World Colonial

On 12/7/2022 at 4:30 PM, Hoghead515 said:

That sure is a beauty. Very cool to see a coin that old in perfect condition like that. Ive been thinking about eventually collecting world coins. There are some amazing designs out there. 

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.

On 12/7/2022 at 10:19 AM, VKurtB said:

What if the paid celebrity endorsers were paid from stolen account holder funds?

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?

On 12/6/2022 at 11:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I don't understand how some people can be that financially irresponsible.  In an age where prudent investing options are 24/7, to get taken in by crypto and to have your entire life savings in a super-risky asset is insane.

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.

On 12/6/2022 at 11:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The celebrities didn't back anything.  They made a terrible decision and they want someone else to pay for it.  The celebrities never said there was no risk, FDIC insurance, etc.

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".

On 12/6/2022 at 11:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The custodial risk is key.  But fraud has nothing to do with endorsers.  That is on Sam Bankman-Fried, who seems to be getting a pass from the media elite.  I'm sure it has nothing to do with his 2 Stanford Law professor parents or the political donations he made. 

I agree.

On 12/7/2022 at 12:27 AM, VKurtB said:

It’s in court in California already. Also, Texas securities regulators are after the celebrities. 
“Tom Brady, Steph Curry, Larry David probed by Texas over FTX endorsements”

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.

On 12/6/2022 at 9:01 PM, VKurtB said:

Depending on the state, celebrities have special liability for endorsing commercial things, just as public figures have a higher burden of proof in libel cases.

For it to be otherwise would create a system in which celebrities can act recklessly with impunity. Liability is theirs. 

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.

On 12/6/2022 at 8:54 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

I was asking to sell the coin to receive store credit instead of cash not lease a coin.

Ok, got you.

On 12/5/2022 at 7:50 PM, pigeonman333rd said:

They try to make deals like 100 dollars now on a coin you paid 75 dollars for and 75 when they sell it of course they would never pay you the 75 dollars they would just deny they ever bought the coin from you I know because I asked for 200 store credit and he said we don't do that. Such jive!

"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?

On 12/6/2022 at 7:22 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

It is my understanding that some well-known celebrities are being sued because they promoted or otherwise endorsed a "product."  I can't see being liable for something no one, basically, knew anything about.  Caveat emptor!

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.

On 12/6/2022 at 6:03 PM, VKurtB said:

@Errorists continues to insist this hobby remake itself to suit him. He has no sense whatsoever what this hobby is and is not. I can’t even IMAGINE where he got and continues to get his ideas. Wherever it is, PLEASE don’t send them to me. 

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?

On 12/4/2022 at 3:13 PM, VKurtB said:

It’s not a contest, is it?

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

On 12/4/2022 at 11:38 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

True....but pre-Internet more so than pre-TPG we just didn't have accurate counts.  The totals for commons and semi-rare Saints listed in Bower's 2004 Red Book differ by a large amount for some coins vs. Roger's 2015 Saints DE book.  Imagine a book like the Red Book or some other source from the 1990's.

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.

On 12/4/2022 at 11:06 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think the conditions we talk about in this thread are different for all different coins:  Moderns, Commemoratives, Gold, Silver, and Small Denomination U.S. coins, esp. pre-1960.

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.

On 12/4/2022 at 11:06 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I have both Saints and Morgans and without even going into condition the rarity for some years/mints would vary greatly from the stated mintage for that year pre-TPG and pre-Internet.

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.

On 12/4/2022 at 9:18 AM, zadok said:

...true, if u just want to support ur points, im just saying that u can expand ur points to include that fringe exception of collectors that dont care about the market n that go for the "premium" coins regardless of the market...its not a right or wrong issue but if i dont take some exception of what u say it makes it seem like im in total agreement, but thats just me n its a trivia point anyway.....

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.

On 12/3/2022 at 7:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Curious - what do you define as "collectible quality" vs "dreck" in EAC coins?

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.

On 12/3/2022 at 7:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

My personal goals are a date set with "major varieties":

• 1793 - VF20-25
• 1794-1797 - XF40 (with the 1796 omitted, but would love to have one in VG8 - but not likely to happen)
• 1800-1808 in AU53-MS63 (the 1802/0 C-2, and 1808/7 C-1 in VF20-25)
• 1809-1835 in MS62-63 (with 1811 in XF40-45)
• 1849-1857 in MS63-64 (all in RB but 1849, 1950, and 1853)

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.

On 12/3/2022 at 7:50 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Obviously, to a person that is "PF70UCAM or bust", everything I collect is "dreck"... but where is that line for collectors who collect a classic series? This varies by the collector, but how do you define it?  What are the target grades for the World Colonial market that you collect?  Are the comparable to straight-graded EAC coins?  I really know nothing about it at all.

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.

On 12/3/2022 at 11:46 PM, zadok said:

mostly valid points at least for discussion...but doesnt consider that there r collectors out there that have sought n paid premiums for census coins for 50 years or more because they wanted the best they could acquire regardless of whether there was a market for those coins or not....

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.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:43 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I determine rarity by the number of examples that exist for the variety.  It has nothing to do with condition for me.  "Conditional" rarities are a different story.  

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).

On 12/3/2022 at 1:57 PM, VKurtB said:

It may surprise you, and nearly every member of this board, that there is a HUUUUUGE portion of this hobby that doesn’t give a rip about registries. 

It's 99%+.  The number of participants proves it.

Registry set is marketing.  Nothing wrong with that but that's all it is.

On 12/3/2022 at 1:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

"Rarity" can be defined several ways:  absolute numbers....price (because demand is high)....relative to other coins of a similar type...condition (grade)....etc.

For my #1 interest, Saints, you have the registry players.....the Type and Gold collectors....and then the general investor class among the public buying the surplus for a few coins with tens of thousands available.  So depending on where the coin supply exhausts demand, that determines scarcity (and price).

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.

On 12/3/2022 at 10:58 AM, cladking said:

I suppose rarity based on date, mint mark, or type is also some kind of contrived marketing scheme.  

One of the primary things collectors do is to define and collect rarity.  Who are you do it for them?  

Quality is quality whether it's a proof 2022 dime or an MS-68 '72-D dime.  The exact same thing applies to 1894-S dimes and 1822 dimes.  

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.

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.