World Colonial

On 3/24/2023 at 9:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Which commodities ?  Many are up, too....especially PMs.

Recently, yes.  Not compared to gold's increase since the 60's or 70'.

On 3/24/2023 at 9:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The traditional gold/silver ratio of 16:1 dating back to the 1800's hasn't really worked in decades.  So you can't use it as a rule of relative valuation IMO.

My comment has nothing to do with that.  The 16:1 ratio was an arbitrary invention of government.  I've made that abundantly clear in my prior posts. 

I've also contradicted silver advocates who use this as a rationalization for silver's underperformance, where it's supposedly manipulated.  My claim is that it's primarily if not entirely due to market perception of silver as a monetary substitute where it is clear it isn't viewed as it was previously.

This "explains" it.  It doesn't change that gold is historically relatively overpriced, as nobody really needs either.  It's not a necessity, like food commodities or energy.

On 3/24/2023 at 9:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I've never seen a linkage between gold and housing prices.  Might as well compare gasoline, too.  Or large-screen HDTVs.   They are 1/10th the price of 25 years ago.....you just can't compare all kinds of prices.

Yes, you can.  That's exactly my claim.  The purpose of money isn't to acquire other forms of money, but real goods and services.  It's a storage of purchasing power, not an end in itself.  You are using the same rationalization silver bulls used when its price was in a bubble.  They claimed it wasn't overpriced because it wasn't expensive vs. gold or permanently depreciating fiat currency.

The reason you haven't seen a linkage (except to USD, another FX, or silver) is because practically everyone ignores it.  They commit the same logical fallacy I just described to you.

Claiming otherwise is nonsensical.

On 3/24/2023 at 9:49 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Do you think it is more likely that in 2030...assuming we are all still here ....that gold is closer to $3,000 or $1,200 ?  I'm pretty sure it will be the former.

JMHO.

Looks like it's about to break out but no, I don't think this is a repeat of the 70's.  That's what I keep reading in many sources for economic conditions generally.  It's entirely possible for it to hit both prices and end up somewhere else but I don't think it will end up lower than $1200 in 2030, presumably higher.

The problem with the current and recent financial and economic environment is that due to government mismanagement, most everyone is forced to become a speculator to preserve their purchasing power and living standards, whether they want to do this or not.

Guess wrong enough and you lose big.

That's what's in store for most people.  They are going to lose big.

On 3/23/2023 at 11:32 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It's at the levels it was at first in 2011-12.  Back then, it was up 6-fold in 10 years -- now THAT was overvalued. 

Basically, we have traded sideways for a decade.  I hardly call that overvalued, though withour ZIRP the opportunity cost has increased.

I would not "load up" on gold or PMs relative to bonds (OK) or stocks (need to go 15% lower) but it's going higher from here over the next 5-7 years. 

The next $1,000 is UP !!! 

Compare it historically versus other commodities, it's not close to cheap. I've told you this before.

I haven't looked in a while, but others have not moved up enough to create "reasonable" relative value, nowhere near it.  I'm not a silver "bug" but gold is expensive vs. silver, even though I explain it by a change in the monetary perception.

No price is "reasonable" in isolation.  That makes no sense at all. 

Median priced home in the US is about 180oz (somewhere around here) now which is "low" vs. 2011 and especially 1980, but housing is in its own unprecedented bubble.  Never been worse in history.  If gold increases 50% to $3000 and housing loses 30% (which it should minimum because it's not even close to affordable except at artificially low rates), that's about 100X ratio, back in nosed bleed territory, again.

Yes, I think it's "breaking out" but for those who want to preserve wealth longer term, nothing is a hold "forever", not gold, not stocks, and not real estate.

I'm expecting gold to lose substantial relative value during my lifetime.  If it happens, that it might not be or probably won't be in fiat currency won't change that those who have a lot of their wealth in it will still be much poorer.

Wrong about at least some of the Capped Head quarter eagles.  Collectors Corner has five each of the 1830 and 1832, two of the 1831, plus several other dates.  Lists most other early gold up to 1807, in various grades including MS.  Lists 1813, 1814, 1818, and 1834 half eagle.

On 3/23/2023 at 3:10 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why cheaper and why "later" ?  

Long-term, demand is up as 2 billion people escape from poverty to the middle-class by 2035...and another billion move from subistence living to low-income and middle-class.

Gold is not historically cheap.  It's expensive.  It's primarily a reflection of loose credit conditions and yes, currency mismanagement.

But look at the relative value, especially versus other tangible goods.  Outside of temporary bubble conditions (like 1980 and 2011), I don't believe it's going to maintain such inflated relative value.  In 2011, the median priced home was worth less than 100oz. 

Yes, looks like gold is breaking out.  I still expect it to be cheaper later but "later' will take longer.

On 3/23/2023 at 11:26 AM, samclemen3991 said:

I guess I have a different take on this question.  To me there is no such thing as a COMMON date early gold or silver coin.  I would venture to guess that the vast majority of collectors have never seen a coin from 1797 or some other such early federal date.  I know I haven't.

There is a difference between scarce and hard to buy.

No, none of the early US gold coins (1834 and earlier) are common, but a noticeable percentage aren't hard to buy as a date, only in a specific quality or as a die variety.  Some of the early silver I'd consider common, where it's a Judd scale R-1 with 1250+ available.

"Hard to buy" isn't absolute, but no coin that can be bought at any time can be described as hard to buy or really scarce.  Both "scarce" and "common" are relative.

The primary reason most US coins aren't that hard to buy is the price and second, it's advertised more prominently versus non-US coinage where anyone who is interested in finding it can do so.

With a series like Seated quarters, I'm not aware it's scarcer versus any early gold coin-for-coin, but the much lower prices mean the lower quality coins aren't as well publicized.  I've looked at the survival estimates in Coin Facts, and some given the mintages seem too low.  That's also almost certainly a factor for the non-US series I primarily collect, where I have used equivalent Liberty Seated denominations as a basis of comparison.

What I am describing is part (not all) of the reason for the discrepancy with your personal experience.  Personal experience is only partly representative.

I think several are interpreting the OP different than I am.

"But, what are the coins that have the most scarcity as a series (this is to say that even the "common dates" are scarce)?

Using the verbiage in bold above, that's why I chose the Capped Head half eagle.  There are one-year types and short year series (like the 1796-1797) that are somewhat scarce or somewhat hard to buy, but from all other series, only a low proportion or very few of the dates are actually hard to buy, unless the criteria is defined by quality or some specialization such as a die variety where there is nothing unusual about it.

Only a low proportion of US coins are hard to buy primarily due to the price, but also the communication network advertising available inventory: eBay, auctions like Heritage, Certified Coin Exchange, etc.  The proportion which isn't available right now and all the time is probably below 5% of all Federal circulation strikes and proofs since 1793.  Noticeably lower within six months or one year.

I look at a variety of US coins intermittently.  That's how I know most are available.  As one example, on one occasion, I found all Liberty Seated dime proofs from 1856 to 1891 on eBay the same day though I did have to go to Collector's Corner for a graded 1862.  That's typically thought of as a (somewhat) difficult series, but it isn't except for the earliest dates. 

It's not really that much different for most others.  The Capped Head half eagle is the only series (of any length) to my knowledge where the majority of date/MM are both scarce and hard to buy.  Without looking, I'd only expect to find the 1813 and possibly 1814, 1818 and 1820, though I might have one of those dates wrong.

On 3/22/2023 at 3:40 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Go to Mint State and many series are tough to get.

There is no significance to that, especially since gold coinage exists in above average quality most of the time.

Using this criterion, a noticeable proportion of non-US coinage is scarce or rare.

I use "collectible" quality as a middle ground, meaning above dreck in the quality most collectors of the series will accept but below the narrow quality used by US collectors.

Hardest US series to complete is the Capped Head half eagle (1813-1834).  All but the 1813 are at least legitimately scarce.

Capped Head quarter eagle only has a few dates but also scarce.

As a series in US coinage, that's it meeting your definition, unless we are getting into condition scarcity which mostly isn't an actual scarcity.

What most US collectors consider scarce or hard to buy isn't.  Outside of Saints and Indian Head eagles which have a low proportion of scarce/rare/"key" dates, every series from the Barber coinage forward either can or likely can be bought in one day in "high" quality.  A very few dates (like the 1895-O dime) might not be available today, but that's all. Those that aren't available now almost certainly will be tomorrow, next week, or in a few months.  Same for Morgan dollars, capped bust halves, and capped bust half dimes.  Same for the proofs, excluding capped bust.

Draped Bust/SE half isn't hard to buy.  One of the two dates (1797 I think) seems to be a harder than the other, but it's always been available as a type in at least XF when I have checked.

On 3/18/2023 at 2:49 PM, powermad5000 said:

I can only fathom that the percentage of ASE's coming out of the Mint that qualify for the 70 grade are a small percentage of the total made, so they have the public chasing after value that isn't really there.

Neither the pct. or number are low, not even on the non-proof at NGC.  70's are really common.  Lower on the earliest dates but still not a low number.

My understanding is that most volume is from bulk submitters who make their money on the lower proportion of 70's and either lose money or not much profit on the 69's.

But the key is bulk submitter to allocate shipping and get the discounted fee.

Above my budget, but no interest in it anyway.

On 3/14/2023 at 12:41 PM, Zebo said:

Wrong venue for sure (SA), but if you set a reserve, you would not have sold them. So it depends whether you want to sell, or hold out for a price you agree with.

Low priced coins, a few that should have been mid-priced.  Proofs did ok, but not the circulation strikes.  I didn't want to bother with eBay.  I should have just kept the scarcer ones for a better day.  Price crash and increased shipping costs make it uneconomical to sell most of these to a SA buyer.

Catch-22

On 3/14/2023 at 10:14 AM, Zebo said:

Most of the time a reserve hurts you unless you have very high value coins. There is an extra charge, see the GC site, for reserves and it sometimes inhibits the amount of bids. Also - if the coin does not sell, then you have to wait longer for a payout.

You know this but the consigner needs to know the market for what they are selling.  This thread is about widely collected US coins, so I wouldn't worry about it selling noticeably (proportionately) below "market", though it can still be a wide range.

The two times I sold through them was mostly South Africa Union, Bolivia, and a few pillars I no longer wanted.  The South African coinage did poorly while I was mostly satisfied with the other results.  However, I don't know or necessarily believe it was the venue for the SA coinage, probably mostly that there are virtually no buyers "at market" outside of SA. 

I didn't set a reserve on any of it.

On 3/13/2023 at 10:30 AM, VKurtB said:

Here’s my take on the online community. It’s not the same hobby as the show going hobby. It’s just fundamentally different. And the intersection of the two divisions is really kind of small. How many ANA Committee members are on here? Me and who else? Small intersection set - tiny. How many people on here do competitive EXHIBITS? I have, but only 3 times. How many of the record number of ANA Board of Governors candidates have accounts here, ATS, or at CT? None that I know of. How many in here have ever been to an ANA banquet? It’s just a hugely bifurcated hobby, if not trifurcated or worse. There are over 27,000 ANA members. How many do this site? Kim Kiick, ANA Executive Director, never HEARD OF this discussion board. 

The difference between you and most other collectors is that by your own posts, the ANA and coin clubs are an important part of your social life.  That's only true for a very low minority of collectors, less than the number of ANA members.  Maybe a lot less.

I've discussed this with you before and I consider my perception of this subject to be more or less the norm.  My coin budget is for coins, not to pay to travel and spend time with people I don't even want to be with or aren't important to me.  Same thing for my vacation time.  I can't go anywhere now due to personal reasons but when I could, I used all my vacation time to visit family in other countries.

I'd consider going to coin shows including the ANA, but the only one which is relatively convenient to me is FUN which I will eventually go to, probably once.  There isn't much point for me to go to any coin show because of the very low probability I will find anything I really want to buy.  For most collectors, there is no need to travel any distance because the coins they collect are common.

As for ANA membership, doesn't really have anything to do with what I have collected since 1998 and won't in the future either.  I was a member for a few years, but it I don't see a reason to be one now.  It's more expensive, but if I was going to support a numismatic organization, it will probably be the ANS.  I do intend to go to NYC to view the parts of the collection of interest to me, firstly pillar subsidiary mints.  Hopefully during the NYINC.

On 3/13/2023 at 4:58 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Ive thought about it . Several of the coins I was looking to sell are in the $40 to $50 range. 

I have one coin listed on the BST ATS, but by now it's buried behind numerous other listings.  

Depending upon the quality you are trying to sell and how aggressively you price it, might be a good option.  Mine is priced within the range of prior Stack's and Heritage auctions.

Another factor is that if you don't post there, no one will know you.  I've posted there for a few years but have bought only once from a member, someone I'd consider a vest pocket dealer.  Sold once too to a "lurker" but no one else will know or care about that.

Brad Yonaka has written a reference covering die varieties for all the pillar coinage mints (all denominations) and Mexico portrait, all denominations.  I own all three books.

I don't collect any portrait coinage but would still like to have one for the other mints, if he ever writes it.  The Mexico reference includes the Lion & Castle quarter real which I do collect.  This is my avatar coin.

On 3/11/2023 at 4:28 PM, RWB said:

But since no "branch Mint" had the equipment to make a proof, they have a legitimate population of -0-

Fair enough, I've also heard these called specimens or something like it.

All circulating Morgan's are common, except by TPG grade.  The Philadelphia proofs are moderately scarce.  The branch mint proofs are legitimately rare.

On 3/7/2023 at 5:08 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

CAC is the only sticker that matters across all series.  Eagle Eye is good for Eagle and Indian cents, but still does not pull any weight.  All other stickers (MAC, Sight White, QA, PQ, Almost full Split Bands, Split Beak...etc.) are just junk.

Agree

I don't own or collect FE cents or IHC, but at least Rick Snow might make an offer on one he stickered that reflects market.  The only other two I've seen are Wings (for world coinage) and MAC who seem to sticker any series.

Given the prices I've seen MAC ask on eBay, I can't imagine they would ever make a strong offer compared to their ask.  I don't know if Wings stickers and sells their own coins.  I've only seen others sell it.

On 3/9/2023 at 10:41 PM, zadok said:

.i imagine that all those ANA members (i am one) n non-members who attend those talks dont depart changing their minds bout how they collect n what they collect, most or many just go listen see if any new ideas interest them n then modify those to their needs n desires

This

I don't believe more than a very low percentage care what others think about the coins they collect, except to the extent it impacts resale value.  I've read posts in the past disputing this (in particular from one poster who will remain nameless) but collecting is too anonymous where we don't have to interact with dealers or other collectors if we choose.  It's been that way for 20 years now, or more.

On 3/9/2023 at 10:41 PM, zadok said:

im sure there r probably more collectors that have never read anything ANA has published than those that have

Agree

I don't collect US coins.  The most relevant to me is probably counterfeit detection and second, grading somewhat.  I don't see that anything else about the ANA really has anything to do with my collecting.

I also don't see that the ANA is relevant to most collectors because of what they collect either and their coin budgets.  It's presumably the equivalent to a recreational consumption expense to them.

On 3/8/2023 at 3:07 PM, Sandon said:

 The increasing values for classic U.S. coins and the influx of Chinese and other counterfeits have also contributed to the increased use of third-party grading. For the same reason, it's getting harder and harder to find decent uncertified coins of any real value.

For US coins but not otherwise.  Most the coins in my primary collection are graded and most I bought graded, but I have a list I'd be interested in buying given the opportunity and the vast majority in it are not graded.  These are from the few somewhat prominent collections which sold in 1988, 1991, and 1996.

I also don't consider the risk of fakes that high with what I collect.  It's not that I am so good at detecting it, it's that counterfeiters have a much higher incentive to fake something, practically anything else.

The most profitable counterfeiting is either a relatively low number of valuable coins (like the HR Saint) or a large number of very common but still meaningfully valued coins, like US key dates, Morgan dollars, Spanish cobs, Sovereigns, and pillar dollars.  It's not very profitable to fake a very small number of moderate to low priced coins, my series.  With many of these coins, even one could be suspicious.

On 3/8/2023 at 12:38 PM, Simple Collector said:

In our markets today I am very happy to have the option of certifying services available for many reasons including authentication, grading and packaging to name just a few. In addition, certified coins are valued higher, sell easier at higher prices and there is a reasonable confidence that the coins are not counterfeit.

Authentication isn't much of an issue for most coins, and to the extent it's a bigger issue now, it's substantially due to the inflated price level associated with TPG.  I know counterfeiting is more widespread and modern technology makes it easier, but counterfeiters don't randomly (mass) counterfeit anything.  That's why US coins are more heavily counterfeited than others.

The number on the label is marketing which does make the coins more liquid, but the inflated price level once again makes this a circular problem.

Up to 2010, I'd sell coins intermittently on eBay, both graded and not.  From what I can see, liquidity has collapsed in that venue, and it used to be the best option for most collectors.  This is a secondary reason I won't spend any "noticeable" money on "side collections" or random coin purchases where I might have in the past.

On 3/7/2023 at 3:07 PM, VKurtB said:

The answer is ONE.  Cliff Mishler owns exactly ONE slabbed coin. Think about that. Now, talk to me about how important Registry Sets are. 

To provide a little more context, what's the scale of his collection?

Given who he is and how long he's been associated with coin collecting, I'm assuming it covers a wide range of US series and maybe world coinage too.

On 3/7/2023 at 11:10 AM, VKurtB said:

Somehow, F.U.N. survives it twice a year. But, both from a Board AND a paid staff level, there is virtually no way we’ll ever see another ANA show east of the Appalachians. Pittsburgh IS east for the ANA. The last time they sent out RFP’s for future shows, only these cities even bid: Pittsburgh, Rosemont, Portland, Denver, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City. Nowhere else even wanted us to come to their city. 

I went the last three times in Atlanta: 2006, 2013, and 2020.  First coin show I went to was the Atlanta ANA in 1987.  Guess I am not going back, unless I happen to be there for another reason.  I was in NYC for the 2002 while on assignment for work.

On 3/2/2023 at 7:36 PM, Coinbuf said:

MAC stickers are a joke (imo) and are completely meaningless to me.   CAC on the other hand caries weight and has meaning both to myself and to the coin marketplace as a whole.   At the end of the day it is up to each collector to decide what, if any, value the opinion behind the sticker is worth to them.

CAC are market makers in the coins they sticker.  Never heard MAC does that.

I see plenty of MAC stickered coins on eBay for South Africa Union (1923-1960) and Republic of South Africa (RSA).  Usually, the higher or highest graded Union proofs from the more common dates and same for RSA proofs and circulation strikes, with all of the latter common.  I think they are the seller too which makes them a "self-slabber" or this case, a self-sticker-er. (Is that even a word?)

They did sell a 1931 Union shilling (one of the two XF-45) and I think someone bought it.  It's legitimately scarce overall and rare in this grade.

Otherwise, the rest of these listings are either contributing to an on-line museum or will "bury" the buyer.