World Colonial

Yes, I agree gold and coins are not interchangeable. One is a collectible and seldom "investment". Since this is a coin forum, I was using it as another example of how people use external events to rationalize a forecast all the time. Besides, I consider the relative value of gold to what people buy a lot more relevant, not the USD or fiat currency price.

Culture is more important than every single factor believed by conventional thinkers. This is completely obvious. This is why the US is heading in the wrong direction and why once the asset mania and credit bubble end, the country is going backwards. Yes, I know you and others who disagree with me don't believe it. Central banks are just bad market timers, that's all. Government is the ultimate lagging indicator. Recent central bank buying isn't in and of itself bullish either. Back then, the selling would have been considered a bearish indicator when it was the opposite. The mining deficit was a rationalization used in the 80's by the silver marketers to convince metal bugs to buy it. After all, it makes intuitive sense. Demand was higher than production - for years - so prices should go up, right? Except that it didn't, because that's not how markets work. Prices fell until 2001, a double bottom with 1993, I think. You're making a similar rationalization here. I happen to think gold is heading higher now too, but it's not contingent (at all) on your supposed causal factors. You can take these supposed causal reasons and correlate it to the price of gold, and there is no possibility to demonstrate it makes any difference. It's an assumption. Look at inflation and metal prices. Yes, I know that over a long enough period, it's correlated. Except that with silver, prices are still 50% lower after 43 YEARS. Still gone nowhere (adjusted for price changes) even if bought immediately prior or subsequent to the bubble. Gold prices are higher nominally but anyone who bought in early 1980 is worse off and had a huge opportunity cost on top of it, if they still hold it which most did not. Both ran up after late 2008 in anticipation of much higher (price) inflation which never materialized. Inflation didn't "cause" the price increase. The reason I keep on having these discussions with you is because you can't get past false "fundamental" causality. None of these "fundamentals" ever bought a single share or ounce. Gold is somewhat different than coins because it actually has some use, but US collectors use similar rationalizations to project rising prices for world coins in countries with limited to no history of collecting. I've read this claim, over and over. No amount of affluence will ever make anyone want to buy a single coin because it has nothing to do with it. Some level of affluence is a necessary precondition, but it has no predictive value, at all. In a country like China which is most often used, it's buying coins as "investments" and TPG primarily driving the higher price level. Same as the US starting in the early 70's and then in '86 with TPG. Same as South Africa on a much smaller scale leading up to the YE 2011 peak. It's not affluence which matters, it's the cultural mindset behind financially motivated buying. No, the much higher prices aren't due to subsequent generations of collectors finding the coinage so interesting, never mind labels on plastic holders or in the US, CAC stickers. In China or anywhere else, it's not like there weren't already plenty of people with enough (fake) wealth to push prices much higher in such pitifully small markets. This is true in every country on the planet, literally. In most countries, one or a handful of moderately affluent people could literally buy every single "investment" type coin because the supply and combined market value is so nominal.

Good luck with that. Totally different culture. Culture is the primary driver of economic performance, not the claptrap published in economic textbooks or financial media. This is self-evident in the visible prosperity between countries and regions within countries now. Lack of supposed affluence doesn't explain the price of gold or anything else. It's simply another rationalization, whether the price increases or not. It's not like there aren't plenty of people who can't buy more gold now. It's the same type of argument I read decades ago why silver should increase due to a production shortage. It's also the same rationalization behind the belief of so many US based collectors why world coin prices are supposedly set to explode, only at a smaller scale. P.S.: Yes, per my prior post, still agree gold looks like it is about to "break out".

That's basically breaking even in real money. It's also worth a fraction of what it was worth when it was issued in the 1930's or earlier. $1000 was a lot of money then.

I am specifically referring to high FV notes, $500 and up. The premium on most of these now isn't enough to make up for the difference in the change in purchasing power. I'm not sure it matters to you, but it would to me if I were a buyer. $1700-$2000 is a lot of money for such common currency. No way I'd buy something as common as these notes at this price and have it lose a high percentage of it's true (no, not nominal value) while I own it. It's not that interesting. I presume this doesn't matter to Currency Note collectors who buy it, but then, I'm not one of them. I'm somewhat aware of what you stated for lower denominations. Yes, big increases on many especially on high grades. I used to look at older South Africa currency. It's quite expensive in high quality or was.

I understand that. You're describing speculation, buying it to "flip". I'm referring to buying it as a "hold" for someone's collection. How do the prices you cite compare to the purchasing power of these notes decades ago? That's my point. $1700-$2000 now is worth a fraction of the FV (real value it could buy) when it was issued. Same result if someone bought it when I started collecting coins in 1975. Specific results depend upon the date of issuance and purchase.

Still almost guaranteed to be a money loser longer term. Not familiar with the price history since issuance but all of these are worth a low fraction measured in constant purchasing power. Might have gone up recently due to the massive asset mania.

You bought a $500 or $1000 for $50? That's what I was referencing. I've seen other currency, like the Bison reverse, but this type of paper currency is way too expensive as a sideline collection. I'm not interested in the common cheap stuff. World currency I'd only buy in high grade certified and it's not cheap either.

I just had my submission finalized and it's been shipped today. Once again, a coin I requested for conservation appears to have been dipped "blast white". Do I need to specify not to do this every time? I'll see what the coin looks like when it's returned but I'm guessing it looked better before I submitted it.

No, not without looking it up. I know President Wilson is on the $100K note and I think Grant is also on the $500 or $1000 though probably wrong about that. I was looking at currency lots on Stacks last week where they do have $500s and $1000s available but don't remember who is on it. It would be kind of neat to own one of these bills, but it's a guaranteed financial sinkhole (from currency debasement) and I'd never buy one.

I still carry more folding money than most people, a few hundred usually just in case. I don't carry any change anymore and haven't for years. It's not worth anything. I also avoid paying cash where I will receive change back. I've used change so little the last 10+ years I have limited knowledge of the designs on circulating coins. I know the cent changed in 2009, the nickel in 2004, Sac and Presidential dollars, and recognize some or most of the SQ. Anything else, I have no idea.

I have all the books I need for my primary interest, what's available anyway. I am always looking for auction catalogs that include coins I did not know existed. As for buying coins, more often than not, I usually have to buy it when it becomes available or else lose out.

Here are two I have left over from my South Africa collection. It commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Union of South Africa and is the only Union coin without a monarch portrait. I think I bought these for something like $15 each 15+ years ago. These were struck in proof, circulation strike, and "Special Select" (PL). I'd consider buying cheap world crowns as a side collection now, but these aren't nearly as cheap as before.

Just to make sure I identified the same listing:

I agree it is a stock photo and can't speak to the actual quality. I didn't look at the feedback either, though I should have stated that I assumed the seller had a reason for not selling these in a TPG holder since that's how I've normally seen these sold. What struck me is, "details" or not, 35 with limited to no circulation offered at once. Though I consider this coin quite common and the TPG counts aren't low in MS, I'd expect it to be more difficult to find a mini hoard like this one.

It's #304462675388. I tried to past the link but cannot. Seller has 35 "BU" 1932-d quarters having sold 34. Don't know anything about the seller but nothing unusual about the listing that I can see. I know this coin isn't scarce in high grade, but 35 at once seems unusual.

AU-50 isn't even close to "almost uncirculated". It's actually an XF. I've seen a lot of variation on AU-53 and AU-55.

My thoughts too. That and a crime of opportunity, maybe a partial inside job.

You're presumably surprised because you're used to the mediocrity on US circulating coinage. There is a lot of mediocrity elsewhere too, but not everywhere.

I'll infer it wasn't made public as it's bad PR.

It's mostly about the money. If it's their coins, it's deserved and not gradeflation. If it's someone else's coin, it's someone else's "dreck" holding the value of their coin down.

I own quite a few "older" coins in MS holders, mostly 18th century Spanish colonial pillars from Peru and Mexico. Under technical grading, I infer most and possibly none are actually UNC. There are also much older coins, also in MS holders. I presume somewhere on the coin, there is probably evidence of "handling" over the centuries which if applied universally under market grading, would make grades lower and with it the price level collapse. I don't own any, but read others write in the past of earlier "AU-66" US coins.

If it isn't from actual transactions, the prices are just made up. Sometimes the prices might be (ballpark) accurate by pure coincidence but hardly ever. That's true of Krause and any successor, as no one can possibly keep it up to date, several hundred thousand coins at multiple price points (grade intervals). That's several million, changing regularly. Regularly updated price guides for frequently traded coins are somewhat different, though the value is often coin specific. Also different for (quasi) bullion. For everything else, price guides are a relic from a time when communication limitations limited market transparency. Price guides are mostly obsolete.

I'd gladly pay Krause list for my primary series, especially since my recollection is that the NGC World Price Guide is about the same or unchanged from my 1997 edition. I'm especially looking for that 1752 Peru 4R listed at something like $1000 in XF when it's not even confirmed to exist.