendly" to numismatists and coin collectors ? I realize that's a subjective question, just asking if you see any particular daylight between them that might carryover to the pattern issue.

I do wonder why the Mint Director's letter focused on destroying them. Maybe he meant assuming it wasn't wanted/sold to someone at the Mint ? As we know, if you paid for a pattern it was (apparently) OK. So if the Mint Director wanted these patterns destroyed without exception (for whatever reason), I would think he would have said in the letter: destroy them...not to be sold or stored....melted upon receipt. I would think the chances of these being used as counterfeits may have played a part.

So if the Boston Museum sold this piece in the last 35 years, no way someone getting that piece didn't know about the value and history. It's not like it disappeared 90 years ago when it was only marginally worth more than the nominal FV. You buy anything from a museum, you're gonna check out the prices.

If this is true, wouldn't this massive destruction of supply be accompanied by a big RISE in the price of specific coins in those sets ?

...or a couple of Nilla Wafers.

The annual Doug Winter "What's Hot, What's Not" review is always a good read: https://raregoldcoins.com/blog/2023/12/29/the-annual-dwn-whats-hot-whats-not-list-2023-edition The first one deals with the Fairmont Collection.... I found it a bit confusing (will re-read it).....some Liberty Head DE's from Fairmont have outperformed Liberty Head DE commons....but with the expanded supply, you would have expected them to LAG relatively even if they both went up in price. I think this could be a case of the price being higher than a pure bullion coin but still "affordable" to many new collectors who found the rarity factor that Doug highlighted not showing up proportionately in a higher price (the article shows what I mean). Also: a case of the expanded supply of Fairmont creating its own demand, much like the 1857-S $20 DEs with the SSCA.

But were they ? I see the same debate in my financial markets.....where the debate is growth vs. value. You've heard of the Magnificent 7 and the controversey around their valuation. Well, you can make all the arguments you want but at the end of the day if those 7 go up and you don't own them or are underweight....you underperform....and you lose money....and then you lose clients. And it doesn't matter if in 2 or 5 years you are "right" because it's NOW that matters. That's what JA was talking about with that 1985 Gold Type sets. Would have been VERY INTERESTING if that bubble had hit a few years later when both PCGS and NGC were around. Would their initial "conservative" grading standards have held ? Would they have loosened ? I guess we are going to find out now somewhat in real time with CACG.

The price has come down a TON since that article and the Top Pop PR70DCAM/UCAM has gone from 7 to 23 to over 400 (I think that is both PCGS+NGC). 69's will sell for about $2,500 or so......70's I think are just under $10K.

CB, here's the link to the entire article and the key paragraph: "...I’ve had discussions, arguments with Joe O’Connor, Warren Mills, guys like that, these boutique dealers that really have stricter standard and will have discussions about grading and they’re saying, “John, you’re wrong about this and you’re wrong about that.” I’m like, “Well, I don’t know if I’m wrong and I’m not saying you’re wrong either. You just have a different standard.” So, it’s a certain standard. It’s probably unfortunate, Charles, because there seems to be… again, I’ve been a very large buyer over the years of rare coins as well. So, it’s almost like those who have the money rule. I remember going back to 1985 when the hottest part of the market, the white-hot part of the market was the gold type sets. Marketing companies were selling them as MS63. And there are certain coins in gold type sets, certain coins that were really the toughest ones, like Type-2 $1 gold pieces, and five Indians, for example. All of a sudden, literally, what is today’s $800 to $1,000 super slider Type-2 $1 gold piece was an MS63. It was $15,000 and people are paying $12,000 or $13,000, selling them for $15,000. To me, it was a head scratcher. I remember sitting down with a large group of– it was probably the 32 original guys that made markets– and the guys at PCGS. We talked about grading status. I remember saying, “Hey, these are 58.” And some said, “You can’t call those 58. They’re worth $15,000. They’re selling at 63.” I said, “Yeah, but that’s now. There could be a day when they’re going to be AU again.” Fortunately, I think that the more technical rules prevail because PCGS never got into that trap in 1986 upgrading AU Type-2 ones 63. Fortunately by then, that market had collapsed. For those dealers, sales came way down and then all of sudden, grading got conservative. But it is a fact. I remember laughing about it as a teenager, whether it was MTB (Manfra, Tordella & Brookes) or A-Mark or the large houses, would always have a disclaimer on their invoices saying that “Grading standards can change with market conditions.” That’s crazy. That’s BS. That’s impossible. How can that be? I could never figure it out. But they were right. There have been times in our coin market, I’ve seen it many times, where 2+2=5. And in this case, a slider Type-2 $1 gold piece, whether you liked it or not, it’s sold for 63 money. Therefore, it was 63 for that period of time, maybe for that year. The same with five Indians. Sliders were $2,000 and they became 63s. You could argue all you want and do no business or you can just go with the flow. The point is, I’ve always said, unfortunately, there almost is no real standard, and it does change with market conditions. Now, we hope to change that....." https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/ Yes, PCGS and NGC didn't start for another year or two. I think JA is talking about generic grading by dealers and the change in grading standards during this Gold Type Bubble was not 1 or 2 increments but apparently mid-AU's to Choice MS. Probably very forgiving of more than minute wear it would seem. Veterans I've followed all seem to agree with your market grading timeline. First cracks by late-1990's/early-2000's....by 2004 it was in full swing.