World Colonial

735 US billionaires last I checked and along with something like 20,000 worth $100MM+ according to the Ultra-Wealth Report. I don't know how many are coin collectors but would guess somewhere in the vicinity of 1%. Depending upon where they have their money, I expect to see a much higher percentage of this group get totally body slammed financially versus the past. Aside from the much higher overvaluation and leverage, look at what most of these people actually own, not what it's worth. I don't know what these people exactly own in every instance but of the ones where it's public knowledge, many own assets that I'd describe as a bag of hot air. So, what I am telling you is that there aren't (or weren't) 735 billionaires in 2021 versus 13 in 1982 because the country is that much richer. It isn't primarily because of inflation either. It's substantially or primarily because assets that used to be worth relatively nominal amounts in the past now sell for ridiculously inflated prices, like professional sports teams or commercial real estate.

As long as circulating US coins continue to be minted, none in the future will be even close to scarce, absent a collapse in the economy to outright destitution. As big of a bear market as I expect coming, even I'm not that pessimistic. As for the prices of numismatic coins, big drops in the early 80's, early 90's, and somewhat after 2008. It depended upon the coin or series. Early 80's was tied to both the recession and the precious metals crash. Early 90's I think more from the end of the TPG bubble. As for GFC, I never heard that coin prices fell that much but I have never seen specific data or researched it myself. I heard that it was more stagnation and persistent than a "crash", once again depending upon coin or series. Some series like classic commemoratives have (mostly) been on a one-way trip lower, in this case since the end of the TPG bubble. As to the future, to get what I would describe as a big decline is going to take extended unemployment and tight financial conditions. In the first phase of the upcoming financial markets bear market (which may or may not have started), I'd expect much (but not all) of the post-COVID run-up to be reversed entirely. An example would be ridiculous run-ups on common as dirt Morgan and Peace dollars. Same thing for the premiums on bullion coins and to the extent it applies, on common collectible NCLT. Longer term is another story. I 've written about my expectation in prior threads, but this post is long enough.

Actually, I'd buy more if I were you.

Also depends upon what you mean by "respected". I have a lot less respect for a firm like Goldman Sach's than I did a few decades ago. Not really that much different for the other major firms either. If a "respected" Wall Street firm is peddling crypto, as far as I am concerned, they are either lying and know it or have been infected with the same manic psychology. Less than the "true believers" but only in degree. BTC isn't and never will be a legitimate functioning currency, at any scale. It's impossible when the "value" fluctuates so radically even within a single day. The other most widely used argument is when it's confused with blockchain. Ok, blockchain has some utility but it's still commodity-like and it's not the same thing as crypto anyway. No one has a monopoly on blockchain where they can corner the market and charge a monopoly price for it, much less eliminate all alternatives, including the ones which exist now. On another blog where I post, someone mentioned Ether and smart contracts which is just one usage for blockchain. Big deal, it's another commodity product where no one has a monopoly on it either. So, using that as an argument for why it should be worth current price (much less a lot more) is another rationalization. I can see blockchain and smart contracts gaining widespread acceptance. I can also see both being (virtually) given away, just like free encryption software now. Regardless, the usage of these two (widespread or not) has nothing to do with the price of any crypto.

Not familiar with the broadcast to which you refer, but if it was focused on or primarily about crypto, it's consistent with the sentiments I infer. Crypto (including BTC) crashed (close to) an equivalent amount from late 2017 to mid-2019, actually somewhat more percentage wise. That probably accounts for part of any current complacency. More generally, it's the best indication of manic psychology. True believers still believing that nothing is something and that somehow, all who "hold the faith" will become rich, or something like that.

I also heard $2T. The "metaverse" is a farce. It's a fantasy alternate "reality" where Meta (Facebook) pretends that nothing is something. It's as bad as NFT (at least) and worse than crypto. Entirely appropriate in a culture which is increasingly detached from reality. It's only an amazing "coincidence". I'm not against some regulation in principle but notice that it's yet another example of asking to close the barn door after the proverbial horses have bolted? That's the history of financial regulation. Anyone who doesn't believe me, go look it up. Regulation is always passed to supposedly prevent the crisis that already happened. The worst aspect of modern regulation is the widespread (and in some segments of society, near universal) belief that it's a solution for mostly government created moral hazard in our guaranteed designed-to-fail financial system. No, not maybe. All crypto does is transfer wealth between participants. It doesn't create anything and it's not even a real functioning currency. That's what the first thing which makes BTC and any other crypto requiring "mining" such a farce. It's idiotic to waste real resources (energy) for literally nothing. Another farce

I haven't been able to go to the summer show since 2002. I've been to the winter/spring show four times since: 2006, 2010 (or 2011), 2013, and 2020. I almost always come up empty. Nothing I want to buy.

In the Coin Week article prior to the Weitzman sale, my recollection is it claimed that he had always "dreamed" of either owning this coin or other coins like it. I don't remember if it explicitly stated he had been a collector in the past, but he wasn't just a random buyer either. I inferred that he had been at least a casual one when he was a lot younger (in the 50's or 60's?), similar to others who ended up buying the 1804 dollar and 1913 LHN.

Yes, but he isn't actually famous now or recently, except by the very low modern standards of today. That's part of my point. He was obviously a prominent artist in his day or else TR would not have selected him but other than coin collectors and art lovers of this particular period of American art, who else has any clue about him? I'd guess even most US coin collectors know nothing about him, certainly not those from elsewhere. The point I was trying to make is that his artworks (certainly his "major" ones whatever those are) are a lot more significant and culturally important than any Saint. That's not even up for debate. The only reason these two coins sell for so much more than any of his artworks is first, because there are far more affluent coin collectors who want it and second, because of the financialization of "collecting". I'm going to guess that these two coins have been more expensive for a long time or practically since the US went off the gold standard, but the variance has probably increased noticeably due to what I am telling you in this thread.

I found this article on the internet. I was dated either within the last 10 or 15 years.

Seriously? Not trying to be difficult but that's a completely ridiculous comparison. Why would anyone other than a coin collector want the 1933 Saint or any expensive coin like it, other than to make money off of it? That's why I commented on all the coin attributes that especially US coin collectors think are so important. In this case, it's primarily the date on the coin. Non-collectors don't care about date rarity, except as it impacts the price. It's irrelevant to them because they aren't coin collectors. To the non-collector, the 1933 Saint is essentially identical to all the common widget Saints, other than financially.

One other comment on this extract. I agree, except that by some amazing coincidence (no, it really isn't a coincidence), this doesn't translate to coins, except by coin collectors. You're familiar with the Ultra-Wealth Report, right? The 2020 or even 2021 is probably out now but the last one I read was 2019. 57,000+ estimated with a net worth of $100MM+ and 17,000+ at $250MM plus. It also includes a breakdown by geography for the total but not by wealth bucket. (I believe it estimates the number over $30MM which I recall is the general minimum for a "family office".) Either of the two groups can afford practically any coin "comfortably". (Obviously noticeably fewer for the 1933 Saint or 1794 SP dollar.) Yet by an amazing "coincidence" (supposedly), they don't. The number of "very wealthy" have increased over time (probably somewhat closely correlated to the increased coin price level too) but if you calculate the probability as a function of pure random chance, any of us here would be more likely to be struck by lightning on a clear day, in multiple. Over five decades - since the 1970's when coins were first widely bought as "investment" - hundreds of sales (at least) where thousands or tens of thousands could have bought each and yet literally almost none ever did. I presume it's happened a few times, but the only one I specifically know is with the Brasher Doubloon profiled in a prior Robb Report article.

I presume this comment isn't serious. Another point on these two coins. On one occasion, I did a search on prices realized for St. Gauden's artworks. I found about a dozen (mostly sold by Sotheby's or Christies) but none were even close to the price of these two coins. The majority in the mid-five figures, a few in the lower to high six figures, and one for I believe $1.5MM. The last one was a small lifesize statuette of Abraham Lincoln, something like three feet high in a sitting posture.. That's all anyone needs to know about what any non-collector thinks about these coins (or any others), relative to what they can buy with the same money.

Long post, so replying to this extract. No valid analogy. We've discussed this before. Sports teams are in a huge bubble but first, it's an actual business. A real one. Second, owners are willing to make less operating profit because of increasing franchise values. Third, while they presumably don't expect it, they might be willing to lose some money and maybe a lot because of the status value ownership confers. The same applies to any number of other "hobbies", such as race horses, race car teams, a T-Rex skeleton, multiple artworks..you get the idea. No one outside of a coin collector gets any utility from coin ownership and non-collectors are virtually never impressed by the attributes which make most coins expensive. They don't care about date rarity, the "history", the TPG label, "finest" known or registry points, CAC stickers, or whatever. It's irrelevant to them. To them, a 1933 Saint isn't really different than any other date, other than the price. It looks identical to them and while they may be aware coin collectors care about dates and TPG (if they collect another field like sports cards), they aren't coin collectors so still do not care.

Coins aren't in a bubble now, in the aggregate. It's not 1989 all over again. Concurrently, the current especially US price level is only made possible by the global asset mania. No one would be paying $18MM for the 1933 Saint without it, any more than they would be paying hundreds of millions for some artwork.

No, I wouldn't say that, though I'm not sure the time period to which you refer. My first awareness of Sheldon grading was from a 1978 advertisement in Coin World which was then a newspaper. It was for Morgan dollars (I think) offering 60, 63, and 65. I've since read that ANACS was grading using certificates but don't remember the specifics about numerical grades or if any were even used. What I am telling you is that, while presumably all collectors preferred better coins, it wasn't based upon what is now part of the TPG grade. They didn't give enough of a cr*p to pay big premiums for marketing because that's what it is, as the price difference for the now highest TPG grades is totally disproportionate to any difference in the coins as a collectible. With no market for it, no one would pay for it at the time. This makes total sense, since these grade numbers have little to do with actual collecting. If this seems so hard to believe, that's how it is practically everywhere else in the world now, the only exceptions being where TPG has also financialized collecting in places like China and South Africa, Yes, something like that, but once again, not primarily because collectors experienced a collective epiphany where they miraculously discovered that the coins in the now highest TPG grades are so much better than slightly lower grades and as a collectible. This, while all their predecessors operated in a "Dark Age" with a lack of "sophistication". It's primarily a combination of financialization and marketing.

It would be more accurate to say they are possibly willing to lose some money. It's probably also more accurate to say they don't expect to lose it either, not on the most expensive coins they buy or where the amount is meaningful to them. Expensive coins (the most expensive) sometimes sell at a loss, but usually I assume the owner just waits due to the price track record. If you post on the PCGS Forum or read it, there are a few contributors who buy the most expensive US coinage. Within the last few years, there is a thread of how, as soon as one found out a "better" example of this multi-million dollar coin became public knowledge or was going to be sold, they apparently sold theirs as soon as possible. I don't remember the specifics, but it was obvious from the tone of their posts that money was a lot more important than the coin, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone considering the price. DLH's collection is large and worth a lot of money. But even as a billionaire, according to the contributor who started the PCGS mega-thread, my recollection is he doesn't buy hardly any million dollar coins. Given his collection value, I assume he isn't cash poor, so I conclude it's financially driven. He must not be willing to take the financial risk. I agree with the rest of your points.

I see them as mostly "investor" and not actual collectors and that's because I don't see this type of "coin" as a coin at all. There is no actual collecting to it. It's a substitute for other forms of gold (or silver with bullion silver NCLT). Yes, there is a noticeable, but in my opinion, still very low percentage of the much more affluent collector base who are willing to treat what most of us would consider expensive coins as actual collectible. It's also a lot more evident with specific coins (based upon the actual coin attributes) versus others. Hint, it isn't because of marketing from labels, stickers, or computer code showing up as registry points. Yes, if they are already collectors or inclined to collecting. I don't recall the price in the pre-financialization era, prior to the early 70's. That's where I primarily draw the line though of course it's not absolute since preferences have changed somewhat though not much except generically. If a coin was expensive prior to the early 70's, it may be a lot more expensive now, but the prior high price demonstrates strong actual hobby collector demand, as opposed to just the results of financialization and marketing. This is my recollection of the MCMVII Saint. Common doesn't have anything to do with it in this context. Same principle applies to common actual US 20th century key dates (09-S VDB cent, 16-D Mercury) and many early federal coins. OTOH, this does apply to what are actually common coins in TPG holders with a high number on the label. These coins were mostly worth nominal amounts in the pre-financialization era. These aren't bought as "investments" but it's the combination of marketing and several decades of high prices paid by far more affluent buyers supporting it. An example is one of the Franklin halves with a FBL which sold for six figures. I'd guess this coin probably sold for $10 or $20 back then. With world coinage, it's also the internet making it available where it wasn't before, at least as much. Some of these coins are also quite overpriced for what it actually is as a collectible, just (a lot) less versus US.

I've written extensively on this subject, including this extract from your post. In the past, I have estimated that the majority of US collectors (probably a noticeable majority) have annual budgets of $500 or less. It's not "fact" or "scientific", it's an inference based upon what I read on coin forums (mostly dealer accounts buying from walk-ins) and my assumptions of what most (US) collectors are usually actually buying: US mint and proof sets, US moderns, low priced 20th century US classics, and low priced world coinage. I consider these collectors predominantly recreational. My guess is that many forum members dispute this characterization because of differing definitions of "collector". Think about it though. If someone spends up to $500 per year, depending upon how often they sell, they can still spend a low five figures over a lifetime, like $10K or $20K. I don't believe most spend that, not even close. Second, for most others, since the amounts they spend are "substantial", it's not necessarily a recreational expense. I don't think it's mostly for "investment" either but they still intend to get most or all of their money back at resale. Why do I believe this? Predominantly because I don't believe they really find what they are buying that interesting as a collectible at the prices they presumably or potentially pay. It's collector specific but this is the sentiment I overwhelmingly read from all sources; myopic loss aversion. The inflated price level due to financialized collecting has inflated the prices of what are mostly ordinary coins above what it represents as a collectible. This applies far more to US coinage but also to many world and ancients too. It's gotten to the point (years ago) where a collection won't include a high proportion of coin designs or series without a "substantial" outlay. I'm not just referring to rare and scarce or gold either, but what are or used to be "collector" coins.

No, the rise in coin prices is a side consequence of the asset mania but not trying to get into that again. No, there is no expected market price. It's my estimate. It's a non-US coin which to my knowledge has not sold publicly before in this grade and very seldom otherwise. I bought a slightly lower graded one (now in an NGC XF-45 holder) in 2019 (I think) for $250 plus grading fee, but the coin was lost in transit earlier by the USPS when NGC returned it. Only two decent ones I have seen in 20 years. It's an example of coins that effectively cannot be bought normally where the likely price to actually buy it will almost guarantee a loss at resale. It's my inference there are a lot of non-US coins like it, though low proportionately. Many "world" coins might seem like great "investments" in theory, but it does you no good if you can't actually buy the coins.

Your post reminds me of a prominent dealer who posts on the PCGS forum. Having an extensive network is invaluable in both buying and selling. For coins that are actually hard to buy, it gives access the overwhelming majority do not have. When selling, it makes it much easier to realize (supposed) market value for coins that are otherwise illiquid. I made good money off of my South Africa collection and I might make decent money off my pillars (assuming the asset mania doesn't crash first) but unlikely the rest. I never bought my coins specifically with the intent of making money or else I wouldn't be a collector. But the point you make here is a big reason I'm going to have a hard time adding to my pillar collection at reasonable prices. I've reached the point now where there isn't much I want to buy recorded in the TPG data and the coins that I have seen in references don't come up for sale either, ever. I will likely have to go the private sale route to acquire these coins but that won't likely happen except at a noticeable premium to "market" because of the fairly high preference and are all rare, at least in quality that isn't "dreck". The owners almost certainly know it and have no incentive to sell at an amount I consider the likely market price. As an example, there is one coin up for sale at a dealer site now for somewhat more than $2k which I think is probably worth about one-third of ask. It showed up in the TPG data very recently. I'm not paying that which means I need to wait until they offer it at auction (if someone doesn't buy it first).

Many insightful posts here but I'll respond to this one because you made one point i want to add to. The collectors you used as examples bought long before the beginning of financialized collecting, prior to the 70's when coins were first widely bought as "investments" and then in the 80's when TPG first became prevalent. If you look at the PCGS 3000 which I consider representative for most US coins, most US coinage received a two time surge from the two drivers I listed and since then have mostly flatlined. First, a broad surge in the 70's which is reflected in Red Books of the time and then a noticeably higher quality premium from TPG. The other point I have made before which I never see mentioned (though some agree with it somewhat) is that the price level is substantially inflated from the prices of the major asset classes. It's what I call the asset mania. Few now were around or had meaningful amounts of money to buy cheap in the 70's. Somewhat more prior to or maybe right after the TPG crash but even that was over 30 years ago now. I've looked at a lot of (mostly US) coins in the Heritage archives where some have gone up a lot in the last 20 years but it's not many proportionately to my knowledge. Early US gold and somewhat later 19TH century British proof gold also exploded. I recall a then ungraded 1839 British 5 Sovreign sold by Goldberg in 2004 or near it for about $25K. In PR-62, It's a $300K coin now. I should have "stretched" for it then but did not because I don't buy coins as "investments".

Thanks What I cannot stand is obvious or intentional exaggeration, especially when I can reasonably infer it's for financial promotion. There is a thread on the PCGS Forum which may not be active now. The OP was asking about the financial potential of "world" coinage. No specifics of course. As usual, I was the only "naysayer", even though this includes everything I collect. Another example of me providing specific arguments and evidence contradicting (implied) financial hyperbole while everyone else writes in the abstract to disagree with me. Financially, I have taken the opposing side on pretty much everything. (Haven't ever discussed ancients, tokens, or medals - yet.). This includes South African coinage on that's country's forum during their bubble, US moderns multiple times, different US classic series, and "world" coinage ("modern" or "classic") also multiple times. The one common theme with this subject is that others (who don't collect it yet) don't find the coins nearly as interesting as those who are advocating it. This especially applies to any claims for non-collectors supposedly interested in some "mega priced" coin.

Yes, there are one or two mega threads on the PCGS forum though I have not read either. I can infer from it and the existence of the Barber Collectors Society that you are correct. The OP has asked a series of questions, first on errors and more recently on varieties. I have attempted to explain why it isn't a mystery that this type of collecting isn't more "popular", as in widely practiced.

By die variety? Given the size of the US collector base, I presume there is someone (at least one) collecting every US series in this manner but overwhelmingly, the number is immaterial due to lack of interest, cost, or feasibility. For a US series, look at the Barber coinage as an example. It has a respectable core following but not sufficient to create meaningful interest for die varieties. Jeff Garret has an article in Coin Week advocating the design (not variety collecting) but his own words provide the best argument against it. It's a rather long article but the part which matters most is the table with the estimated cost. $5K to $50K from fine to AU. There are still those who do it but in the 21st century, this type of collection is not competitive in this quality at anywhere near this cost. I'd describe these grades in "no man's land", too expensive for low(er) budget collectors while those who can afford it mostly prefer better quality coinage or more design variety. Collecting it by die variety makes it way too expensive for what the collection actually is as a collectible. Jeff Garrett: Collecting Barber Coinage (coinweek.com)