World Colonial

Thanks. Just be careful not to try to collect too much at once, unless you don't mind owning a bunch of random unrelated coins. When I resumed collecting in 1998, I used the US Red Book to price what I could potentially afford for my estimated budget. I put together spreadsheets of several series in various different grades: IHC, Barber nickels, Buffalo nickels, Mercury dimes as examples. I also looked in the 19th and 20th century Krause editions (the prices are totally wrong but didn't know it) to check what existed and which ones I liked. I also priced out South Africa Union and ZAR. I ended up choosing South Africa Union as my primary series, a few type sets (Mexican pillars and Cap & Ray), and a partial US type set (which I never actively pursued). As I started buying coins, I added new ones to my list. I still have one as a secondary collection (Spanish colonial quarter real, my avatar) but eventually, realized I was collecting above my financial capacity. It just depends upon what collection you think you want to have. If I had someone to pass my collection onto like you do, I'd be more active in my secondary collections, but I don't. It's great that you can collect with your son, as it sounds like he is into the hobby and if so, his memories of collecting with you will be a factor in whether he continues to pursue it.

Back then, I was trying to collect above my financial capacity. I'm not sure what I would change if I could choose differently. No way I was going to collect Lincoln Wheat cents or something similar and I had limited access to world coinage. I remember going to Northlake Stamp & Coin and Tucker Coin Center in November 1975 before visiting my step-grandmother's bank. I was with the son of my mom's lifelong friend, and I traded some of my world coinage to him for enough cash to buy an 1898-O Morgan dollar in fine. I couldn't afford to buy Morgans either, but even before viewing my Step-Grandmother's collection, still wasn't interested in cheaper series. The 1898-O cost $6 or $7. I still have too many coins now. I keep a spreadsheet for my TPG coins (slightly over 200) and better ungraded coins (not many). But I also have 4-6 boxes of 2X2 flips with hundreds of other coins I mostly should not have bought. I have no idea how much I paid for this coinage, what it is worth now, or what I am going to do with it later. Undoubtedly, I've spent at least hundreds of dollars on it (probably a lot more) when I could have used that money for a few coins I really want or at least are more liquid and easier to sell to get my money back. This is one reason I don't have additional "side collections". Over a lifetime, you end up buying a bunch of "random" (not totally for me but still) coins that don't fit into your collection, aren't very marketable, and of limited interest. I have one 5X10 SDB for my better stuff but this stuff I am talking about now (including many slabs) fills a small suitcase I store in a closet. I don't hardly ever look at it either because the coins don't interest me much anymore.

I agree that's a factor, but wouldn't the plaintiff have to prove they either did or should have known it? I guess that's a basis of the claim?

Part 2 After this, I started and stopped several times, having other priorities and limited funds. I resumed in 1998 permanently once I started using the internet regularly and finally had sufficient disposable income. My initial primary interest was South Africa Union (since I had lived there in the 70's) along with a few other sets like Bolivia decimal coinage. One of these was also the pillar coinage which is now my primary interest. I switched to pillar coinage as my primary interest around 2010. I had bought it occasionally previously when I could find a coin I wanted. South African coinage was in a bubble at this time and I decided to "cash out" and once I did, to choose another primary interest. This is about all I buy now, Lima and Potosi 1/2 real real, two reales, and four reales; 86 coins covering four denominations

Late to this thread too. I started in 1975 at age 10 when my family was in Bolivia. My aunt had a hoard (not collection) of world coins which I believe she obtained from my father when my parents did a lot of traveling in the 60's. I got my start from her, along with an 1880 Morgan dollar she bought from a plateria (silver shop) and missionaries from the school I attended. When we returned later in the year, my step-grandmother took me to her bank where we spent the morning looking through a 10X10 SDB full of Whitman folders and boxes of 2X2 flips. She had US type back to 1794, though no gold, no silver dollars, none of the early silver (up to 1807) and missing a few others (some of the capped bust and Liberty Seated). She had several hundred capped bust halves, and large cents and mostly complete sets of many (not all) of these denominations in low to mid-circulated grades, but I don't remember specifics. I only saw it once and she wouldn't let me take an inventory. She did give me a few worn early large cents (best was an 1803 VG) and Virginia half penny. That's what led me to trade all my world coinage for a Bust half and buy a few other similar coins later with the limited funds I had. It's also a primary reason I never had an interest in the coins most US collectors have at a young age, or later. After seeing her collection, collecting Lincoln wheat cents or anything like it was uninteresting, even though I had little money. I also hadn't lived in the US much up to this point in life, so US coinage didn't have the same attraction it has for most US collectors.

The answer is easy. When it happens on a large scale, it's due to a mania. This is how people behave during a mania. I assume you've read it in historical counts. The real solution to this situation is to let enough people learn their lesson by eating their losses. Instead, you now have the "industry" calling for regulation which they previously opposed. Crypto is literally nothing. Regulating nothing is plain stupid, but that's what's almost certainly going to be the outcome. It won't prevent people from losing money in the future, even if it doesn't happen under the same circumstances. It won't prevent these people from losing money because when you pay something for nothing, well....you can do the math. Yes, I know that, but that's what I infer is the claim, presumably because they were paid to promote it. I presume this is the entire legal basis of the lawsuit. The celebrities received money and were negligent in (supposedly) not doing due diligence on the "product" they endorsed. If correct, it's trying to "fix stupid". I agree.

I am against crypto regulation for many reasons, but the first is that it confers legitimacy. This is a** covering, plain and simple. In typical fashion, regulators close the barn door after the horses have bolted.

I only took a few law classes at university, back in 1986 and 1987. I know it wasn't comprehensive, but generally to win damages you had to 1) have a contractual relationship with "consideration" 2) suffer a loss and 3) prove the defendant was negligent causing your loss. I know this doesn't cover everything (like libel or slander). Is this right? Seems to me that this is something new which the was just "made up", again. I'm pretty confident no would have won this type of claim 35 years ago. These plaintiffs suffered a loss but blaming an endorser is ridiculous. So, everybody who lost money is going to claim it was because they couldn't help being persuaded by these celebrities that this was such a fantastic "investment"? You can't "fix stupid" and that's what applies here. If anticipating the potential consequences by every insufficiently_thoughtful_person is the legal standard, this country is truly doomed.

Ok, got you.

"Store credit"? I've heard some dealers purportedly agree to buy back coins they sell at "strong" prices (higher than other dealers will pay) but never heard of "store credit". That's the equivalent of expecting to "rent" a coin for free where you get to keep it for a time to admire it and then return it for a full refund. The dealer runs a business not a free perpetual approval service. Why would any seller of coins anywhere do that?

I've read the same thing, but not the legal basis for any of it. I consider it utterly absurd.

Therre is an article on CNBC.com today about supposedly financially knowledgeable people getting caught up in the FTX debacle. I can't find it, but one guy has $600K tied up now. Apparently, it's his life savings, most of it from a home sale earlier this year. His family is living with the in-laws and was intending to use that money to build another. He'll probably end up in divorce court. Collectively, they fell for something too good to be true, in this instance above market deposit rates which they naively believed to be realistic. One reason they gave was backing by well-known celebrities and investors. They should have focused on custodial risk instead.

There is only one motive I can identify. If it isn't the only one, it certainly appears to be the most believable one. It's to get this pocket change into an NGC holder with the right label so that it can be sold as "rare" for a windfall. Why else would anyone care about such trivial minutia?

No, I intended that quote to mean the preponderance of the evidence. Exceptions are exactly that, an exception to how collectors usually act.

Not sure that's really different than most other series, even from US coinage. There are clubs like EAC which I understand tracked this data but it's the exception to my knowledge. Coins not being available prior to hoard discovery is one thing. It means the supply probably wasn't available. Lack of knowledge for the available population is another entirely. There also isn't much point to tracking supply of known very common coins, unless you are referring to above a specific TPG number.

There are different grading standards for different series if that's what you mean. Part of it was how it came "off the press" and part of it is how someone preserved it subsequently. The rarity for these two series almost certainly has not changed noticeably from pre-1986. It's the perception. Traditionally, collectors must have mostly used the mintage records but with Saints and Morgans, many turned out to be hoard coins. These were scarcer in the sense that the coins were not generally available to collectors prior to the discovery.

I understand but it's also a matter of proportionality. You are familiar with that Franklin half which sold for around $150K, right? Or those common late date Mercury dimes which sold for six figures? In the early 70's before coins were widely bought as "investments, those are maybe $10 to $20, somewhat more at most, right? If a buyer paid a "large" premium, it was nothing close to the same multiple paid more recently. If I did happen, I'll qualify my prior comments.

I think you missed my point. I was stating that coin quality which is "dreck" in my series (pillars) is or might be desirable in another, like EAC. Someone owns both but the difference is that US collectors will pay "good" or "decent" prices for EAC coins with different issues whereas collectors of pillar coinage with a similar one almost never do. None in that quality is even close to "dreck", though it's my understanding that coins with issues (like minor corrosion) still end up in numerically graded TPG holders while coins in other series do not. This makes perfect sense, because EAC are the primary buyers and what others think who do not buy it should be irrelevant. IMO, there isn't one, but I think we can get an idea from the prices collectors pay for different coins or different series. As another example, I personally consider 16-D Mercury dimes in low grades "dreck". I don't care that it's a key date. It's very common and available in volume any day of the week, even excluding the numerous fakes. I don't remember seeing one I like (of any date) but in G-4, it's a $1200 coin. Considering the price, it's obvious my opinion is a distinct minority. For the coins I collect, there are a very low number of higher quality coins and for some but nowhere near most, reasonable availability but it's dreck by any sensible definition: holed (often), damaged (often), corroded (sometimes), and cleaned noticeably (almost always). There are virtually no comparable "collector" grades as with early US silver denominations (the best comparison). With US flowing hair and draped bust coinage, you can buy coins all the way down to AG-3 that still look decent, the coins have strong demand, and the prices reflect it. This does not exist with my primary series. There is very little and often nothing to buy.

I'm aware of that. To support my points, I don't need to disprove that somehow, somewhere in the world, someone might act differently than I write, I just need to provide better evidence and reasoning than those who disagree with me.

The numbers are what they are, but that's not where the real difference of opinion exists. It's perception of significance. Traditionally, collectors (everywhere) used the absolute number of survivors which is usually estimated and not known, even now. Before the TPG populations "matured" (overwhelming majority is not even close to complete, even in higher grades) and especially the internet made most coins available on demand or short notice, collectors generally used the mintage as a proxy, even though survival rates differ widely. This meant that many more common coins were believed or considered to be scarcer, which is my primary explanation for the inflated prices on actually common US key dates. The primary reasons for different perceptions in quality were twofold: First, the price differences between what are now proximate TPG grades were almost entirely immaterial. No one would have paid anywhere near current premiums because there was no market for it due to the far less affluent collector base and limited financially motivated buying. Second, the internet and more recent communication has made acquiring most coins so easy, it's my inference collectors adopted new practices to create a challenge that otherwise does not exist. This includes (near) condition census coins, strike designations, toning preference, and "low ball" collecting. Die variety and error collecting long preceded TPG, though I equally believe that both are more popular now due to the inflated price level which makes a higher proportion of US type coinage beyond the reach of the (vast) majority of the collector base. What I describe, it's still apparent in collecting outside the US, at least where the local market doesn't have a similar preference for TPG. Me personally, I use number of survivors in "collectible quality". Yes, I know that every coin is in theory owned by someone and therefore "collected", but it's evident that coins in equivalent quality from two different series (world or US) are viewed differently by those who actually buy it. Coins in one series are highly sought after (like EAC collecting) are viewed as "dreck" or essentially unmarketable in another one (like my series, pillars).

It's 99%+. The number of participants proves it. Registry set is marketing. Nothing wrong with that but that's all it is.

Rarity is never determined by demand. Demand is demand and supply is supply. There is no absolute definition of "rare" or "scarce" or "common". It's only relative to something else. Concurrently, claiming "rarity" due to a specific number on a holder label turns the concept on its head and makes it meaningless. It's farcical, especially when "large" numbers of coins exist eligible for the same or slightly lower numerical grades. That's why I have compared it to the "participation trophy" culture prevalent in modern society. Especially with the highest TPG grades, there is no practical quality difference between proximate grades and only motivation to inflate the price and exaggerate the significance will ever lead anyone to claim it. This statement isn't specific to 69 or 70 grades or modern coinage either. The easiest way to demonstrate my claims is by comparing TPG dominated collecting to US collecting in the past and elsewhere in the world now. These collectors didn't and don't claim this rarity and no collective epiphany occurred in 1986 either where collectors miraculously discovered that this coinage is so much better than everyone believed/believes.

Rarity based upon date, mintmark, and type was something collectors came up with a long time ago. This "rarity" is a pure contrivance which is why it took marketing to create it. Once again, you look for baseless reasons to be offended when nothing in my post limited my comments to US moderns. I can't help it if my comments are contrary to your personal preference, again.

This and the fact that these minor differences were irrelevant at the time. No one would pay TPG driven premiums for such common coins due to the actual quality difference in a 69 and 70.

How long did it take you to reach this conclusion? "Rarity" based upon a label is marketing. Coin grades change regularly, though in very low proportion. The rarity didn't actually change as it's the same coin, but that's what has to be true for this collector belief to be true.