World Colonial

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It was a big show of some kind, somewhere around 2010 to my recollection but might have been earlier. I lived there from late 2001 to mid-2011 with a gap over parts of 2004-2005.

I used to live in Phonex metro. I went to the ANA once but do not remember the year. ANA was also the last show I went to, 2020 in Atlanta. To the extent I am able to go in the future, I am going to make sure I attend the first day which in ATL I think was Thursday. Need to make sure I am there at the opening to have the best chance to find what I really want before anyone else.

Sorry. no. A page in one my reference books is coming out too. I'd like to fix it also if there is a way to do it. It's a soft cover.

No, now. $15K, $20K, $30K was a lot of money at the time. It's a lot more than indicated by the change in the CPI or cost of living because of asset inflation.

I don't have my 1963 or 1965 Red Books with me now. To my knowledge, the primary difference between now and then is the price inflation from TPG and specialization. There has been no preference change between US series, contrary to what I've read inferred numerous times.

"Middle management" to me in a company of that size is probably $500K.

1956 must be right. I think Farouk was deposed in 1954. Fortunately, few coins sold for more than $500 or so at the time. By 1965, to my recollection, the 1916-D Mercury dime already listed for $1000 in UNC in the Red Book.

Those amounts were one heck of a lot of money at the time, more than appears inflation adjusted because of the exponential rise in asset prices since then. You may remember my prior post where I wrote that the home my mother grew up in sold for $60K in 1962 or 1963. 4BR 3000 SQFT on six acres then I think (nine prior to eminent domain to build I-75) in zip code 30327, still one of the most expensive zip codes in the southeast. I assume he made a "middle management" income by today's standards. Maybe somewhat less due to his lifestyle.

I think this is mostly myth. Are you familiar with the economics of the time? According to Lundberg's "The Rich and the Super Rich" published in 1964, median household income was something like $3,000 or $4,000. He included different dates (like 1958 to maybe 1962) so it's not exactly consistent but you get the idea. He also specifically states that the top 1.6% of all US households had a net worth of $60,000+. This also somewhere around 1960. Sandon's post states that he bought most of his coins prior to 1970, which makes sense considering that this preceded the financialization of "collecting". Additionally, unless he received a noticeable inheritance for the time, there is no conceivable way he could have spent anywhere near $100K (even pro-rated) with a typical middle-class job. The accounts I have read stated he mortgaged his house to attend and buy from the Farouk auction in Egypt, but there was no housing bubble equity for him to access in 1954, even if it appreciated noticeably. Besides, airfares and international travel was presumably "stupidly" expensive by current standards, especially adjusted for inflation. This means that he must have been relatively high-income for the time and that this "regular guy" perception has to mostly be myth.

I guess it must be the uneven wear on the obverse accounting for the grade. All I can say is, if I ever buy one of the type, I hope I can find a VF-35 like yours.

My recollection is that he spent about $100,000 on his collection which later sold for $30MM. I also read that he worked at Eastman Kodak. I don't know his positions, but don't assume he was just some average white-collar employee. Depending upon the allocation of his outlay over this period, he would have had to be quite well-off (relatively) to spend that kind of money. Remember, we're talking about median household incomes of a few thousand or slightly more over much of this period. I read that he mortgaged his house to attend the 1954 Farouk auction, but it would have taken a lot more than that to spend $100K for a run-of-the-mill upper middle-class collector. No, it didn't hurt that he bought most of it before the beginning of financialization.

There are tens of millions of proof SQ. How many MPL? Somewhere around 20,000? It's also been over a century since the last one was struck and all of them are worth real money while proof SQ isn't worth much of anything. Someone might have intentionally spent the proof SQ.

Could be, but it's not one I collect.

I'm not proficient at identifying Lincoln proofs of this period (1909-1916) but your coin doesn't look like a proof to me. It looks like a lightly circulated circulation strike, an AU. If you really have what you think, send it in for grading but I don't think you will like the result.

That's a really nice one for the type. I'm going to say low AU now (maybe AU-50 or AU-53), though there appears to be noticeable wear on the portrait hair. Late 90s, something like XF-40. It's also an example of what's out there previously not in a TPG holder.

Everything any government does always makes sense once anyone accepts that it's the ultimate criminal organization. It's just that its activities are usually declared "legal".

Given the TPG population counts, most of both have to be owned by stacker type collectors or "investors". Last I checked, the 1904 alone had 300,000 or so graded. Multiple Saints are in the six figures. Quite a few more in the five figures. Maybe something like 10% are owned by type collectors, individually. Another noticeable minority as random purchases. Few series collectors of either. It's far too expensive. Must be mostly dealer to dealer buying then. Each national show I have attended (all but one ANA) had a "budget" section where I recall the inventory is mostly below $300 per coin but this seems to be a minority of the tables.

When I was 12 shortly after returning to the US, I was already familiar with all US Mint type coins and some of the others in the Red Book too. I don't think this is typical of most collectors but doubt it's that unusual either. Now, I've learned more about specific US coins within different series from looking at auctions, the TPG data, and PCGS Coin Facts. I don't collect any of it, but this isn't necessary to know something about it.

I might be wrong, but yes, I am saying that. It also depends upon what you mean by "auction companies". I am excluding eBay from this definition, and I infer they easily sell more than all US auction firms (Heritage, Stacks, GC, Legend, Goldberg) combined. Look at Heritage's annual report where they report annual value of prices realized by category. I don't know what it was last year, but a few years ago, it was somewhere around $300MM (or $400MM tops) I believe for US coins. Not sure it included their online marketplace but that's a lot less than auctions. It's not as much as you seem to think. Like as much as one or two mega priced art paintings. I've estimated 2MM "active" US based collectors in the past. Whatever the number, most are recreational hobbyists, not the type buying the coins you read about especially on the PCGS Forum. Heritage still sells a large number of low priced (below $100) coins to my knowledge, but they are trying to move away from this type of consignor with their increased minimum buyer fee of $29. No, I don't think so. I don't think most collectors think in these terms. It's a hobby, not an "investment" to them. You didn't answer, but in a prior reply here, I inferred this has to do with how you started collecting and the types of coins you buy. Very few collectors proportionately buy the coins you do, except maybe Morgan dollars at the low end. In this thread, I estimated that the majority spend something like $500 or less per year. It's probably less than this on average. $500 per year over decades equal $10,000, $20,000 or more. I don't believe most collectors are spending that much, no way.