World Colonial

On 6/26/2023 at 11:15 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If you got one at the Mint's official price, didn't you get a good deal ?  It was paying up in the secondary market that was the problem as I recall.

I see OGPs on Ebay for about $1,800 which is about a 25% premium to spot gold.  Certified coins are ASKING $2,400 or thereabouts in 70/69/DCAM condition.

Certainly not anywhere near the markup we've seen on other coins like the 1995-W ASE or the WW II silver and gold coins or the 2019 SanFran ASE.

Any good deal is only because of an increase in the spot price or because the market treats it as a bullion coin, which is an accurate description of the coin.

I'd rank it one of the worst collectible values of any coin as a collectible.  It's really common especially for its price point.  Yes, the mintage is "low" (no, 60,000+ is not a low number), but 99% exist "as struck" making it very common for the quality.

There are nowhere near enough actual collectors who want it as a collectible anywhere near its price, either now or since 2014.

Another example that most coins are (a lot) more common than is apparent to most.

On 6/21/2023 at 5:39 PM, VKurtB said:

We spent an ENTIRE DAY (NGC’s instructors) on classic Latin America material including Caribbean Island counter strikes. I propose that you are not as “unicorny” as you once were. There is a VAST need at NGC for grading and authentication expertise for your area of concentration. I don’t have an explanation for that if you are out there basically alone. “The dudes are out there.”

I agree.  Most of this coinage isn't in a TPG holder, even the better stuff though I can't say how much of it exists.  Most of it is low grade dreck, as evidenced by the plate coins in my references.  The survey data identified a large number of coins cumulatively, though individual dates are mostly low in number.  These coins are presumably owned by actual collectors, not dumped in someone's "change jar".

On 6/21/2023 at 3:43 PM, Henri Charriere said:

To the above, you could probably safely add France, and any other country that has adopted its own grading system.

As you are aware, the grade FDC covers the entire range of Mint State coins from 65-70.

The TPG populations do not support that France has an "above average" preference for TPG.  The counts aren't that high and no reason to believe much of it over at least the last two centuries is actually scarce.

On 6/21/2023 at 1:06 PM, VKurtB said:

They didn’t. Much of the world is just now TOLERATING slabbing, much less adopting it. China likes it. Britain is curious about it. Germanic countries still hate slabbing. That includes the Swiss.

Remember that in the beginning, slabbing was about commoditization. Europe ain’t buying that shtick. It’s about the art. 

My personal inference is that much of the apparent demand for slabbing of world coinage elsewhere is mostly actually from US collectors and where it isn't, driven by marketing to US based collectors. Yes, I know NGC and PCGS have submission centers outside the US.

Exceptions are China (probably due to the number of fakes) and South Africa (due to financially motivated buying).  I've seen more graded coins on Sixbid (but not that many proportionately) but don't know where the buyers are mostly located.

On 6/21/2023 at 12:53 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Checking the year-by-year totals for a particular coin series -- Saints, Franklins, Liberty's -- over the decades would be very interesting.  Maybe some of you have some general thoughts on any big trend -- feel free to share it.

Apples to oranges comparing DE to Franklin halves.  Franklin half is a "collector" coin overwhelmingly owned by moderate budget collectors and also available to some extent in (original) rolls even now.  I'd describe it mostly as a bullion coin even though it's not priced as one.  It's really common in all but the highest TPG eligible grades or with the FBL attribution.  There must be in the vicinity of 10,000 (at least) eligible for an MS-66 for every date.  Certainly 10,000s as "gem" or MS-65.  No key dates either.

No different for most other 1933-1964 US coins and some 1965-1998 too.

On 6/21/2023 at 12:55 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If you believe the majority of slab-worthy coins are NOT graded, then where are they ?  You have to believe there are large numbers and the amount of mini-hoards we find over time simply don't equate to millions of ungraded worthy coins as opposed to a circulated worn coin that is at best in the AU category unless it's a key/rare date.

What's your definition of "slab worthy"?

Is it any coin where the incremental value in a holder exceeds the cost of grading it?  Coins above some minimum value?  Something else?

On 6/20/2023 at 2:54 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

He says 30% graded ?  When did he say it ?

I didn't provide a %.  The article was written within the last five years (I think) but cannot remember exactly when.  Mr. Stack's comment was in a post in reply to Garret's Coin Week Article.  Neither of them provided an estimated percent. 

On 6/20/2023 at 1:46 PM, zadok said:

...there is more to the "collecting/investing" in morgans than just the collector versus the investor aspect...while i agree with ur opinion that the series as a whole is common n not rare in any respect n that its over marketized, there is that aspect very similar to an over priced stock market where everyone wants a prospective piece of the pie...n will continue to do so until it collapses, much like the crypto speculation....

Yes, collectors will "overpay" when they have the expectation of getting most of their money back.

On 6/20/2023 at 1:46 PM, zadok said:

...basically u n i collect in very similar approaches, except i never factor in future marketability in my purchase decisions....

I would possibly have a different view if I didn't have to work to generate my coin budget.

I recently bought two multi-coin Peru pillar lots.  Both are probably money losers, but I can live with that.  One has the 1766 1R with a mintage of 168200 but I only know of three or four, including mine.  Yonaka's plate coin (only one in his survey) and Sellschopp (holed) and/or Patterson had one.  Mine looks VG (probably details) but it's actually a decent coin (better than the others) considering the scarcity.  It's been cleaned but it isn't holed or otherwise damaged.  The other lot has a 1763 1/2R that I grade XF-AU but needs some clean up.

On 6/20/2023 at 2:29 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Saw an article by someone -- Doug Winter ? -- that said the estimate was about 70% of the ones worth grading for classic coins and/or Double Eagles and other gold coins.

Doug Winter deals in gold, not coins (even US coins) generally.  Jeff Garret has stated the same inference in a Coin Week Aritlcle.  I'll go with the late Harvey Stack who says the opposite.

Since there are far more financially motivated classic US gold buyers and the prices are (much) higher, the proportion in a TPG holder should be (much) higher too.

On 6/20/2023 at 2:28 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I am referencing quantities that would COLLAPSE the price, not depress it or act like a headwind (i.e., the MCMVII's coming from Europe).

This is more about demand than supply.  Prices are set at the margin and only a very low proportion of the supply for most coins is available for sale at any time or in close proximity.

Due to this factor, it's going to take a much higher proportion liquidating their collections or dumping their "change jars" to cause a "collapse", though I do expect a longer-term relative decline/underperformance for most US coinage due to demographic (cultural) reasons.

Anyone who buys the most relatively overpriced for the supply coins while knowing anything about what they bought knows these coins aren't even close to scarce.

On 6/20/2023 at 11:42 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Most classics have been submitted or quantified in the population census.  It's moderns which haven't been graded yet or broken out of sets or are in the pipeline and can still achieve a high-grade that reduces ultra-scarcity.

Not necessarily.

On 6/19/2023 at 11:15 PM, VKurtB said:

I strongly suspect that it might come up in one class -  “Collecting and Investing in Morgan Dollars: A Comprehensive Approach”. 

That's because the majority of demand for the series probably comes from non-collectors.  Most of the coins are far too common where the actual collector base buying it as a collectible is large enough to support the price level.  The most common Morgan dollars are bullion coins and by common, I'm not referring to a specific date/grade combination since there is no practical difference.

On 6/19/2023 at 11:15 PM, VKurtB said:

One of the instructors, John Baumgart, sat next to me on the shuttle from COS airport. Our approach to this hobby could not be more diametrically opposite. He could not imaging buying ANY coin he would not resell. I can scarcely imagine buying any coin I WOULD plan on reselling. The same coin in three different hands can be 1) inventory, 2) a temporary investment, or 3) a valued quasi-family-member. I’m a big ol’ 3. 

This is the same reason I have stopped buying coins I used to buy and will unlikely ever expand my interests more than minimally.  I'm not interested in sinking unrecoverable funds into coins with limited or poor marketability when I don't even find it interesting, not when it requires a time trade-off.  It was one thing 20+ years ago when the coins were nominally priced and I could treat it as a moderate consumption expense but another thing entirely now.  An example is that Mexican crown I paid $45 for in 1998.  More recently, it's sold for $700 to $1000.  (No different for a larger number of currently much lower priced coins.)

That's insane.  The coin isn't remotely interesting enough and only financialization and marketing explain this price.

On 6/14/2023 at 1:03 PM, VKurtB said:

Do you ever think about why?

Yes, regularly.

This is the theme in many of my posts when it comes to prices.

The 31-S is more overpriced for the relative scarcity.  It might have gained more value over the last few decades (don't know) but it's selling for less (adjusted for price changes than it did in 1965, noticeably.

It's a coin that should be worth a few dollars at most in a grade like MS-63.

In your example of the 1968 proof set, it's going to cost you $19 per coin ($95 for the set) in grading fees, plus $35 return shipping, plus a handling fee of $10, plus whatever it costs you to mail the coins to NGC.  That's in the vicinity of $150.

You'd probably have to receive minimum grades of "68" as a cameo/ultra cameo to break even or make it worthwhile financially, if that's why you are doing it.  This is a really common set and so are the individual coins, even in the highest grades.

If you want a graded set, you should buy one already graded and sell the one you have.  It will be cheaper, unless you want all the coins as a "68" or "69" with the cameo designation.  Maybe then it isn't, maybe.

On 6/3/2023 at 12:40 PM, VKurtB said:

Also the Saddle Ridge hoard. It’s all about the marketing, the hype. Including the special slab labels. /nearly fatal eye roll

Same to some extent for Spanish colonial shipwreck coins.  In this instance, also glamorizing "pirate treasure", with some of these recoveries from a later period.

On 6/2/2023 at 9:41 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

For Liberty Head DEs, low mintage = low survival rate = low condition rarity.....for most years.  Outside of a few coins with lots of survivors, lots more LH's are condition rarity than for Saints.

The hysteria surrounding Carson City's has also led to skyrocketing prices for those coins and dragged up lots of other LH's.

There are only a few with actually low mintages.  The mintages mostly appear low by (somewhat) contemporary standards.  Sure, a few thousand or somewhat above it is low.  Tens of thousands such as for the 01-S quarter is not low.  72,000 isn't a small number; it's large.  (Try counting it.)  Same idea for my primary interest which is from the 18th century.

I agree the survival rates are often low and more so in a specific quality.  There also aren't that many actual collectors of this coinage, not what I would call actual collectors.  The primary difference between "collecting" now and recently versus the earlier periods you cited is almost certainly actually predominantly financially motivated buying for "investment". 

It's mostly the same as I told you before.  Recent collectors in their "sophistication" didn't miraculously discover the merits of this coinage through a collective epiphany.  The metal price is a lot higher but prior collectors also didn't care about quality differences reflected in TPG labels.  If so many of them somehow thought that 20th century key dates were "scarce" or "rare" (with much) higher mintages, they obviously knew these coins are a lot scarcer.  But without financially motivated buying, there weren't enough affluent collectors who cared.  The more expensive 20th century "key" dates weren't cheap by 1965.  The price differences were just much narrower due to what I am telling you.

CC coinage?  Yes, all the low(er) mintage coins are a lot more expensive now, not just gold.  Look at the Liberty Seated denominations.  It's also similar for "C" and "D" gold, somewhat at least.  Subjectively, I'd attribute this to more interest in actual collecting, as opposed to simply because of a low mintage and a number on a label.  It's the "history" connection.

On 5/25/2023 at 12:53 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

With the internet today, it seems finders of hoards are petrified of price discovery.

 

The overwhelming majority of coins are common or very common.  This includes US "key dates" and supposedly ""low mintage" coins.  "Low mintage" is almost always only low relatively, not actually low, not when the survival rate is "noticeable".

Very few coins have a high enough collector (as opposed to financially motivated buyer) preference to support "high" prices with a "noticeable" supply increase.

Look at the most widely collected US 20th century key dates.  There are in the vicinity of a dozen.  It varies by coin and specific quality but generically, the only reason these coins sell for current and prior prices is due to a reputational scarcity, the perception of scarcity and not an actual one since these coins can be bought in practically any grade in multiple any day of the week.  The buyers are mostly willing to pay the current market price under the assumption they can get most of their money back at resale, not because they actually like the coins that much.  This is an inference but an obvious one, for any coin of "meaningful" value that can be bought on demand.

Someone can also make the same claim for ancients with known hoards (like the Julius Caesar portrait with the Elephant reverse), except that it's my assumption that it actually has a noticeably higher collector preference due to a "history" affinity.  These coins are certainly a lot more common than those I collect but demand trumps scarcity every time.

I've been a collector most of my life but I'm not sure I'd make a good dealer.  First, I'd need to learn to grade better.  Second, I'd probably overpay at least at first on less desirable coins, not offer enough on good coins, or both.

It takes time to build a reputation and make contacts.  When South African coinage was my primary interest, I ended up selling most of it through private transactions to obtain more predictable results.  I potentially could have realized more just selling on eBay at the time (2009 and 2010), but knowing these collectors helped since there is so little demand for much of what I had in the US.

Known sellers (like CRO) can also get prices that someone like me cannot.  This also makes a difference in how much to pay and to ask.

On 5/20/2023 at 7:25 PM, VKurtB said:

A spring ANA, such as ATL 2020, is a weak imitation of the August ANA show. It’s like comparing a nice Chevy truck to a Lamborghini, ESPECIALLY regarding world coins. Summer ANA is exceeded only by NYINC in world coins, but not by leaps and bounds. 

Yes, unfortunately.  I haven't been to the World's Fair of Money in a long time.  It's never in a convenient location.

On 5/21/2023 at 11:41 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

So you would have adjusted the nominal face values of the bonds upwards, much as modern day TIPS bonds do ?

I think that would be "fair".

My point in these posts is that claiming a default didn't happen because the nominal value was/can/will be paid is irrelevant.  What matters is the value you get back.  Default doesn't mean you necessarily get zero.

On 5/21/2023 at 10:45 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It only affected foreign central banks.

Interesting Tidbit from the book:  the U.S. government continued to pay for international treaty obligations in gold, so as not to disrupt the apple cart.  Panama Canal lease payments were cited.  Eventually, the gold clauses faded even there and they reached agreement on new annual payment levels that took into account the no-gold policy.

Yes, I know that.  It doesn't change what I told you.

On 5/20/2023 at 11:50 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

1933 was interesting, as a strict interpretation of the Gold Clauses would state that the SCOTUS erred.  I do agree that the argument that the clauses interfered with the implentation of monetary policy is (somewhat) persuasive.  I think FDR and the U.S. Treasury could have worked around revaluing gold to $35 an ounce.  I went into the book feeling 100% sure that the abrogation was wrong.  I still think it -- but I understand where FDR and his crew were coming from in early-1933.  You wonder if they did nothing if the nadir of The Depression had already passed anyway and the natural healing of the economy would have improved things without the monetary and fiscal gyrations).

I do wonder if the revaluation of bond face values to 1.69x face value ($35/$20.67) was so harmful, why more amicus curiae briefs weren't submitted by the $100 billion in private bond issuers protesting the hardship.  Maybe it would have been difficult but they realized they made a losing bet and had to pay up.  Or maybe they even entered the contracts thinking that if gold moved up it would revalue to $22 or $25, not all the way to $35 an ounce.  I guess the Civil War experience didn't teach them. 

It get why it happened.  It doesn't change anything.

On 5/20/2023 at 11:50 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

As for 1971.....after 1933 and the 1968 adjustments and the talk of gold runs, nobody should have been surprised.  Fixed exchange rates simply are difficult to adhere to.  External adjustments via inflation and exchange rates are easier to correct exogenous shocks than an internal adjustment via falling real prices or wages.

This is a much clearer default.  At least in 1933, the $20 someone got immediately after the executive order was worth the same.  Not so in 1971.

On 5/20/2023 at 3:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Legal mumbo-jumbo comes into play.  I'm not familiar with the "default" of 1979, clue me/us in.

The Civil War and 1933 instances were discussed at length in the book.  I presume 1814 was a hangover from the War of 1812.  1971 was mostly for foreign institutions since American citizens weren't really on the gold standard and couldn't exchange paper for gold.

Claiming 1933 and 1971 wasn't a form of default is using form over substance.

It's a pretense.  

On 5/20/2023 at 3:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's tough to run a gold standard fixed exchange regimen.  I

True, still doesn't change whether it was or wasn't one.  Claiming it is one is just contrary to the personal preference of those who think it shouldn't be considered one.