World Colonial

On 12/1/2022 at 9:26 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Ill probably take my time and build a set from scratch. 

I looked yesterday and there are plenty of seven coin sets on eBay right now from about $5 on up.  I didn't look for graded coins, but the populations aren't low.

Finding high grade eligible coins in circulation probably isn't going to happen, unless someone dumped their change jar in a Coin Star machine.  It's 40 years old.

On 11/30/2022 at 6:52 PM, Errorists said:

Even if it looks like a shooting star 🌠  it shouldn't get a star designation?? Humbug.. 

Looks more like a scratch to me.

What coin is this anyway?  One of the newer US quarters I don't recognize?

The most likely reason this type of coin would get a star (given how common it is) is "monster" toning.

You can always artificially tone it.

On 11/27/2022 at 6:53 PM, EagleRJO said:

But there was a Coin Week article discussing that 1982 was a "landmark year" for the Lincoln Head cent ... https://coinweek.com/coins/coin-profiles/us-coins-coin-profiles/united-states-1982-lincoln-cent/

I read Coin Week because it's free and on occasion has interesting articles.

Concurrently, they exaggerate a lot.  

On 11/26/2022 at 6:35 PM, Sandon said:

   It's obvious to me that NGC chose the date 1982 as the earliest date for "NGCX" grading because that was the first year of modern commemoratives that would routinely qualify for high grades.  No or almost no non-proof 1982 Lincoln cents will qualify for the "perfect [under low magnification]10" grade that I'm sure the hucksters who will sell NGCX holdered pieces will promote to the numismatically ignorant public as some sort of investment.

This is the only reason that makes sense, modern US commemoratives and maybe world counterparts if eligible.  I provided the same reason earlier in the thread.

It's been a long time since I've watched "Coin Country" or similar shows on cable TV (about 15 years).  I used to see US modern proof sets offered, not in a TPG holder.  I can see Ike dollars since it's not viewed as a circulating coin.  Maybe proof Kennedy halves since the public doesn't see it often either.

I don't see any marketing of any coin design which the public sees or has any reasonable probability of seeing in circulation because to them, that's what it is, circulating change.  Enough of them aren't going to pay a premium for it, regardless of what number is on the TPG label.

On 11/18/2022 at 3:30 PM, VKurtB said:

I received the very same letter from NGC several submissions ago. NGC had preliminarily graded the coin in question a MS66. But the letter said NGC “believed”, with no guarantee, that conservation MIGHT help the coin. I agreed, and knew what they meant. I told them to go ahead. That coin is now in an NGC MS66 CAMEO holder. “Yo payz yo Money and yo takes yo chances.”

It's been a long time, but I received coins back from NGC with a note that they thought the coin would benefit from conservation.  It was a Post It note attached to the slab.  Happened a few times and the coins came back straight graded.

My inference from the OP is that they took this suggestion as a(virtual) guarantee.  Not sure why anyone would do that.  My understanding of the notes I received is that it would improve the coin's appearance, not that it would necessarily result in a higher grade, be worthwhile financially or anything else.  

I'd only have submitted a 1936 dime if I thought it would grade at least MS-66.  Not financially worthwhile otherwise.  I'd just buy one in the TPG grade I wanted otherwise.  I wouldn't have conserved it either, as at $30 plus the grading fee, it's not worth it either.

On 11/26/2022 at 7:13 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

They get alot right.  Look at the inflation predictions, which have certainly come true.

Gold is cheaper now than when inflation was lower, recently.  It peaked at $2072 and hit a slightly lower secondary peak.  The reason?  Inflation doesn't buy gold either.

Gold is also lower now than it was in late 2011 or in 2012.  Noticeably lower adjusted for price changes.

If inflation caused gold prices to increase, why did this happen?

You don't need to answer.  I already know you are going to tell me it was another "fundamental" that doesn't buy gold either.

People buy (or sell) gold (or anything else) because they are optimistic or pessimistic, period.  The "reason" is a rationalization.

On 11/26/2022 at 10:48 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Because the underlying fundamentals of popcorn and peanuts aren't even remotely related to the underlying fundamentals of gold.  But that is NOT the case with oil and gold....or inflation and gold....or other factors.

Nobody is looking for a rerun of the 1970's...in fact, you could have inflation and lots of other variables lineup for gold PERFECTLY...and if a few countries or central banks or SWFs decided to unload a few hundred tons of gold, the price of gold would probably go down.

I continue to think that gold is like a giant beachball being held under the water line.  When it bounces up, it will be a big and fast move up.

I was being sarcastic.

So, how long is the chain of indicators I need to predict to finally get to the price of gold?

On 11/26/2022 at 10:25 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

NSF ?? 

Presume its Non-Sufficient Funds.

Even coin collectors ocassionally bounced checks, before banks granted deatbeats overdraft protection.

On 11/26/2022 at 3:00 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I bet you would be right 40 or even 20 years ago....but I think nowadays with smartphones people are tracking all financial markets:  the DJIA.....gold....bond yields....BitCoin.....crypto.

You have to....they ALL impact to an extent.

Most coin collectors don't own even one gold coin.  I now own one 1952 South Africa 1/2 pound.  I owned a few more in the past, but not many and my collection is certainly worth more than the majority of coins collectors.  Concurrently, it isn't valuable enough where it's practical to own gold coinage in any quantity, even if I preferred it which I don't.  (Spain never struck colonial gold pillar coinage, only ugly portraits.)

Working from home, I keep CNBC.com on my home PC all day long.  As I read your post, I thought gold closed around 1800 yesterday.  At $1755, it's not meaningfully different, but I doubt most coin show attendees follow it as closely as I do.

I doubt any meaningful pct know the price because it isn't relevant to them.  They don't have enough money to buy or collect it.

On 11/26/2022 at 9:50 AM, RWB said:

A few years ago, crude oil prices tumbled. Other commodities -- including gold, bulk peanut butter, and pork bellies -- did not.

The problem with the conventional approach is that anyone following it is left to predict a seemingly endless chain of supposedly predictive indicators.

The initial post mentioned oil, GDP, geopolitics, OPEC, GDP growth...Do I have predict each one to get to an accurate gold forecast?  If not, how will I know which ones are predictive and which aren't?

Why not add the price of popcorn and peanuts to the mix?

On 11/25/2022 at 9:08 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If oil soars, then we'll know.  Until then, it's all just speculation, right ?  

You entirely missed my point.

You are so used to thinking in terms of the conventional model that you can't see the obvious.  The "fundamentals" aren't the "cause" of anything; not now, not previously, and not later.

I'll change my mind when you can demonstrate oil buys gold, as opposed to human beings buying both.

Let me know when it happens.

On 11/25/2022 at 4:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

If I bought an MCMVII High Relief coin....and I knew I was paying a premium price.....I would not be shocked if 10 or 20 or 25 year later it fell in price by 50% for my sales purposes or my heirs/estates.  It would no dissuade me from making the purchase, either.

I think that's a pretty sizeable loss to realize....I would NEVER think a stock or bond mutual fund would lose that over that time horizon (maybe <5 years).  

You know I am a huge pessimist.  I don't see those kinds of nominal losses in 25 years.  Adjusted for price changes is a distinct possibility but I don't believe most buyers of this coin look at it like that.

On 11/25/2022 at 4:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think the high-volatility of > 75% losses is confined to non-PM Small Denomination U.S. coins which could find a demographic imbalance downt he line similar to what stamps endured (though maybe 2008-20 was the bottom).   Even here you'd probably figure that 60-75% is the bottom NOW since you're not buying at a bubble peak like 1980, 1989, or 2008.

I expect most post 1933 US circulating coinage in grades up to MS-66 to eventually sell for nominal premiums to silver spot and less than the grading fee.  Same idea for the proofs.

At minimum, it's going to be adversely impacted by changing ethnic demographics and competition from for future NCLT and non-US coinage.

I expect otherwise common TPG condition census coins to lose most of the value, especially where the premium is disproportionate to one or lower grades.

I expect noticeably less set collecting which should make common US 20th century key dates and semi-key dates huge proportional losers.  I expect it to be worst for mid-circulated and lower grades.  The price of this coinage is a throwback to the 1960's when it was viewed as "rare" and is completely disproportionate to the collectible attributes.  1916-D dime in G-4 @ $1200 is one example.

On 11/25/2022 at 2:07 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think those factors I cited above ARE going to have causality to gold, WC.

So-called “fundamentals” don’t have an independent existence.  “They” aren’t alive.  No fundamental event ever bought anything. Therefore, it cannot be causal.

You can claim there is "meaningful" correlation, but I've never seen anyone ever try to prove it, whether pro or con.  Practically everyone just makes assumptions based upon their flawed beliefs.

If you have evidence (actual evidence), I'll change my mind.

On 11/25/2022 at 12:47 PM, zadok said:

but many budget driven collectors who spend maybe $100 per month to buy 1 or 2 coins wont/dont even realize that 10-20 years from now their collection will have $25-50K "invested" in it...comparing their investment to the then current worth mite be very revealing....

I agree with this sentiment.  Most people aren't very organized and if they treat it as a consumption expense, have no motive to track it.  Most collectors also don't buy (mostly) NGC or PCGS coins to make it easier to value.

I have intentionally gone out of my way to avoid this outcome.  That's why I almost exclusively buy Lima and Potosi pillars.  I'm not rich and have no intent to work longer just to fund my collection, which means I probably won't even be able to complete these sets, much less have budget for anything else.

I've thought about new "side collections" and already have a few but not adding to it.

The main reason I don't add to "side collections" and never make impulse purchases is that I consider these coins inferior to my primary interest.  I'm also not interested in accumulating a hoard of unrelated, undistinguished, or less marketable coins.

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Can you give a quick summary of what the Hansen Mega Thread is implying, though I'll try and check it out (if it's really large may take me a while to read) ?

The point I was making by referring to this thread is that very few US Mint coins are hard to buy, except when you get into TPG labels or specialization.  Yes, I know that for some of the rarest, he was able to buy it privately but that doesn't change my description meaningfully.

That's why one reason I infer they don't actually view what they buy the way I read it inferred by US collecting generically.  See my last reply to zadok.  

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think that even for lesser-heeled "investors" in coins the expectation is that very few are "investing" $$$ that they can't afford to lose money on.  I don't think that huge declines of 1980-82 or 1989-90 or 2008-2020 aren't forgotten by anybody who reven remotely uses their head.

You're describing "strong hands" versus "weak hands".

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of our different financial and economic view here.

But even ignoring this, it's my inference that there is a substantial difference in different coin segments between those who are actually "strong hands" and those who (most) everyone else might think are but really aren't.

I've seen "big ticket" high profile coins (yes, same coin) sell at a loss (versus prior public sale) but it's not often.  It presumably happens a lot more than I have seen.

Whether it's the reason you give or another one, I don't think it matters.  It's the generic belief (regardless of the reason) that provides the buyer confidence to pay the price they do, where they aren't willing to treat it strictly as a consumption expense.

On 11/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

What makes you think that ?

It's an inference.

Look at auctions of dealer collections.  It appears to be common there if they were a long-time successful one. They are in the best position to acquire coins at favorable prices through their network, especially if it's their specialty.

I bought two coins from Stacks last week.  Both are AU "details" but he (Pat Johnson) is one of the few who with access to buy it.

With non-US coinage, these coins are very cheap compared to US and I infer many US collectors (it's usually not going to be anyone else) don't understand the factors which explain coin pricing.  They think it's something like general economic affluence (which is essentially irrelevant), so they have an inflated perception of the future prospects.

On 11/25/2022 at 12:36 PM, zadok said:

.i believe a large proportion of the collectors u categorize r US modern collectors, i was mostly addressing comments for pre 1900 collectors, big diff...i do not collect any moderns not even type...i dont consider any of those coins truly rare, mostly rare only in census conditions...

True, but I am applying it more broadly.  I don't consider very many US Mint issues (all the way back to 1793) scarce or rare, except in grade or as a specialization which isn't a real rarity and isn't compelling enough to most collectors.

The coins which were more expensive in the pre-financialization era (prior to the 1970's) are somewhat different.  You know which coins I mean.  These coins were "always" expensive even in mid or low circulated grades, which makes it evident that collectors like it for what it is as a collectible, as opposed to mostly for the TPG label reflected in the price.  But even here, I don't believe that most buyers find it interesting enough to ignore price differences just because of the (often minimal) differences in quality which US collecting considers so important now.

As one example, Larry Miller (deceased car chain dealer and Utah Jazz owner) owned a 1794 MS-62 dollar.  He could have bought any of the better ones, yet he didn't.  This coin isn't common, but it isn't that hard to buy in an MS grade either, even though I recall there are only 8-10 known.  It comes up for sale often enough and I presume he also could have bought it privately through the dealer network.

So, since he could easily afford to buy a better one but did not, I presume it wasn't important enough to him.  Same sentiment has been inferred on the Hansen thread ATS.  Just because someone is very wealthy doesn't mean they are indifferent to the financial result.

It's a function of someone's attitude toward collecting and this aspect I am describing is a big part of it.  I don't believe there are more than a very low proportion of diehard collectors whose psychology differs noticeably from my description.

On 11/25/2022 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

...yes i understand ur inference...personally i prefer "some" to "most" when referring to generalizations toward collectors, but thats just me...i suppose it mite assist if the collectors were separated into those that r "budget" driven as opposed to those that r "collection" driven...i believe that "most" would apply to the "budget" group n "some" to the "collection" group...

You and I do not buy the coins most collectors buy.  

Also, I'm not referring to the typical "low" budget collector whose maximum price point and collection value you might or do consider nominal.  It's hard for me to be more specific than that.

Excluding these collectors, when I look at what most other US collectors are buying, and then look at the prices being paid and how easy it is to buy these coins, and then read the sentiments I have in the numismatic press and coin forums for decades, yes, this combination leads me to believe collectors would overwhelmingly never pay the prices they do (if it's "meaningful") without the expectation of getting most of their money back.  

It's collector specific (no absolutes) and also a function of the amount being spent.  Generically though, collectors did not experience a collective epiphany in the 70's or starting in 1986 where they miraculously discovered that predominantly common coins (especially those with a high number on a TPG label) are so much better than their predecessors thought.

On 11/25/2022 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

...i do have a couple of boxes of coins that i do not collect but buy as stand-alone coins i view as long term investments i.e. finest known or finest certified and some where only 4-5 examples r known...

Yes, I suspect the number in the US who do this is substantial.  I also infer that most of these aren't US.  The occasion does arise to buy one really "cheap".  

On 11/25/2022 at 8:06 AM, zadok said:

.."many" collectors r just that, collectors...if i need or want a coin for my collection, especially if i dont think it mite come back on the market again  i just buy it n do not consider whether the price is too high, historically or compared to current price guidelines...once an opportunity is passed it may never present itself again...

Once again, this applies to a very low proportion of US coinage, maybe something like 1% to 2% of US Mint issues, if that.  (It's higher for territorial gold, colonials, and patterns.)  If you haven't done so, check out the Hansen mega thread on the PCGS forum as proof of what I am telling you.  (Yes, I know why he can do this while others can't.)

The number and proportion of collectors who 'must" have some specific coin is very low, as overwhelmingly another one (usually many) are available and interchangeable to them.  

You're using the same causality model we've discussed before and it's wrong.

Instead of predicting the price of gold, which is the supposed purpose of this thread, you're implicitly predicting an alphabet soup of other indicators which have varying correlations to the price, but no causality at all.

On 11/24/2022 at 11:25 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

At some point, this thread and when it was started should make for some good posts. 

It's definitely got the potential to run off into a rabbit hole from which there will be no return.

If it's permanently limited to 1982 and later coinage and succeeds, it's predominantly going to increase the number of NCLT buyers.  That's really about it.  It's irrelevant to anyone who doesn't collect NCLT and nothing to say.  

It's very unlikely to substantially increase the number (absolutely or proportionately) buying US or world circulating coinage dated after 1982.  This is evident from the existing TPG population data and there is no basis to believe a change in grading scale is going to alter it.  Why would it?

On the other hand, if the longer-term intent (my opinion) is to test acceptance for a new grading scale and this succeeds, it's potentially financially relevant to the vast majority of US based collectors with a "meaningful investment" in their collection.

That's why I took this thread off-topic, though it did veer off further afield, again.

On 11/23/2022 at 9:48 PM, gmarguli said:

Are you considering the coins in the PCGS3000 "collector coins"?  I suspect that 1/3 of the coins in that list are flat out unapproachable for the vast majority of collectors. Another 1/3 are only available to well heeled collectors.

I'd like to see the list stripped of the unrealistic coins and account for inflation and see what the return looks like for real collector coins. I suspect it is much less than it is right now. 

No, not just in the higher or highest grades. I'm referring to the coins generically.

I'm also aware that a noticeable proportion of US coinage (broadly defined) has never been affordable to most collectors, probably 80% at least. This includes most gold, practically all patterns, maybe 50% of colonials, maybe at least half of  19th century proofs, many early copper up to 1814, and most silver up to 1807.

It depends upon someone's criteria of "affordable" which can include the proportion of the collector base and assumptions of minimal acceptable quality.

As an arbitrary cut-off, I'd categorize any coin that is potentially bought by 80% of the collector base as "mass affordable".  You might have a different one.

I'm also aware that with the larger number of affluent buyers (both income and net worth), one within reach of 10,000 might be considered "affordable" even if it costs in the low to high five digits.

Comparisons over time depend upon the start and end date with the opportunity to retro fit the outcome.

I'm aware of regular collector grade coins like capped bust halves (in the early 70s to more recent times) and early large cents (late 70's to more recently) with substantial decreased affordability.

Since I don't know anyone else's financial position in specifics, I tend to use myself as a benchmark.  I'm far from rich but have done far better than the median since 1998 (when I resumed collecting) but since I virtually never use savings to buy coins, income wise I can probably buy less from the US coinage I would conceivably buy and far less in world coinage.