World Colonial

On 7/7/2022 at 8:23 PM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

Thanks for all the perspectives.  I tossed this out there to be a conversation starter - and the thread is a fun read.  My take aways:

1. Today's top collectors don't really care if they lose money

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.

On 7/7/2022 at 5:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Where would you put the gold bullion buyer direct from the Mint who also may buy from an LCS, online, and maybe even attend a coin show ?

This is where I came from:  an occasional buyer of gold coins who then learned about pre-1933 gold....commemoratives.... foreign gold coins.....etc.

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).

On 7/7/2022 at 5:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, loss hate is greater than gain love.  But I think that it matters whether someone has a few thousand dollars a year after expenses....tens of thousands....or hundreds of thousands.

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.

On 7/7/2022 at 5:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You are also now for the first time seeing the Middle Class get substantial inheritances/estates from family members.  Don't discount those windfalls being spent on investments and collectibles (at least by those who don't blow it on a new Porsche and trips to Vegas  ).

Yes, if they are already collectors or inclined to collecting.

On 7/7/2022 at 5:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Can't speak on world/ancient coins as I'm out of my element there...but I definitely see what you are talking about with U.S. coins, especially with those I have interest...and one in particular that I (eventually) want to buy:  the 1907 MCMVII High Relief Saint. 

That is one coin I repeatedly see called "overpriced" given the population and survivor numbers....but I believe it's a unique coin with great historical value, sought after by high-end and Type collectors. 

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.

On 7/7/2022 at 11:16 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

I cannot help but feel, however, that all this talk about money and investments has corrupted the spirit of coin collecting which I maintain [to at least one member's amusement] is nothing more than a behavioral trait much like OCD, which the folks who produce the DSM-5 have yet to acknowledge.

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.

On 7/6/2022 at 6:38 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not sure what you mean by this....do you mean that coins are expensive relative to other forms of wealth and it's difficult to sell those to buy coins, compared to 30 or 50 years ago ?

No, the rise in coin prices is a side consequence of the asset mania but not trying to get into that again.

On 7/6/2022 at 6:38 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Are you saying a coin is selling for 3x the expected market price ?  Maybe the printed prices are outdated or recent demand for the coin has materialized and driven up the price ?

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.

On 6/26/2022 at 6:10 AM, zadok said:

...n knowing, seeking counsel from, having access to no less than 63 of coin world's list of 100 most influential numismatist certainly helped, n being able to purchase coins from 20 of the greatest collections of the past 50 years was very opportunistic...but this outlier thing, i have indoor plumbing now....

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).  

On 6/25/2022 at 2:03 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The classic coin collections that were sold in the 1970's, 1980's, and later.....were the beneficiaries of being purchased pre-WW II and then benefitted from the Baby Boom and the Coin Boom.  Some of the returns were fantastic, Eliasberg and John Jay Pittman among them. 

I estimate that JJP's return on coins was about 20% a year, which is outstanding and beats stocks and other assets over that time.  But again, Pittman benefitted from buying coins in the 1950's and 1960's....AND....focusing on gold & silver coins whose price was artificially kept low and reaped huge profits in the 1970's. 

Forget the bubble-spike prices.....if you use $20 (silver) and $500 (gold) as the 1980 price, these assets returned about 26% and 28% respectively in the 1970's.  The prices rose and fell over the next few decades and this hurt returns (no capital appreciation + no dividends).

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".

On 7/6/2022 at 12:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@World Colonial:

The only reason why I do not formally follow you is because doing so would reflect poorly, on you. But I hang on your every word as your voice is like no other. I appreciate the fact you address all members, from all walks of life, evenly.  

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.

On 7/6/2022 at 9:34 AM, zadok said:

...barber club members mostly collect the series cause they love it, for most part they dont care what grades the coins r, obviously they strive to do uniform grades in their sets but take as much pride in a g4 set as a xf40 set...strange bunch of collectors but i like them all...as n aside, i am aware of one set( dimes), all of the coins r gem bu 65+s...

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.

On 7/5/2022 at 10:10 PM, Errorists said:

I collect both early and modern ones.

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)

On 7/5/2022 at 9:02 PM, Errorists said:

Some are easy to see.

Yes, a very low proportion.  These are the ones collected most, being also included in reference books and registry sets.

Only a very low number of series have a high enough collector preference while also being affordable to a large enough collector base.  I'd rate US early large cents first followed by Capped Bust halves and early half cents.  Capped Bust halves are generically both common enough and cheap enough even in mid-circulated grades.  Early US copper has a high enough preference even in the lowest grades.

Good demand for early federal silver coinage across the board.  Earlier US gold is both too scarce and too expensive while Liberty Seated is a long series with too many scarce dates.  It's pointless to even attempt collecting a series by variety when the collector can't even (afford to) collect it by date.  That's the reality for practically every single world coin series I have attempted to collect since 1998, including those I collect now.  I never completed a single one.

The rest of US coinage isn't interesting enough.  That's what the evidence shows.

On 7/5/2022 at 6:51 PM, Errorists said:

Any moderns included?

Yes, of course.  Example is 69-S/S cent.  

As for your original question, there must be hundreds at minimum for the "low" mintage years and thousands for the highest mintage dates.  Remember, we're talking about some years with something like 7 billion Lincoln cents from each mint, Philadelphia and Denver.

I've seen many (though a very low proportion) in the Heritage archives with the reference number in the description.  It must come from a reference book.

But like I told you (along with a few others), it's numismatic minutia of no interest to practically anyone, especially where they will pay any "meaningful" premium for at least 99% of these.  No different for most coinage.

How many want to collect hundreds or thousands of the same date/MM/denomination where the difference can only be identified under a microscope?

Was this related to the discovery of the Comstock Lode and indirectly, the California Gold Rush?

I only know when the silver content in US coinage was adjusted (by the arrows on the design) but don't how the relative supply of these discoveries impacted availability of silver coinage or melting.

I don't consider many Seated dollars scarce (except in grade) but most aren't (very) common either.

On 7/4/2022 at 8:39 PM, Hoghead515 said:

I been spending between $20 and $150 per coin on this set. I paid a little more for a couple. I got the 44 D in a package deal when I bought a couple others. Im no hurry to upgrade it yet but its gonna drive me crazy if I dont one of these days knowing I can within my budget. 

Makes sense.  If the grade matters to you, I'd buy the highest one before a big price jump.  Or buy one in a lower grade but with positive attributes which matter more to you.  On this series, I think I'd rather have a better strike and good luster and accept slightly more contact marks.

On 7/4/2022 at 8:39 PM, Hoghead515 said:

I will definately have to take some lesser grades on the 32 d and s. 

That would be a tough one for me, as I don't find the series attractive in lower grades, at all.  By lower, I'm including up to at least XF.   It's one which doesn't wear well.  It's the same problem with one of my previous ones, South Africa Union.  

On 7/4/2022 at 8:39 PM, Hoghead515 said:

My plans are eventually when I get to the coins in the 40s and a few of the 30s is putting back $50 or so out of each check till I save up $500 or so and try to get most of them in mint state if I can. But if I dont get to and have to settle for AU coins then I will be happy with those also. Been thinking about shopping around a bit and trying my hand at buying raw coins and submitting them myself. Ive learned alot over the past few years to learn what to watch for such as cleaned coins and lower and higher grades. 

Not sure if this matters to you but depending upon how long you intend to hold it, I think it's one more likely to lose value than gain it.  Exception is primarily due to potential changes in silver spot.  I hold this opinion for a variety of reasons expressed in prior posts.  I hold the same view for practically all 20th century and later US coinage.

On 7/4/2022 at 2:34 PM, Lem E said:

It is very satisfying to upgrade a coin and even better when we can get ahold of one of those tough dates and keys. 

Personally, I would not upgrade if choosing a set like this one.  Upgrading involves noticeable potential proportional "slippage", especially if working on a limited budget.

I infer from the OP that (many of) the earlier dates will be bought in AU.  The 44-D was mentioned where the counts are low because most submitted are in an MS grade.

I'd be inclined to just wait or, buy the coins ungraded submitting it myself.

I haven't checked prices in a few years (consistently anyway) but it's also one which I think isn't going to increase much proportionately.  So, I wouldn't be in a hurry for this reason either.

I have a Spanish colonial quarter real attributed to Colombia as Restrepo 2.1, not dated but believed to be struck from or between 1756-1796.  It's an entry in the census meaning the coin exists in the DB with others listed but just not mine.

It's in an old holder and I bought it sometime around 2008.

I've seen it on occasion in the past too.  I presume it happens because there is/was no automated entry and someone didn't add it manually.

On 6/29/2022 at 3:09 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Aren't U.S. Small Coins post-1933 (maybe even a bit earlier) also very low in the high-end populations ?  I guess most circulated even though mintages were sometimes billions ?

If you are using the prior CAC pop data I referenced, those numbers are not low for an MS-66.  It's common.  

For post-1933 US coinage, the populations for late 30's and later are what I would call very high, especially 38-D Buffalo nickel and 40's Mercury dimes.

Concurrently, I also assume the number not graded is usually probably greater and in some instances a (large) multiple of the TPG pops.  More so for Lincoln cents, Jefferson nickels, and later 40's to 1964 for the silver coinage.

The difference with these Saints dates is that first, as a large denomination it circulated much less or not at all.  Second, some or all are hoard coins.  Third, the coins are more likely to be graded due to the much higher market value.  If every or most potential MS-66 post-1933 US silver or base metal was graded, the market price would be a nominal premium over silver spot, less than the grading fee, or both. That's never going to happen because it makes no sense.

Mintages didn't reach one billion until the end of the Lincoln Wheat cent series.

On 6/29/2022 at 2:20 AM, Cat Bath said:

I've thought about that number a lot & think it is smaller. Maybe 250  (this includes "poverty sets" & higher)

My saints average out around Pop 100 higher. Meaning there are about 100 "better" than the one I have.

This for a person on a blue collar salary. I'm guessing 500+ serious, wealthy collectors would all but prevent me from owning the coins I do.

Purely a guess from looking at populations & public registry sets.

When did you buy most of your coins?

I think the conclusion is somewhat or noticeably different if mostly after 2009 versus mostly before due to the (much) higher spot price.  For the CAC, I presume the populations were noticeably lower, but the spot price is a bigger factor.

The premiums aren't that large for higher grades proportionately but the much higher spot prices since around 2010 make it far less competitive as a collectible.  As an "investment", it's got the potential to appreciate due to both rising spot and expanding premiums.  That's what makes it appealing for predominantly financially motivated buyers along with its much better relative liquidity.

What I described also usually applies for other large size gold, US or world.

On 6/28/2022 at 2:41 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I like NGC's modern labels.  They're colorful and sometimes relevant to the coin in the holder.

I can understand that. 

The decision of what goes on the label, including a 69 or 70, is a business marketing decision.  It's not like NGC couldn't change the mix between the two grades to align with PCGS, if they wanted to do it.

They presumably do not.

On 6/28/2022 at 1:02 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is he saying PCGS = California and NGC = Florida ?  I'm confused.

Yes, I assume so.  To my knowledge, NGC has consistently assigned higher proportion of 70's which accounts for the price difference.

Regardless, it's marketing and paying for the label.  There is a more noticeable difference in the label than in the coin with these assigned grades, much bigger.

On 6/23/2022 at 5:44 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

That's hard to believe.....

Not really, as it has nothing to do with collecting.  It's marketing.

On 6/27/2022 at 7:27 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think you are correct....CAC ignores the "+" designation.  But wouldn't a 66+CAC be at least as good as a 66 CAC for a (lucky) upgrade to MS-67 ?  Happens alot for non-plus coins so I would think the "+" couldn't hurt.

Yes, agree with that, all other things being equal.

On 6/27/2022 at 7:27 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

True, but the high bullion content and the large number of fans of the Double Eagle series imply much higher demand for the coin at all grades especially top-condition coins, right ?

I guess it just depends upon how you want to look at it.  I don't believe more than a low minority buying one of these CAC 66 common dates are primarily buying it primarily for collecting reasons but obviously, not something I can prove.  It's a combination of collecting and "investment".

All of these coins are "widgets" as far as I am concerned. The HR Saint is also very common, but it's had a high collector preference (almost) from the beginning which makes it different.  These dates used to be viewed as bullion and that's what it really is still, regardless of the grade.  It's bullion selling at an inflated premium.

The price spreads aren't that high percentage wise between grades versus "collector" coins, but that due to the high generic price and that as a 66, it's still actually very common even with the sticker.

On 6/27/2022 at 6:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

What about for the 66-plusses ?

My understanding is that CAC ignores "+".  Might be wrong about that but didn't see it in their pop report.  Under this assumption, I wouldn't assume that any "+" coin with a CAC sticker is a candidate for a 67.  It's presumably already "nice" for the grade.

On 6/27/2022 at 6:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Those aren't HUGE pops....in other words, they are somewhat rare in top condition. 

That's not even close to rare for any coin in this grade, even ignoring other grades.  Look at the TPG data and you'll see that other than Morgan and Peace dollars, it's only common Saints and Liberty Head double eagles that virtually ever have this many among pre-1933 US.

On 6/27/2022 at 6:24 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

 Keep in mind that you have about 500 serious collectors (maybe more) who want top or near-top condition coins where they can afford it (and these people generally have the $$$).....throw in a minority of the 25,000 Type Collectors who buy upscale and that explains the prices for what might appear to be a "plentiful" coin in the condition.

 

Yes, I get that.  I also assume that there are many more not sent in still eligible.

There might be 25,000 upscale type collectors of common US gold coinage (12 coin set), maybe.  I don't believe there are this many for US coinage as type collectors generically.

On 6/27/2022 at 11:37 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Sunday GC Saint-Gaudens Results (final bids rounded; all TPGs PCGS unless listed NGC):

• 1928 MS-66 OGH CAC.....$5,700
• 1928 MS-66.......................$4,000
• 1928 MS-66+ CAC............$8,600
• 1927 MS-66.......................$3,400
• 1927 MS-66+ CAC............$7,300
• 1924 MS-66.......................$3,500 (3 sold basically identically)
• 1924 MS-66+ CAC NGC did not get any bids at the asking price of $7,000 w/bp.
• 1924 MS-66+ CAC PCGS also got no bids at about $6,800
• 1924 MS-66 CAC...............$5,200
• 1924 MS-66 CAC...............$5,900 HALF DOME COLLECT
• 1923-D MS-66 NGC ..........NO BIDS @ $6,800
• 1908 NM MS-66 NGC........$3,400

Just looked up the pops for these dates.

Even with a CAC sticker, none of the counts are low in those grades: 286, 725, 605, and 358.  Maybe some duplicates if someone cracked it out of the holder for regrading and sent it back to CAC.

On 6/23/2022 at 8:09 PM, RWB said:

Modern counterfeiters copy anything on which they can make a profit. Low value authentic coins get little scrutiny and are much more likely to be copied, sold, resold, and when the music stops, some poor schmoe is stuck with a piece of cheap steel.

Agree

It's easier and usually more profitable to pass fake common coins of low-moderate value than a few more expensive coins.  Examples include circulated 09-S VDB cents, 16-D dime, Spanish cobs, and Mexico pillar dollars.  There are millions of the last two each worth several hundred or somewhat more.  Most never see a TPG grading room, so it's easy to sell thousands of fakes.