World Colonial

I have a general idea of what you are telling me. Interesting that all governments debase the currency to steal the value of the citizenry's labor and property yet it is perfectly "legal". That's my definition of a real crime which is a huge order of magnitude compared to the issue discussed in this thread. No, you don't need to tell me you disagree with me. I can infer it from your reply my post.

Anyone who confuses a liberty dollar for USD is a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. @VKurtB stated it above I believe and I agree with him. It's not anyone else's obligation to protect a insufficiently_thoughtful_person from their own ignorance or stupidity and this has nothing to do with me being a collector, as even non-collectors should be able to notice such an obvious difference. The best explanation for why he was charged is that the US government won't tolerate any challenge to their monopoly and used that woman attempting to deposit her "coins" as an excuse to do it. In other words, my explanation is that he was charged with a political crime, not a real one.

Exactly It's a nuisance accommodation to customers who are usually barely profitable or likely cost them money. It's my inference that most bank customers either cost banks money or make them very little.

Unless value is referenced to itself as it is with all fiat currency, it has to be arbitrary. The "historical" gold silver ratio of about 16-1 was arbitrary. So were the exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system. Relative values change, all the time.

I don't sell much on eBay but have had a few bidders attempt to negotiate terms, though not the price, after the auction ended. The first buyer was in South Africa where they charge 14% VAT. He asked me to falsify the customs form so that he did not have to pay it. Of course, if the coin had been lost or stolen, it would have been at my risk, since presumably I would not be able to collect on the insurance. The second buyer was in Spain who wanted free registered mail shipping. I was already eating some of the cost. Needless to say, I declined to do either.

If you do not like it, I would send it back if you do not mind paying the postage.

I can see this for both CCG and CU. I can see this as part of the strategy too but predominantly outside of coins. Well, actually they do not. TPG is a necessity for financialization of any mass produced hobby segment but has very little to do with actual collecting. Even with counterfeits, this is predominantly a problem due to the inflated price level caused by financialization. Prior to TPG, the price spreads between grades for most world coins weren't financially meaningful and still aren't now. While US collectors will pay meaningful spreads for one point increments on the Sheldon scale, collectors elsewhere mostly don't and will not. It's my inference (an obvious one) that most of the increase in price spreads between grades is caused by US collectors, not anyone else. US coinage had problems with counterfeiting pre-financialization (before the 70's) but that's because the price level was always an outlier versus other markets and it was profitable to counterfeit common but still (relatively) expensive coins, such as 20th century US key dates. Outside of US coinage, it's an increasing problem but once again, t's only worthwhile to counterfeit anything if being a counterfeiter produces an acceptable ROI or you can make a living at it. Most world coins aren't worth the bother of counterfeiting, due to the low price and also being too scarce.

1849 DE is included in the Red Book. That's how most collectors know it. It's also listed as Judd-117 in Judd and Kosoff's "US Patterns, Trials, and Experimental Pieces". Or is in the copy I own. I don't know if J-1776 is in the Red Book. It wasn't to my recollection in earlier editions, 1998 and earlier but might be wrong about that. There are numerous patterns listed in the Red Book which in the past at least were not clearly identified as such. This creates the false impression it's a rare or at least scarce regular mint issue which in the past affluent collectors did or might have included in their definition of a complete set. The best example is the 1879 Flowing Hair Stella included in type sets. It's actually a relatively common pattern with a mintage of 400.

Notebooks I use at work have not had a CD drive for years. The PC tower I bought for myself recently has both.

Exactly, that's the point. Not like there will never be any breach or unauthorized disclosure. Or "channel surfing" sys admins. No, of course that would never happen.

Maybe a minor negative for numismatics. I'm waiting for the day when the only consumer option will be storing data in the cloud and computers won't come with hard drives or USB ports anymore.

That was then and this is now. I don't know how much familiarity those living outside the US have with classic gold coinage but I would infer "not much". It seems to have ended up mostly in bank reserves from what I know, or maybe a few safe deposit boxes among the wealthy.

It's accurate that more recently, US collectors became more familiar with the circumstances surrounding these coins (some of it probably fiction but that's even better). More recently being around 2002 when it last sold. Prior to that, I'd rate it as predominantly just another entry in the Red Book to most US collectors, though not to those who could have bought it. With the world coinage, it's predominantly only known by collectors where it originates, by relatively few collectors in the US, and on occasion, elsewhere. As an example, probably just about every South African coin collector is familiar with the origin of the Veld pond (a low mintage but available coin) or the 1898 "Single 9" pond (a unique "pattern" and their equivalent to any coin like the US 1933 DE). Almost no one else has ever heard of either, just as coin collectors outside the US have mostly never heard of the 1933 DE, contrary to the sentiments you'll read in the US numismatic press and US coin forums. The difference is that the US is the largest coin market (larger than all others combined by "market value"), is more financialized than any coin market, and has an outsized number of highly affluent buyers (relative to elsewhere) who have a history of paying higher prices. Concurrently, since most collectors have a demonstrated preference for coins from their own country, that's why US collectors will pay current prices for US coinage but almost never from anywhere else.

I would like to take credit for the above quote but cannot

It's been this way for well over half a century, at least. The number of MM+ world coins has increased noticeably (proportionately) to my knowledge in recent years but now instead of US coins presenting 90 of the top 100, maybe it's 80 or near it The last time I checked, there were 91 US coins valued at over $1MM, excluding die varieties.

I read the article in Coin Week. I'd guess most collectors who are aware of the most prominent US coinage already know the 1849 DE and J-1776 are potentially (and presumably) worth more. So is the 1877 Half Union pattern, though I'd much rather have the Garrett $50 proof slug which last I checked was estimated at $2.5MM.

PCGS has a much lower share of submissions for world coinage and zero (to my knowledge) for ancients. I wouldn't expect them to emphasize anything other than US coinage. Both firms have opened offices elsewhere but I have (on multiple occasions) expressed what I believe is the obvious conclusion that TPG will never achieve anything close to US scale in other coinage, outside of NCLT. Even aside from acceptance, most of it will never be worth enough and outside of a limited number of countries (mostly Europe), much of it is too scarce in a quality where hardly anyone would want it graded. Second, unless they are going to just market TPG grading generically, not sure what you would hope to see. The "world coin market" is too fragmented. I use this wording in quotes because the very term is itself US centric. To collectors elsewhere, US coinage is or may be "world" coinage as well. I do see a clear dividing line between US coins and all others by collectors elsewhere but most of them aren't collecting coins from everywhere as is done by US based collectors. There is no market (at US or the supposed market prices) for most "world coins" locally, for either buying or selling.

This makes sense. Division presidents don't necessarily like their boss or the organizational culture either. Or something to this effect. A lot of coin collector might think working for a TPG or an auction firm is fun and it might be for most who do it, but not everybody. It's a job and a business, not a hobby for those who work and invest in it. I had never heard of him until he took his current role but if he was a dealer or part owner of a coin dealership, he probably had more control over his environment and how he spent his time. This matter a lot to a lot of people, more than making more money.

I was calculating the premium as the "ask" ($40) minus the "bid" ($32) divided by the "ask" ($40). So if you buy at $40, you sell back at $32 which about 80% of the "ask" originally paid, or a 20% difference. The "bid" price is well above spot but in fairness, I don't see this as relevant to the liquidity since you get most or all of it back at resale. But yes, you are right that the premium to the "paper" price at this firm is close to 50%. I keep on reading that the premiums are due to retail demand but I believe it's actually mostly reduced liquidity. If demand is supposedly so great, why don't dealers raise their bids? Only reason I can see for it is that they aren't or can't hedge.

I didn't look everywhere. I was using California Numismatic Investments (golddealer.com), a PNG dealer, as a proxy. This was a few days ago. They offer ASE, AGE and all similar products. Not referring to obsolete world coins or jewelry. But yes, their buy price for the 2021 ASE was $32+ and their sell was $40+. That's 20%. Somewhat less for the others but still more than 15%. I did not check every single dealer and yes, there are likely lower spreads somewhere, if you can find it. But I doubt they are that far off, or else they wouldn't be in business anymore. APMEX was somewhat less (though I did not check at the exact same time) but I did not see their bids, only ask prices. It's not possible to buy AGE or ASE from the US Mint as a retail buyer, except proofs.

Most buyers of the "paper" metal don't want physical metal. Shorting "paper" gold and silver doesn't suppress the price, except temporarily. For every short, there is a long. Reducing trading in the "paper" metals doesn't automatically translate into increased demand for physical, especially when this institutional trading might not be connected to retail demand anyway. If inflation increases noticeably, those who own the metals will be better off then those who don't, but owning the minimal amounts most either can or will buy isn't going to make any material difference to the financial position of more a minimal proportion of those buy it. The physical metals aren't as liquid as most coin collectors and metal bugs seem to believe either, especially now. Sure, it's easy to sell but the spreads aren't low relatively versus actually liquid assets. Buy an ASE now and you immediately have a "paper" loss of 15% to 20%. That's horrible liquidity. Gold is 6% to 8% last I checked for AGE, much worse than previously.

Compared to the things people buy, gold isn't cheap now. It is expensive. It's advocates state it is cheap compared to the flood of fiat currency being "printed" but most of it is actually someone's debt, not money. This doesn't mean that gold can't increase 150% to 400% by 2030, it just means that unless most of the things people need to buy increase at least as much, it will be more overpriced than it is now. At some point, I think it will spike a lot higher. However, longer term which may be beyond my lifespan, I expect it to lose a lot of relative value.

In my lifetime, it's been all about timing. If you bought in 1980, you are underwater adjusted for price changes, even by the CPI which many consider understated. If you bought in 2011, you are about even nominally (about -5% as of today) and negative adjusted for price changes. If you bought in 1999 or 2001 and held to 2011, it outperformed practically every other asset class. (Underperformed silver and a low proportion of individual stocks.) If you bought some other time, it depends. Silver is still underwater from 1980, NEGATIVE 48% in NOMINAL TERMS since 1980. Hard to do worse than that and most couldn't do it if they tried. There was inflation (measured by the CPI) each and every year since 1980.

Remember the anecdote from the South Sea Bubble? The IPO titled "an undertaking of great advantage but no one to know what it is"? Purportedly it was for 5,000 GBP. Crypto is backed by nothing, exists only in cyber space, and isn't useful as a functioning currency due to wild volatility. A specific crypto like BTC has a limited supply but collectively the supply of all "cyber coins" is theoretically infinite. It has value solely due to speculation. I hear the same thing about fiat currency but with USD or any other major currency, it must be accepted to pay debts, taxes, and if you want to do business with any government. I have yet to hear of anyone who turned down a government contract because they refused to accept it.

I expect most Americans to be noticeably poorer in the distant and maybe not so distant future. Saints are a much better value relative to the spot price than equivalently available Morgan dollars. Sure, the latter is "popular" but the premiums to spot are exorbitantly inflated for such common coins.