World Colonial

I think you misread my sentiments. I've read that Ukraine has called for it, using Russia's FX reserves. That's what I was referring to, not that I think they should pay it. But I'll change my mind, as soon as the US pays reparations to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, at minimum. When does anyone think that's going to happen? I didn't think so. I don't believe the US should be part of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise should join the Ukrainian military. Some reportedly have and nothing stopping anyone else. US has declared near total economic war on Russia and is directly involved in the conflict. That's what the sanctions and arming one of the combatants represents. It's not even a proxy war and it's an example of how US foreign policy has totally gone "off the rails" in the 21st century, risking direct war with the largest or second largest nuclear power. As for "blinking", depends upon the timeframe. I didn't anticipate this region as a "hotspot" (looking at the Middle East and Western Pacific for that) but now that it's started, longer term I expect it to turn into a wider conflict.

Do you really want me to go there? Light years ahead of countries like Switzerland? That's breaking news. No, not yet. Just like the BoE didn't confiscate Venezuela's gold, yet. Here is what I think is going to happen. It will be used to pay "reparations" to Ukraine.

Survivorship isn't really relevant to most collectors or buyers because most of the coins they buy are so common any margin of error doesn't make any difference. It mostly becomes relevant for the ranking (where the coin places in terms of quality or TPG grade) such as "top pops".

Every non-US entity cannot sell. Due to US current account deficits, someone has to own these USD all the time, in the aggregate. China can only "dump" it by either buying US based assets or goods/services or exchange it with another non-US entity who then has to hold it. Yes, exporters might not like it. Many governments (not specifically just China) might decide to reduce their USD reserves (drastically) anyway. It's better than having their FX reserves frozen or confiscated later effectively giving away their production for free.

I'd like to be able to analyze the data using a computer program, but not with Excel spreadsheets. All I have done is manual look-up and it's inefficient and time consuming. Some of the numbers come from actual research to my knowledge, where someone has actually made some attempt to itemize the survivors. Like the 1794 dollars, 1796-1797 half dollars, and 1802 half dime. The discrepancy between the 1802 half dime and these three other coins is noticeable though for what's available recently. Other estimates I presume come from surveys, like for EAC and Capped Bust halves. But if the Bust Half Nut Club provided the estimates, I don't see how the numbers could be so low. The rest of it? Presumably either a guesstimate or just "made up". Many estimates for MS-65 or MS-60 on the earlier scarcer coinage I think might be too high, though I am in no position to say which ones. Definitely duplicates on expensive coins in the TPG data, so not sure how many more are reasonably out there. Others just make no sense where it's obvious no one performed a sanity check, like the one I gave of the 1807 DB half and the 1921(D) dimes. It's ridiculous to claim a survival rate of 1/5 of 1% for two coins struck less than 20 years prior to the introduction of folder collecting. Estimates for the IHC seem way too low (across the board) to my recollection. An example is the 1894 where supposdely150 for MS-60+ remain. Not only is this less than the current count, but the price doesn't support it or hardly any duplicates. It would be a key date, if so few actually exist. Another is the Liberty Seated series generally. Many of these coins are legitimately scarce, but that's a combination of low mintages, limited MM collecting at the time, and geographical distance. The supposed survival rate for the subsidiary mints seems way out of line with the Philadelphia coinage. I don't think hardly any of the "P" coins have the estimates claimed, unless there is specific evidence to support it. I am a lot more familiar with specific non-US coins. Heritage estimated 50 for the 1941 Sarawak cent but the count is 46 with 37 MS and likely no duplicates. It's a scarce coin but I'd estimate at least several hundred exist. There is a thread on the PCGS forum covering the Chile Volcano Peso series where some of the estimates (taken from those who are supposed to know) are really low but the mintages are not, for the time. I don't think this series is usually scarcer than the Peru pillar 4R where I estimate most dates probably have 50-100 but could be somewhat more. It's 45-62 years older and the mintages are mostly lower too.

My brother lives in Canada, near Halifax. I'm hoping for a big move in the USD-CAD rate before I retire and a big haircut in their housing prices with it. I'd at least spend summers there as opposed to here, assuming I could also resolve medical insurance.

Well, China has about $1T in UST. Must be some way they can work something out with a third country to diversify their FX and sovereign wealth holdings. They aren't the only ones either. Problems is, everyone can't do it at once.

I've looked at the TPG data extensively for US and somewhat for world coinage, depending upon the series and country. I'm quite familiar with the data. I'm aware that NCLT represents an outsized proportion of the pop data outside the US. I'm not sure what you mean here, since I thought I agree with your claim. The TPG data is a lot less than PCGS Coin Facts estimates, even with duplicates. I'n my prior post. i'm not just referring to later pre-1933 silver and base metal coinage either, since this coinage disproportionately isn't worth grading economically. With coinage such as common Capped Bust halves, I think PCGS Coin Facts is far too low. No way out of five or six million only 10,000 max survive. After writing the above posts, I checked eBay and all the common dates have hundreds right now, including 508 raw for the 1834. Most should never be sent in (mostly problem coins presumably) but the number which are eligible with high enough numerical grades is certainly a multiple of current counts. My step-grandmother was someone who had one of those Pennsylvania type collections you write about. I saw it once, in 1975. I don't know what happened to it, but she had at least one 10X10 SDB with most series from cents to half dollars starting with capped bust plus US copper starting in 1794. No flowing hair or draped bust silver. Hundreds of Virginia half pennies, large cents, half cents, and capped bust halves plus one or more Whitman folders of the rest. I don't remember Liberty Seated or Barber halves plus Capped Bust or Liberty Seated quarters, but she had everything else. She was from "old" money born in 1906, never worked a day in her life, and never did without to my knowledge even in the Depression. I infer her family acquired most if not everything out of circulation. Nothing high grade but little "dreck" either. Don't remember about key dates. We were at the bank for a few hours and when she saw that I wanted to compile a list, would have nothing of it. It would have taken weeks to catalogue it properly.

Ever seen China's definition of the "international community"? It's an accurate one but the world is bigger than that. insufficiently_thoughtful_persons at the US State Department declare China biggest long-term strategic threat (which is accurate) but still expect them to support US policy versus Russia. That's never going to happen. China knows that if sanctions succeed in "breaking" Russia economically, they are the next target. Divide and conquer. That's why they are going to backstop Russia to the end, and they should. It won't always be openly and they will undoubtedly drive a hard bargain with Russia in any deals they make, but they are still going to do it. Other countries (especially larger ones) are also going to act in their own national interest, when it suits them. The US can sanction every country on the planet who has the "audacity" to ignore US demands if they want. Good luck with that.

You may know otherwise, but I read somewhere that Ural crude (the Russian one) normally sells at a "noticeable" discount to Brent. No idea if this is true but if it is, might not be as much of much of a bargain as commonly believed. Sure, Russia needs the cash, but their customers also need the oil at least as much. So, it isn't like the buyers have all the leverage. There are many different grades of crude, but I don't know the number. Presumably most who follow markets are aware of Brent and WTI but otherwise, suspect the public (and maybe the writers who report it) assume that all are the same when it isn't. As for gold, I'd be really surprised if the discount was more than minimal, assuming there is one at all. Gold is a lot easier to sell than other commodities.

My prior post is an inference but no, it doesn't apply to everyone. Having a breakdown between collectors and dealers wouldn't confirm or contradict what I wrote. It's apparent that dealers will usually submit a coin if the marginal sales price exceeds the all-in cost of submission (including to compensate for their time) but yes, you are correct that many collectors may submit just because they want their coins in a holder. I don't think the volume is very high for this type of collector, not as a proportion of the total. A noticeable number of collectors are also concurrently on-line sellers and I assume a noticeable proportion of collector submissions are actually for resale.

The motive behind certification is something like 95% to 99% financial. It's overwhelmingly to improve marketability, to make it easier to sell the coin at a higher price, if not at the time of submission, then later. For myself, I accumulate raw coins over time and send it in intermittently but the only need to do is so that if I "kick the bucket", my heirs can sell it easier. Otherwise, it makes no difference. Certification for registry set competition is a rounding error of total volume. Certification for authentication is a lot more important for some coins than others but also predominantly correlated to the value. The problem I see for the TPG longer term is that the cost of grading and postage is going to increase (noticeably) faster than prices for most coins. Since 99%+ don't participate in registry sets and never will, there is no point in submitting a coin where the incremental value is less than the grading fee or even about the same.

Obviously aren't getting paid in USD if they have any common sense. They were fooled by the assumption that the US wouldn't weaponize the USD. I can't imagine they would stupid enough to do that again.

There will be plenty of other buyers.

Post 1933 US coinage is known to be common, outside of TPG era inventions. For pre-1933 US, most of it isn't worth the expense of grading either, but I still assume the supply is usually a lot more than is apparent now. On the common coinage, I think Coin Facts is way off, understating the supply. A few examples include: Common date Bust halves have estimates of 10,000 or less, though it's not clear to me whether the date estimate includes varieties. I'd guess 50,000 to 60,000 (minimum) is probably more accurate which is still only 1% of the mintage. 1921 and 1921D Mercury dimes are estimated at 2,000 and 3,500. That's a fraction of 1% for two coins struck less than 20 years prior to the introduction of coin folders. It's also comparable to the 1807 Draped Bust half estimated at 3000 which makes no sense. I'd guess the actual number is at least 10X, though disproportionately in low grades.

Jeff Garrett wrote a similar opinion piece in Coin Week expressing your view. Harvey Stack wrote a comment that his experience contradicted it. If you've looked at the TPG data and Coin Facts estimates, quite a bit covering many US series even though I don't buy any of it, it's widely known that the TPG counts are distorted by resubmissions but if Coin Facts is directionally accurate, in most instances there are more ungraded than graded, though of course there is a wide variation depending upon the coin. I'm referring to pre-1933 US below the highest grades. As one example, the last time I checked, NGC and PCGS recorded 15 (including details coins) for the 1802 half dime. The accepted estimate I recall is 35-40. NGC had three and all are AU-50, probably the same coin. So, what happened to the others, as the estimate to my recollection was based upon identifying specific individual coins? Some may have been lost, but I doubt it's 20-25. Maybe some in the estimate are also duplicates, but still unlikely most.

Missed this thread earlier. To @GoldFinger1969's point, it's another outcome of financialization. Counterfeiting existed then like it does now, but it's a bigger risk in the last few decades due to the (much) higher price level. Gold coinage has more problems with "doctoring" than other metals, but it's not a problem for most collectors because they don't buy gold coinage since they can't afford it. Other problem coins (cleaning) somewhat similar financial risk to buying fakes.

No, long-time poster (off and on) on the PCGS forum.

For $25.25 plus shipping, I would hope so and it's about time.

Only generalists with high value collections are well known even within collecting. Forum members or those who otherwise actively engage might know for specific series. I can name "famous" collections from Latin or South Africa coinage. Over 99% of the collector base has never heard of these people, with a not much lower percentage probably not knowing most of the coins even exist.

$73 is a lot for $19 of silver because that's what the US Mint is actually selling. The relevant question seems to be, how much can the US Mint raise prices to cover increasing costs without pricing out most of the customer base? This is the underlying economic problem in the coin industry business model. As long as the collector base is growing with increasing flow of funds, increasing costs aren't a problem, in the aggregate. As soon as prices stagnate or decline for any period of time, the business model breaks down, in whole or in part. It's reflected in US Mint pricing. It shows up in higher TPG and auction fees. eBay essentially ruined their selling platform for most coins years ago, though I think that was more driven by efforts to increase profits and beat EPS estimates. I don't buy or sell at B&M dealers, but this is also part of the reason more of them are closing. The reason it's a problem is two-fold. First, most collectors aren't going to spend increasing amounts or proportions of their coin budget on incidental hobby expenses. Coin budgets are predominantly to buy coins, not to cover the industry's costs or provide it with profits. It's a discretionary purchase, always. Second, many collectors either can't or won't increase their coin budgets to compensate for it, certainly not with 40-YR high inflation and tightening credit conditions.

In response to the OP's question, I presume it's a cost saving move due to the requirement to price everything using full cost accounting. It's already $73 for what is now $19 in silver. I understand the limit is 746,000 which if it sells out, almost certainly means it's going to be another money loser later, absent a big run up in silver spot.

I infer two reasons for what you described, related to actual collecting: For the collector of European and some Asian, there is 1000+ years to collect versus somewhat over 200 for US Mint. The coins are also much cheaper generally, so it's more feasible to buy a larger variety and not being obsessed with TPG differentials, find the older coinage a lot more interesting. Second, a noticeable proportion of coinage outside the US is actually hard to buy, as opposed to the US which mostly isn't, even in high quality. Western Europe and Anglo countries from the same time period are frequently approximately equal or even more common but not others. So, since it's often very difficult or not possible to complete a series by date at all even in typical collector grades, there is no point in even attempting more recent US collecting practices: "finest known", varieties, errors, color/toning, matched sets, whatever. That's predominantly done with (very) common US series which can literally be completed in "high quality" in as little as one day, which includes every one starting with Barbers except for the Indian Head Eagle and Saints.

To my knowledge, the bulk of the Eliasberg Collection was sold in 1982 by Bowers & Merena which included rarities like the 1822 half eagle. Last sale I know was by Stacks of his world gold in 2005, 3600 lots. I don't know if any sold prior to 1982 or after 2005.

You need to think of the subject in the proper context. Financially, you're talking about a rounding error. The "market capitalization" of US coins as "investments" dwarfs all others combined, yet it's financially immaterial in the context of global financial flows. Since I know there is a massive credit mania in China (debt has exploded since the GFC), the world's biggest real estate bubble, and their stock market is still about 50% below the 2007 peak, I can conclude most Chinese put their money in real estate, fixed income or private businesses locally or its offshore but certainly almost never in Chinese coins. Can't speak to Chinese ancients but that Chinese modern NCLT you reference has been expensive since inception. It's "made rare" with an intentional artificially low mintage. It's not much of a real coin either, as it would make a great coaster (being the right size) for someone's glass of wine.