LINCOLNMAN

On 10/22/2018 at 2:57 PM, World Colonial said:

I believe the internet would reduce the risk of some of the problems you mentioned, in the sense that at least the buyer can far more easily acquire coins outside of their immediate geographic area.  TPG

Most of the risk you describe is substantially if not predominantly the result of the hugely inflated price level.  Prior to TPG and buying coins as "investments", the vast majority of the coins most collectors buy now sold for nominal amounts, so the risk was much less.  Outsized financial buying and a distorted pricing structure where minimal differences in (supposed) quality have such large price variances create most of the financial risk you describe.  Counterfeiting, doctoring and artificial toning are a lot more profitable due to the inflated price level.  This should be self-evident since counterfeiting is presumably far less prevalent on non-US coinage (I am aware it is selectively a problem) and hardly to anyone will bother to doctor or artificially tone this coinage either.

TPGs have increased buyer confidence and with it, made it easier to sell coins.  However, TPGs have also contributed substantially to the inflated price level by increasing the number of financial buyers and registry competition has noticeably contributed to the existing price structure.

WC, as I recall the whole investment idea and its attendant sins preceded the TPG's. However, facility of trading and confidence undoubtedly made the idea of coins as an investment more feasible. Of course the condition rarity phenomenon, which has always existed ("buy the best that you can afford"), has increased exponentially. On balance, I'm not unhappy with the price levels of the coins I collect, although the prices are many multiples of what I would have paid and did pay as a YN in the 50's and 60's. 

I can testify as to how bad the good old days were, before the TPG's came along. Collecting was very hazardous financially. One still needs to buy the coin, not the plastic, but at least one isn't faced with a total loss if making a bad decision. CAC provides a worthwhile service, yet another opinion. It seems to me that that opinion is overvalued by many, such as those who only buy stickered coins, and may be abused, which is too bad. But that opinion nonetheless has value. As adult collectors, we need to take responsibility for our decisions, learn as much as we can, and buy what we like, not what someone else tells us to like. 

Pandora's Breeches? You don't say? 

Among the millions of wheaties that are sitting in fruit jars and sock drawers I would wager that there are still a few out there. If the subject coin gets enough publicity we might see one or two turn up. 

2 hours ago, coinman1794 said:

The case for the 1943 is also helped by the fact that it's not a mangled scrap of garbage, like many Mint Errors. I suspect its popularity also stems from the (old) possibility of finding one in circulation, and from its connection to WWII.

My vote for KIng would be for a coin that is not only popular and well-known but scarce or rare as well.  About 15,600 3-legs have been graded by NGC and PCGS. About 8,500 55 DDO's. A total of 27 bronze 43's. 

Considering the Lincoln cent's popularity as a series and the scarcity of copper 43's, it could certainly be considered King. There are rarer and more spectacular errors, but most non-error collectors couldn't name a specific one. The cent being auctioned is well up there in numismatic history. 

I've not seen many of these tokens, other than the ones collected in the US as "colonials".  Fascinating. I'm guessing that these are collected by county and/or theme?  Very nice Coinsarefun. 

Interesting concept with potentially broad applications and added value, historically and financially.  

A very sensible summary coinman. One thing that I would bet money on (not a lot) at this juncture is that these pieces are not historically significant, which we all thought they were back in the day. They might make for a good story, perhaps already do. 

On 7/10/2018 at 12:28 AM, coinman1794 said:

their having been mentioned and discussed by founding fathers really helps, and not hurts, their appeal. 

 

I missed this, was it in the article? 

One thing that we can deduce from the pop reports is that this was an experiment (or experiments) that didn't go anywhere. Not many have been graded and those tend to be in better states of preservation, including many graded as MS. 

We may never know why they were made or by whom, but it looks like some more sleuthing in England is in order. 

It will be interesting to see if there is any change in future prices of these pieces. Goodness knows big money is spent on other "colonial" tokens that were made in Britain as advertising pieces or for collectors.  

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

According to their published standards, perfection is not required by the major grading companies for a grade of 70. 

Yes I appreciate the cool things that the TPG's have unselfishly created to enhance our enjoyment of the hobby in the last 30 years. But...old school, I guess. Seems like splitting hairs at that level of preservation.  Maybe if I got new glasses.

Um, the question was posted six years ago, yes? Good topic but a little late to advise the OP (by now he/she might be able to grade a 70). Can be confusing as heck when these threads are resurrected. Somewhat off-topic, I'm one of those who doesn't believe that 70 is a legitimate grade. Perfection is something to be sought after, but never achieved. Marketing humbug say I.

Bought one Blue Book as a kid in the 60's. One and done. Red Book gives a sense of relative value and I have used it just to keep track of want lists, upgrades. The other information it contains is alone worth the modest price.

Great coins! Tough to find a toned 43, in my experience. 

1 hour ago, david3142 said:

 now own several “extras”.

That's how it starts, although that would be a heck of a hill to climb. A date set would be manageable though. 

In all the various fields of collecting, there is much opportunity for larceny and not much in the way of public retribution. Same applied to mainstream investments back in the day, and to some extent today. Sadly, knowledge and experience gained the hard way are our only real protection from the bad guys. 

On 11/19/2017 at 11:42 PM, david3142 said:

I haven't contributed to this thread in a while.  Here's one I got fairly recently:

 

 

I love these toned Lincolns. Are you putting a set like this together? 

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 11:40 AM, BillJones said:

My point exactly. The NGC was superior to the PCGS registry because it accepted both NGC and PCGS coins. Now it's a myopic marketing tool that little to do with the best of anything.

Too late, but a compromise might have been to allow a certain percentage of PCGS or ANACS coins in the registry. When this first came up I looked at some of the registries and saw some that were comprised almost entirely of PCGS coins. Sort of like cheating, two top registry sets for the price of one. If I were running NGC, I absolutely would have done something to end that, but would have taken a higher road.

11 hours ago, Afterword said:

The mint may not have released any 1936 proofs into circulation, but some surely entered circulation nonetheless.

I would think satin proofs in particular as they were apparently not well received.

5 hours ago, RWB said:

As noted before, much of Breen's work was quite good and innovative for its day. He was very sparse on documentation, but the hobby was tolerant of that back then. Today's numismatic standards are more rigorous, questioning, and demand much better documentation than back in the "good ole' days." Sadly, separating the reliable-Breen from the fantasy-Breen is a slow and difficult process.

This may be a good final word on this subject. My take-away is that one should approach Breen's work after absorbing current information rather than the reverse.

30 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

As a child, my Mother always told me, "If you have nothing good to say about anyone, then don't say anything

My mother said the same thing, but I believe that advice was meant for family, friends, and acquaintances. Don't think it applies to politicians, criminals, unsuccessful Cowboy coaches, and many others.  

The more I read, the more often I run into examples where Walter's research is questioned as faulty, unsupported, or where he is accused of fantasy. I met the man once, as an adult (stress that) , many years ago at an ANA summer seminar. A man of strong opinions to be sure. He has left us with a huge body of research, much of it valuable. I've always considered his books to be "must reads"; however , I wonder, on balance is it better to read his books or not? For that matter do you think his overall numismatic legacy is positive or has he done as much or more harm than good?