World Colonial

I would expect the price to decline significantly, as I would for any other coin. It would probably also happen to other currently unique objects, such as the Faberge Imperial Easter Eggs I have used as examples numerous time too.

The history aspect is mostly used as another marketing angle. No one needs to buy a high grade or expensive coin for the historical connection and the best reason to believe it is used is to inflate the price level, which has nothing to do with collecting whatsoever. Other than being struck in the year which the coin bears and existing, most coins have nothing to do with contemporary events or any event any collector can identify or knows anything about. Lower priced lower quality coins actually have a more tangible connection than higher quality and more expensive coins for the obvious reason that it at least functioned for its intended purpose. Most high quality coins (including those I own) sat in a coin cabinet for decades or centuries until it ended up in a TPG holder. How exciting is that? Someone either likes coins and coin collecting, enough or they don't. Using contrived connections to "history" when the real industry intent is to try to inflate the price level doesn't sound like a winning long term formula to me, but maybe it does to many others.

Generically, three groups of buyers: 1) Recreational collectors or hobbyists who buy coins predominantly as an alternate form of consumption. This doesn't mean they are throwing money away or don't try to get value. It means they will buy a coin anyway even if they know or have a reason to believe it may or will result in a loss. They are overwhelmingly "low budget" buyers though I would put myself in this category, to a point. I'd never buy what I do if I was mostly motivated to recover my outlay or make a profit. 2) A combination of collector and "investor". This is most buyers with any "material" outlay or who buy most of the more expensive coinage, arbitrarily coins usually worth above $300 and maybe in the better quality if below it. I'd describe these buyers as actual collectors but that doesn't mean they really like what they buy that much, not enough enough to lose "a lot" of money or a noticeable proportion of their outlay. 3) Speculators and "investors". These may be collectors but are more interested in making money than collecting. I infer this both from what they buy and the attitudes they express on coin forums or coin articles. It's subjective but I would place most buyers of NCLT, common gold, and common crowns (like Morgan dollars) in this category, at least to the extent this dominates their collecting. Some are a combination of more than one. Or maybe there is a fourth classification I am excluding. The number one thing to remember when discussing this subject is what I have written countless times. When "collecting" and the price level is driven predominantly by a marketing concept (the TPG label, registry ranking, and/or CAC stickers) under the collective pretense (which is exactly what US collecting is actually doing) that minor differences in predominantly actually common coins supposedly creates distinction, why would anyone ever expect that most buyers would be more interested in actual collecting than the price trend and at least recovering their outlay? So many (mostly US) coins with limited if any actual distinction sell for such inflated and exorbitant prices, there is no reason to believe that most collectors remotely like what they buy enough to see it any other way. This is, of course, a generalization but entirely consistent with what anyone can see in the psychology illustrated on coin forums or coin articles. I saw this first hand with South African "collectors" which was much worse than anything I have ever seen on any US forum but I have seen it on these forums too.

This mostly sums it up. This is what the crowd says during every bubble or mania. It's "always different this time". I agree with @GoldFinger1969to a point in his last comments. There is a much stronger cultural affinity. Sports is a much bigger part of people's lives than coins will ever be. What you described in your post I see as predominantly speculation. I do not follow this hobby segment but particularly anything of more recent vintage (like Michael Jordon or even worse, LeBron James) is way too common. 316 GEM-10 Jordan rookie cards already and it's selling for $700K? That's nut's, far worse than the price of any coin and I find the price spreads on the most common condition census coins ridiculous.

I have only bought at auction from England. The TPG grades did not correlate consistently with the description. But in your case since you bought it in person, I'm going to guess in advance that the NGC grade will be higher, or else you would not have bought it.

There is little interest in "finest known" outside of US coinage; due to the holder label. Where it does exist, it's almost certainly almost exclusively from a US based collector, if the premium is "meaningful". There are some exceptions such as for South Africa but that's because South African collectors have a demonstrated preference for TPG which doesn't exist for almost any other country as is evident from the TPG data.

I can see the image of the coin but have not received it back. Once I do, I'll look at it under magnification. My assumption is that the spot I THINK I saw didn't go into the surfaces as I thought it might. Also, the coin must have been dipped as part of conservation, as it looks a lot more lustrous. I'd prefer the coin with color but it was already untoned (and somewhat dull) prior to resubmission.

Yes and in my limited experience, their grading is really strict. One coin I missed which they graded "Good VF" is now in a PCGS MS-63 holder. I consider the actual grade to be somewhere in-between but I don't see it as a true MS.

I think we are in agreement, mostly at least. Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference and the collectors attitude toward collecting. There is no "one size fits all." I agree with you that those who spend more money are more inclined to collect as you describe, because they are more able to afford it and the amount of the outlay motivates them to do it. But the availability also has a lot to do with it. You know this better than I do. More prominent US coins in very low grades, many of which I consider "dreck" regardless that US collectors see it differently. These coins cost four and sometimes five figures, even with problems or in "market acceptable" grades of AG-3 or G-4. A coin like the 1796 quarter or 1796-1797 half. These coins are scarcer than those I collect as a type, because the combined mintages are very low and much lower than my series. It's several thousand versus several million. But in decent circulated grades, higher grades, or even "choice", mostly not really rare most of the time. I don't see 1794 dollars, 1796 half cents or 1802 half dimes often. I do see most early US federal type in "high quality" (regardless of date) and often in multiple most or every time I look. If I insisted on collecting with similar exacting quality standards or tried to enforce a uniform look, I'd hardly ever buy anything.

It's somewhat of a mystery other than they can get away with it. Part of it might have to do with the shrinking number of firms. There are essentially two large firms (Heritage and Stacks Bowers) but Heritage is larger than all others combined. The other firms are either niche or aren't serious competition for these two. Several firms have disappeared since I resumed collecting in 1998. Bowers and Merena and ANR are now part of Stacks. Superior Galleries suddenly went out of business around 2006. Goldberg was a more serious competitor but now seems to be almost invisible. They are still around but don't see them as much of an alternative to the big two. Same trend to some degree in world coins, though Heritage and Stacks Bowers are the two largest generalists. Everyone else (US or elsewhere) I would describe as a specialist firm. eBay was a more viable option at the lower price points in the past but I'd never sell using a true auction format now unless it was a relatively liquid coin.

I'm at the point in my primary series where I am about to run out of coins from the TPG population data to buy. There are five dates remaining (from a series broadly defined with 104 coins) in a quality I will accept (that is, not dreck) that I currently do not own. However, I have not seen most of these coins and there are some real "head scratchers" out there where I have no idea how that grade was assigned. There are also additional upgrades but that's less of a priority. So yes, in an example like mine, it will be beneficial to attempt to acquire through private transaction because it's essentially the only option. If I ever decide to attempt it, there is one dealer on the PCGS forum and the author/collector of the reference book I will approach as a starting point. When I collected South Africa Union as my primary series, I also sold most of my better coins privately about 10 years ago. However, that's because there is almost no market for these coins in the US, except at or near Krause list which is well below the value in South Africa. It's one of the reasons I changed my focus, too much trouble to sell.

If a collector wants one with the highest number on a TPG label, with a very specific strike, with a very specific color or color pattern ("eye appeal", some die variety, or a combination, such a coin might be hard to find. So are 99% of all coins ever struck outside of NCLT, modern proofs, and maybe circulating coinage from the last 10-20 years. Most collectors don't find any difficulty in buying 20th century US coins in "acceptable quality". Your description applies to a very low fraction of the collector base and the primary reason this behavior happens at all is that most of these coins are so common, they have the luxury to choose from a (relatively) large number: almost always dozens, hundreds, thousands or even more in "acceptable quality". Intermittently, I look at numerous US key dates or coins viewed as (somewhat) scarce or even rare. Invariably, I can find practically every one every time and it isn't "dreck" either. On a recent search, this included the 1796 and 1797 half dollars. Collectors Corner had six 1796 and three 1797 (including auctions) up to MS. I have found one or both of these dates in "high quality", every single time I have looked. It's not common but isn't a hard type to buy, even in "high" quality. I intended to use "acceptable quality" broadly as it describes how most collectors actually collect. They aren't willing to pay, can't afford, or don't care about what are actually minor attributes, outside of the price. Collectors have always preferred better coins, this kind of search was just a lot less important to them when the price level was a lot lower and price spreads were narrower. The broader point I was trying to make is the one I made before. I don't see much motive for a buyer to bypass public auction where the coin is readily available, though I was only using 20th century US as an example. They might as well buy it from a dealer instead of another collector, unless they can split the savings with the seller or buy it a discount, at minimum. Another alternative to auctions is consignment. If I had the coins inferred in the prior posts meeting this narrow quality criteria and price range, I'd consign to a dealer like CRO. It's much easier and less risky than hoping you can find another collector who wants what you have when you don't even know them.

You're bringing up a point which has been discussed previously where posters seem to have different opinions. The buyer's fee won't in and of itself increase the final price to the buyer. It depends upon the bidder. They can just lower their bid to stay within their limit. It's buyer specific but I doubt bidders at this level are completely ignoring it in deciding how much to pay. One point which I did not successfully make in my last post is that I don't see most buyers having much incentive to engage in a private transaction, UNLESS they can "split the difference" , buy at a discount to the "retail" price. I'd buy directly and pay (somewhat) more for a coin in my series but that's only because these are actually hard to buy. But if I do, I'd be guessing at the value, as there is no established price. Also, take a look at the "Make an Offer" available in Heritage. Even for coins which sold recently, mostly (hugely) inflated ask prices for overwhelmingly common coins, If you remember my prior posts, I noted that outside of a very low number of Indian Head eagles and Saints, any 20th century US coin outside of the 1913 LHN and patterns can be bought at any time, outside of some arbitrary TPG label or specialization. It's more difficult for 18th and 19th century, but still mostly in a narrow sense, as only a very low proportion can't be bought in "acceptable quality" on short notice, as in maybe a few months. A private sale creates a lot more uncertainty with elite coins like a 27-D Saint. On the PCGS forum, one poster purportedly did that with the MS-67 Pacquet reverse DE less than a year ago and now it's coming up for sale. Did the prior seller misjudge the market and sell it cheap? Maybe and we're about to find out.

Well, at least it came back MS-65 which is an upgrade from MS-64. i was worried it might come back AU details with spot removal. Total cost though is $104 since I had to submit it alone.

If you are selling a really expensive US coin, the commission isn't 10% to 15%. It's noticeably less from what I have read on coins forums. If you are selling typical expensive US coins maybe in the $5,000 to $50,000 range, these coins aren't hardly ever even scarce. I'm not sure there is much incentive for many collectors to buy it in a private transaction. I don't know what most other collectors think about this option. With South African Union which used to be my primary interest, I concluded years ago that most of the rarest and hardest to find coins do sell this way. There are many coins (proportionately) which to my knowledge have never sold publicly or do very infrequently. I'm not referring to just scarce coins based upon grade, but the coins collectors want to buy the most. Some might have sold through local dealers but on one occasion, I asked one of the more prominent ones how often they had sold the 1931 silver in better grades and their answer was none of them. This was around 2008 and they have been in business since the late 60's. Another collector summarized offers from dealer price lists (the better known dealers) over several decades. Still ZERO for the 3P, 6P, shilling, florin and half crown, except in low or very low grades and even them still almost none.

I read the article. I was initially thinking he was referring to sales of US coins but you are correct, it's auction coin sales within the US. I don't consider the above numbers impressive, not for recent history. If accurate, it's equivalent of two to maybe four high profile paintings. The trend isn't noticeably increasing either. The numbers seem somewhat low. I have not read it recently but Heritage used to provide a press release on their website and elsewhere with an annual breakout of their volume. My recollection was that their sales alone exceeded the amounts Garett reports. However, it would also include turnover not attributed to auctioned lots. My thinking of the article that it's primarily financial promotion. I get his point that it matters to coin buyers due to future resale. It's a good thing, but to a point only for those who are primarily buying as a collector, as opposed to "investor".

Ultimately it comes down to personal preference but I have decided to minimize the number and type of coins I buy that will need submitting later to market it properly to recover my money. Yes, this means I don't like most coins enough to buy it. Right now, I have two submissions pending with one recently returned. The one returned was under the "World Standard" tier which cost $38 each (X2), plus a $10 handling fee plus the return shipping by registered mail. I valued these two at $1150, though one came back in a lower grade than I hoped. I don't intend to sell either but the one below my expectations, I'll crack it out if I do, as it's now worth more out of the holder than in it. The second submission is for a regrade due to a spot appearing to develop in the holder. I intend to file a claim under the grading guarantee if it comes back in a lower grade or as a "details". I have to pay a $30 conservation fee, $38 grading fee, handling fee, and shipping. Total is about $100 for a coin I valued at $1200, if it comes back with the original grade. The third submission has five coins which I valued around $1750. Two will grade under "Standard" and three as "World Economy" which costs $22. The combined cost will be about $300. I would have preferred not to have these coins graded, only conserved so that I can see what the coins look like first. However, NGC discontinued that option since the last time I submitted. Yes, it's another annoyance, as it potentially means I will end up with one or more "details" coins which I would never knowingly have graded. I might have before but the cost is too high now.

I presume the grade is due to the clutter in the fields. It's a nice looking coin and I would prefer one with darker surfaces over a bright untoned one with less marks. Good strike too.

It's the equivalent of the public emptying out their change jars and sending most or all of it to the TPGs. I have a friend who handed her deceased husband's stash to hold for her. I have no idea what is in it as I have not looked and would need to research value. She needs the money but I would have to front her the submission fees, as she hardly has two nickels to rub together. I wasn't aware the backlog was this large. By the time everything in the queue gets graded, it's possible the bubble will have burst. It's going to burst one way or the other because most if not practically all of this stuff is very common and a lot more common than currently evident. Already 316 GEM-10 Jordan rookie cards selling in the high six figures is common as dirt for a collectible in this price range. Almost certainly many more out there too.

Not to my knowledge. Not only is the cert number necessary to verify an NGC ocin, so is the grade. What you are describing seems to require the ability to click on the population count and have it expand to display every coin graded at a particular grade. Nice idea but don't see it ever happening, even assuming every coin was imaged which it isn't.

For those who do not know, one of two nationalities in modern day Belgium. Flemish is the other.

You seem to be referring to the macro economic aspects. This in and of itself is not that important to me. If it didn't have such unequal and inequitable effects by picking winners and losers, I would be indifferent. My primary objection is how it impacts the individual who is just trying to live their life and plan for their future without being forced to participate in a financial casino to preserve their living standards.

Thanks, coming from you, I especially appreciate it.

Yes, I think he should be pardoned, based upon what I know. I don't believe he ever should have been charged, period. It's not because I support his protest position. I'm also not a metal fanatic, don't own any gold or silver now other than through my collection, never owned a single liberty dollar or any "coin" like it, and don't ever intend to buy one either. It's because I consider the case farcical, selective prosecution of a victimless "crime" and hypocrisy at its finest. It's a penny ante “crime” where I didn't read a single post here even claiming a single person suffered any loss or injury. This is why I stated the government’s motivation should be obvious (a politically motivated prosecution) to anyone who will look at the situation impartially. I see it as the government pretending to prosecute a consumer protection case claiming to protect potential “victims” even as it simultaneously intentionally defrauds every USD holder (hundreds of millions of them) indefinitely through institutionalized inflation. Don’t believe me? Read the Federal Reserve’s “stable price” mandate where they communicated their 2% inflation target over time. What they are actually telling everyone is that they are committed to stealing (what else exactly is it?) from anyone who earns their income in USD and holds USD assets, each and every year forever. If this case was such a “vital” public policy interest, why didn’t the government do anything about it earlier and why were any liberty dollars returned? The best explanation is what I wrote in my prior post. The real purpose of the case was sending a message to anyone who will even think of challenging the government’s money monopoly. There is no similarity between a liberty dollar and circulating US coinage. Designs look nothing alike, the size differs, and there is no (and never has been) $10 or $20 silver circulating coin. Any public confusion with circulating US coinage is mostly attributable to the continuous design change since inception of the SQ program in 1999. Whose fault is that? There is no reason to believe most of the public can recognize most post-1998 quarters and dollar coins which actually do circulate, as opposed to the liberty dollar which does not. Many if not most collectors can’t do it offhand either. To anyone who claims otherwise, there is this tool - the internet - which provides confirmation in minutes. Using it is not a hardship on anyone who is so clueless to be confused by a liberty dollar, if they have any functioning brain cells. We are using it now on this forum and most Americans use it, all the time. As to why this comparison is relevant, the liberty dollar is irrelevant to literally virtually everyone in this country. Conversely, government intentionally systematically debasing the currency is relevant to practically every American. This real crime is institutionalized theft, regardless that it is “legal”. It’s “legal” plundering of the citizenry; hundreds of billions to trillions annually, depending upon how measured. Anyone else here can call it whatever they want to rationalize their position if they disagree with me. But then, the next thing I am going to hear is that two different acceptable standards of conduct makes complete sense, one for the private citizen and another for the government official, right? This Bizarro world contradiction is totally justified in the name of "public policy" as in these matters, the responsible government agencies and their lackeys in the economics profession are infallible. OK, rant over.

It is both and one compliments the other. I don't believe it is mostly war now because US military spending is a much smaller component of government spending and economic output than it was elsewhere in the past. Credit also plays a much larger role now too, by enabling the population to afford things and pay prices they otherwise could not. What you state has been true historically elsewhere in the past. This is my explanation for it today, though those who favor these programs will often deny it. There is a lot more "butter" today in the government budget than "guns". It's become so extreme now that even if the entire defense budget were eliminated, budget deficits would still be at unprecedented levels outside of a few time periods (Civil War, WWII). Another factor is that much of the defense budget is spent outside the US and doesn't directly contribute to inflation in the US.