World Colonial

The accurate analogy is a print, not the original work. No actually significant artwork is mass produced, like a sports card. Prints sell for immaterial fractions compared to any expensive sports card. Art is also subjective, but if there are any exceptions, maybe a Stradivarius violin might quality. There is more than one of those. Likewise for the Declaration of Independence.

Yes Store of value for all of recorded history means something. Tangible substance versus electronic 1s and 0s also means something. I haven't changed my mind that gold is relatively overvalued versus many things, but it's not effectively infinitely relatively overvalued like crypto.

The primary reason gold isn't more widely used in industry is because of its price, not its lack of utility. There are cheaper options (like silver), at least for most applications. Being a gold hater doesn't change this fact. I don't hate crypto, I just know that it's current value (for all 19,000+) is (almost) entirely due to the bigger asset mania. Whatever utility it has bears no relation to the price, no government backs it to provide base demand, and it has no extended history as a store of value. If the major asset classes (stocks, bonds, and real estate) crash but somehow crypto (presumably BTC) prices mostly remain intact, I'll admit my error. I'm sure somebody will remind me. There is no comparison whatsoever.

Yes, I know but this isn't a real rarity. It's another contrivance. This is what I don't believe is going to last any more than with coins, not at anywhere near current price spreads. It's more financialization and marketing, not actual collecting. Agree with your general sentiments which I think are a negative for this supposed "asset". Yankees, Cardinals, Cubs, Red Sox, and maybe Mets have what I would describe as largest "hard core" fan bases due to cultural reasons and population. The rest, a lot less to virtually none. I extracted this part of your post, but my reply is to all of the rest. Yes, I agree. This was exactly my point in my prior post. I know all those players you named, from the sources I listed. There is a web page I looked at this morning (maybe dated now) listing the 50 most valuable baseball cards. I recall all the players but two whose cards are printing errors. Yes, even Andy Pafko (50's Yankees) who I'd guess over 99% of non-Yankee fans don't know or have a reason to care. This is the point. It's evident there is limited to virtually no interest in most of these "classic era" (mostly pre-70's) players even now. So, what's going to happen years later? Some of them are still alive but most from when I started watching (1977) are already dead. As an "investment" asset, the current price level isn't sustainable without bubble level financial conditions when the (supposed) interest is contingent on a tiny fraction of players with somewhat scarce cards with the balance being predominantly common as dirt modern mass produced. Fractional ownership isn't going to change the long-term outcome when there is no depth of interest. It's just another gimmick.

Read the prior post to which you replied. What the prior post actually meant is that crypto provides the opportunity to transfer money from the pocket of person "A" into the pocket of person "B". Crypto is nothing, so it can't actually generate any real wealth meaning everyone can't be better off in the aggregate. It has value - for now - until either government takes it over and eliminates all private alternatives (my prediction) or the end of the mania reduces the value of every single one to its correct value, zero. No, there is no long-term third option since no one has to accept it for anything which means it isn't a real currency.

Which ones are actually rare, aside from printing errors? Are any for actually prominent players especially from one of the teams with a hard core following? Or someone hardly anyone remembers other than from the card? I ask because presumably the best known card by far (Honus Wagner T-206) purportedly has 50-60 known though the highest graded is or seems to be an "8". This number isn't even close to actually rare, but the distinction is that the card is the equivalent (for a baseball card) of any "famous" coin and probably better known. I'm also assuming it was worth more than this 9.5 Mantle card back in 1991 ($50K) before everything became really inflated during the mania financial era.

I infer (that's all it is) that there is a hard core following of overwhelmingly mostly older baseball fans who actually like this stuff. They grew up both watching (like I did) and maybe buying Topps cards (which I did not). But it's still speculation (not collecting) accounting for the prices, as there isn't a dimes worth of practical difference of near equivalent grade baseball cards just as there isn't on coins. I also infer a noticeable gap between the best known players from the teams with the hardest core followings + a few players from less popular teams and everyone else. The Yankees are definitely one with a great tradition. But even accepting any current rationalization (which of course I do not), I don't see that this translates to baseball cards generally or HOF players who are actually obscure now.

I know. It's another fake rarity as with other graded collectibles. More marketing and financialization. If you look at one of the older Heritage listings of this card (who also sold this one) in slightly lower grade, anyone can see what I am talking about. The card isn't rare until above an "8" (with 35 though presumably some duplicates) where this one is still worth a boatload of money. That's for PSA only. I agree with zadok's post above mine. That was part of my prior point. I grew up an avid baseball fan, knowing about all the classic era hall of famers from my old Baseball Encyclopedia, books, and the APBA tabletop game. How many people really care about that at all, especially to pay big money for a card for what it actually is, as opposed to speculation? The Yankees are somewhat different (for now) but most (probably practically all) of these players are destined to be forgotten by the predominantly modern casual fan base who mostly know or care nothing about what I am telling you.

I've already given my opinion on this one. From what I know, this card isn't actually rare, not even close. I don't have access to the TPG population data directly but recall it's included in Heritage auction listings (somewhat at least) which I have reviewed on occasion. It's "rare" compared to the more recent (post late 80's) really mass produced stuff but from the Heritage listings, a lot more common versus coins that are usually considered scarce or rare. It's even more common versus actually significant cultural objects, like Russian Imperial Faberge Easter Eggs which are each unique, some of which are presumably still worth less than $12.6MM now. The distinction is the cultural element which baseball (or any other major sport) has to a much greater extent than coin collecting. It's a simple as this because otherwise, no actual collector (which must include some of these buyers) would ever pay anywhere near these prices, even if they are partly buying it for financial reasons. It also depends how far out you are looking but that's a more complicated discussion. My belief is that the cultural appeal both for baseball and the players illustrated on these classic cards has either peaked or will in the relatively near future. (Depends upon the player.) So, even if I didn't think this concept (fractional ownership) is totally stupid for any collectible (which I do), I'd still never be a buyer at anything close to recent prices especially for a long-term hold.

I understand your point but the first (not only) reason for the outcome you described is that buying supposed collectibles in bulk has nothing to do with collecting, whether for coins or something else. That's the same principle with this fractional ownership. It's not actual collecting because it serves no recreational purpose. It also has no economic usefulness which is why it's just another form of speculation and not investment. In different threads here and on the PCGS forum, I have also provided my explanation for the current US collecting culture since it makes a lot more sense than the consensus perception. It's very unpopular because it's contrary to the preferences of practically anyone with a "meaningful" financial commitment in their collection.

The subject covered by the title of this thread is a complete farce, but apparently that escapes some people. Not the OP for starting it, but that this concept even exists and is considered viable. It's utterly absurd but due to recent experience is considered "normal". More generally, much of the discussion on this type of coin forum is about labels on plastic holders and stickers, not actually about the coin since there isn't a dime's worth of practical difference much of the time from a collecting standpoint. But then, I suppose that makes total sense too.

Good to know. The only ones I have followed are online with firms that are better known. There are (or were) many auctions on iCollector which I infer are similar to your description, but I have never looked or participated.

No one to my knowledge ever bought Whitman-type coins at auction except as bulk lots and these would not have been graded individually. I believe the time period RWB is referring to was after certification started, like maybe 20 years ago or near it. Then yes, because certification was already established. Before certification (about 1986), it all goes back to the inflated price level directly connected with the widespread adoption of TPG. Prices were a lot lower back then, so the financial risk was a lot less. Same goes for counterfeits, as it's a lot less profitable to counterfeit lower priced coins, most of the time. Exceptions exist but not many. So basically, sort of a circular causality. Buyers today prefer to buy higher priced coins graded but it's the grading culture which substantially inflates the price level through financialization. Some Morgans have been expensive to most collectors my entire life and Saints since the mid to late 70's too due to the metal content. The other coins you identified, in isolation or not at all.

That's mostly because of what you buy and the inflated price level. The risks you describe were mostly much lower or not a consideration at all, depending upon what the bidder was trying to buy.

This is another coin, where based upon your preference, I'd buy graded and just crack it out of the holder. I would only buy an ungraded one after a personal inspection (mine or someone I knew), not from an image. It's a really common coin, so I see no need to buy it as you are describing here.

I'm not worried about someone hacking a coin auction site. I can't imagine anyone would care to do that. If anything is going to happen which I consider unethical, it would be the auction house awarding the winning bid at the winning bidder's maximum (or near it) instead of one increment above the runner up. I only buy occasionally now due to my interests, but now or previously, if I really want a coin, I make sure to try to bid during the auction. Nothing above nominal prices on eBay for a long time. Otherwise, I just place my maximum bid in advance and wait to see the result. If I was buying the coins most collectors do, that's what I would every time. It's not like another one won't become available, soon or very soon.

All modern US proofs and NCLT are widgets. There is no reason for any US modern base metal proof to sell for even the slab fee or, except for a few like the 95-W, for ASE to sell for more than minimal premiums to silver spot. So, while I understand submitters do not like the changed economics, the pricing structure almost (but not quite) makes sense for collectors.

Thanks, wasn't aware of it. In my last post, I was referring to circulating coinage but now your post makes sense.

How?

Going by the image, I don't think it should straight grade. This is apart from the rim damage would I agree should disqualify it. Whether it would or not is another consideration. Given how common 1921 Peace dollars are, I'd think one looking like this wouldn't be "market acceptable". But this opinion might because I'm not used to seeing circulated examples. If it were a coin in my series, I'd guess 50-50 even though anything I collect is hundreds of times scarcer.

I don't think the prior post is referring to NCLT which accounts for the lopsided majority of "modern". I've never heard of anyone collecting "business strike" ASE as a collectible until later, only buying it for the metal content. Outside of the Chinese Panda and Mexican Libertad, it's my recollection the other NCLT weren't struck until later either. By "modern", referring to US moderns. There were no registry sets at the time (came later but forgot exactly when) which presumably means NGC might have thought hardly anyone would ever submit this coinage. Volume only became "meaningful" beginning in 1999 with the introduction of SQ and later series.

As inferred in several above posts, presumably market grading.

It's a topic of interest to me, but I don't buy books on coins I don't collect. I'd rather spend the money on coins for my primary collecting interest.

CAC is an extension of the financialization of the "hobby" which became widespread in the 70's. The US coin price level was higher than elsewhere previously, but the combination of rising metal prices and maybe rising consumer price inflation is what motivated large scale coin buying as "investments". Even common UNC Bust halves soared in the 70's and it's hardly an "investment" coin. Then TPG became prevalent starting in the late 80's which is what made CAC possible. As long as US "collecting" remains financialized, neither TPG nor CAC are going anywhere. Neither are going away because of any inaccuracy in grading, as the differences inferred in your post have nothing to do with actual collecting. No one or virtually no one cared about these differences, until the price level and price spreads became financially "meaningful". How can I know this? Because that's how US collectors collected before and how most of the world collects now. Their collecting was not financialized. Without this financialization, there is no market for it and (virtually) no one will pay for it, especially when the coins are predominantly common.

TPG and CAC are businesses. TPG has minimal relevance to actual collecting while CAC has absolutely none. It's entirely financially driven, as there is no practical difference between the coin quality covered by this subject, except to those who are motivated to exaggerate. Nothing wrong with this but many coin buyers don't like thinking of it this way. He saw a business opportunity, that's how I describe it. Nothing less and nothing more. Whether Saints and Morgans represent the majority or a high proportion of stickered coins, haven't looked at the data. I doubt it given the one prior thread where we discussed it for Saints.