World Colonial

10 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

But ironically, coins from other nations never seem to hit the prices U.S. ultra-rarities do. There are quite a few utterly unique British coins that don't get even sort of close. I attribute it to something Americans do better than anyone else - "pump and dump", aka "marketing".

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.

4 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I was a member for a year and during that time increasingly got the impression I was a fish out of water. Conservatively speaking, 99.44% of all the material I was sent from them, and advertisers, emphasized U.S. coins. 🐓🐓🐓? Limited to the Census and Set Registry. (NGC's profile in Europe was limited and no more than 10 members collecting 🐓 as opposed to 37 at PCGS).  It's U.S.A., all the way.

I believe you are right about their scant coverage of outside concerns. Maybe Mr. Charville's successor will change that.

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.

11 hours ago, gmarguli said:

Or possibly he just hated the job. A prior PCGS President told me he hated the job. 

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.

1 hour ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Those prices are like Crazy Eddie's.......INSANE !!!    

With silver at about $25, you have to pay a 60% premium to buy !!  Forget the bid-ask spread, that's INSANE !!! 

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.

16 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Premiums for AGEs are high right now ?  Direct from the mint ?  I think I see plenty of bullion at spot online.

I knew silver was high, didn't realize it was still $6-$8. 

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.

20 minutes ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

The premise was that if banks were made to hold reserves against their assets they might be forced to reduce trading in unallocated PMs, wiping out the trading of unallocated PMs in the London and NY markets and the U.S. could no longer suppress gold and silver prices. I'm not sure how true any of this is and if any of it will actually come to fruition, it was just one possible out come of Basle 3.

Will Basel 3 Boost Gold and Silver Prices? - Numismatic News

Why Basel 3 Accords May Not Boost Gold, Silver Prices - Numismatic News

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.

38 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I'm just making an educated guess -- that's what it is, a guess.  I don't think $10,000 by 2030 is a reasonable price but I think that a 50-100% rise in gold is feasible in 9 years.

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.

14 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

As inflation hedges ?  Well, the 2 time periods we have are unique:  1933-1971 when gold/silver prices were fixed and then zoomed for a decade after being supprssed for decades.....and 1980 to the present when inflation and interest rates collapsed for 40+ years.

You can probably cherry pick the data but I doubt either works as an inflation hedge over most of the recent time period.

However....if inflation goes up slowly and steadily (as opposed to a sudden burst and collapse) then I would think that gold/coins will do well.  And I do believe that by 2030 or so that we could see silver at $75/oz. and gold closer to $4,000 or $5,000.

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.

8 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

No way.....very few billionaires would buy crypto in size....too risky.

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.

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

As for the specific comments: 

I disagree with John Brush that coins at the high-end or in their entirety are now an asset class, they are most certainly NOT.  Too few....too small in $$$-size....too illiquid.

Doesn't he work for or is a principal at DLRC?  If so, either he or someone from this firm made a comment on the PCGS forum in the Hansen mega-thread about coins being "under valued" by comparing it to prominent art.  Or he claimed Hansen said it and the reaction of "wide eyed" bankers absorbing this supposed wisdom.  It's complete BS, just as the earlier NGC article on financial prospects for fractional ownership.

10 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I TOTALLY disagree with James Sibley that this is a move predicated on wanting "hard assets" before hyper-inflation hits.  Nobody with Big $$$ buys a single coin for $20 MM or so to protect against inflation.  You buy TIPs or gold or commodities or even BitCoin or even sell short fixed-income instruments.  

 

I agree it's more total BS.  Coins aren't an inflation hedge and the idea is absurd.

11 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I also think he is too definitive on demographics being a major depressant on prices and being long-term bearish on prices.  I do think demographics MIGHT be a headwind -- but that is all.  Other forces could offset that negative.  It's unclear if coins -- or at least the major coin types -- will follow stamps or art in 20 years or so.

I believe ethnic demographic (not age) changes are a likely big negative for aggregate US coin prices longer term, but not for the high(est) end.  The number of coins is too low where it makes much difference. 

15 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

One exception, Roger:  I do think it will drag up the prices of MCMVII UHRs as a more beautiful coin with a very limited but more available coinage.   A 1907 UHR is a very nice consolation prize.

Anybody who wanted this coin at $10-$15 MM would be smart to grap one of the Top 10 UHRs at less than half of that price.

Per my first post here, I think you are right.

1 hour ago, Alex in PA. said:

You 'collectors', at present, have no idea who or what bought this coin.  As I said, people who are worth billions often get bored.  Perhaps Exxon-Mobile or China National Petroleum bought it.  Would be the first time a major corp bought a valuable item.  Get a picture of this coin everyone is so enamored with and stare at it.  That often helps.  

Could be, but it would help if non-collectors actually know this coins exists.  The overwhelming indication is that they do not.

9 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

That’s because you live in a world of nearly flawless gold pieces, not a very large world at all, other than in mint-issued capsules. 

Agree.

I consider this coin highly significant as a coin collector, just not to the level of the hype reflected in the price or what the US coin industry makes of it.  It's still one I have no interest in owning even if I could afford it, but I "get" why it's significant to US coin collectors.

No actually significant coin primarily depends upon minor quality differences reflected in TPG grades for its prominence.

2 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

Often we cannot fathom why people do the things they do.  Wealth, exceptional wealth, is a great motivator.

The world's ultra-wealthy spend money on things that most people can't even fathom buying.

One tech billionaire bought his own Hawaiian island, and a hedge fund manager spent at least $8 million on a 14-foot preserved shark.  Some unknowns are buying tickets for trips into space even though they are not astronauts.

Totally different motivation versus buying any coin.

I heard that a non-collector might have bought it again this time, just as Weitzman wasn't purportedly a collector when he bought it in 2002, though had been a casual one as a youth.

The island has some practical usage.  The buyer can build on it for use as a private resort.  The other two have general status value, of a sort.

The 1933 DE doesn't have status value or utility to anyone, except a coin collector.  No one needs to spend $18.9MM to impress a non-collector with a "trophy" object.  They can buy most of the items displayed in first class museums for a low fraction of the price.  I've been a coin collector all my life and to me, it's so what?

If a non-collector bought it, it's presumably for diversification (a supposed inflation hedge) and "investment".  I think it will turn out to be a lousy or mediocre "investment" at the price paid, but time will tell.

I presume it has some downstream impact on some of the highest priced eight figure ($MM) coins.  Other than that, I don't believe it has any relevance to the price level either.

2 hours ago, EdG_Ohio said:

I have to agree w/VKurtB, I have never really understood the desire to collect a faulty imperfect coin. Why would I want to hold a beautiful rose in my hand if half the petals are missing ?  

The only reason I can see for pushing this theme is to convince everyone else that what they own should be more valuable.  Why else would anyone care what anyone else thinks about it?

23 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I feel the same way, but I’m constantly on the lookout for ngccoin.com newbies who might want to burn me as a heretic.

I see most of the motivation as financial, to inflate the price level as much as possible and exaggerate the significance for the rarity even though it's the norm.

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Counterfeiting only economically works when lots of people are possible customers. 

Yes, exactly.  You summarized my long winded post.

55 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

That’s because the Chinese counterfeiters may never have seen your choice of stuff. 

They know the pillar design.  It circulated over there.  The Mexico pillar dollar is one of the more counterfeited coins.

I presume professional counterfeiters treat it like any other business, at least to a point.  It's much easier and more profitable to produce large numbers of fakes for the coins you listed, common US key dates, and some ancients than anything I collect, whether they know it exists or not. 

A 1916-D VG dime sells for more than all but a very low number of coins (less than 10) I have ever bought.  Somewhere over $1000.  Or any others like it.  It's a very common coin where a noticeable number could (and to my knowledge have) been sold without the buyer being aware of it, until years later if ever.  I have heard there are potentially more fakes than real ones.

Nothing like this will ever happen for what I collect, where the numbers matter to a counterfeiter.

Recently, I compiled a list I know exist in my series that I would like to buy: from the TPG populations, auction catalogs and my reference books.  67 total coins for 49 different date/mint combinations.  More out there but it isn't many.

 A few on this list would be worth counterfeiting as singles but mostly. not worth the effort.  Sure, I could be fooled into buying one or a few at nominal prices. Anything more than a minimal number showing up in any close proximity would be noticed.  The coins just do not show up, except in isolation.

I wouldn't buy a coin at any meaningful price from an unknown source where I have never heard of one like it.

3 hours ago, VKurtB said:

If it’s popular, it WILL BE faked into oblivion. China, it’s what they do. 

Not just popular, but also common or common as dirt.  It's a lot more profitable to fake a (very) large number of moderately priced coins than a (much) lower number or a handful or scarcer and/or more expensive ones.

There is limited profit in faking most coins, including those I collect.

13 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

I think we could come up with pretty good estimates of demand for a lot of the coins. This is especially true if they were honest with themselves. Commemoratives that appeal to white men (50K), to all Americans (100K), to the woke (10K), or that feature women/women's subjects (12.5K). 

It's a reasonable proposal but the lower mintages in your examples would likely still result in flippers trying to buy most of the supply, with a coin like these at least..

If the mintage is "low", I don't see another option other than the Mint offering it to the highest bidder at auction.  Many collectors might be priced out, many would complain (mostly because the profit would be eliminated), but anyone who wanted it who has the money would get one.

17 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

Or perhaps the mintage could be set at 2X or 3X the amount sold to dealers through their bulk program? 

Or perhaps the Mint set a number and after a month the remaining mintage gets sold to the bulk dealers. Require these dealers to buy the remaining coins or get kicked out of the program? 

One of these might work, depending upon the mintage and coin.

18 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

I question how much of a relationship there is between NCLT and "classic" coin collectors. I don't know too many collectors that collect new stuff from the Mint that also spend significant money on classic coins. Usually they stick to cheaper classic coins. 

You have more direct insight through your selling on eBay.

Anecdotally, I see the same thing you do for the ASE and modern US gold NCLT.  Same goes for world equivalents.  This is mostly from coin forum posts but also an inference on how I read collector preferences based upon the coin attributes.  I don't see these buyers as primarily (if at all)) collecting.  The reason I do not is because these aren't "real" coins.

For silver US modern commemoratives, I infer that there is a lot more cross over but don't know this as fact. I infer this coinage is competing with world NCLT in the same price range, ASE, and US classic coinage which is the closest substitute: common Morgan and Peace dollars, late date Walkers, cheaper classic commemoratives, and maybe the Franklin half.

8 minutes ago, zadok said:

it is what it is....but personally, im just going to wait until the 1821 dollar comes out...

True

But in addition to the complaints commonly aired, there is another negative financial factor which I almost never read but which numerous others must know exists.

All US Mint products take "share of wallet" from previously existing coinage.  If the supply collectively is "limited" and the collector base or financial inflow is increasing, it isn't noticed.

But in a stagnant market which is the reality I read for US coinage collectively until the last year, not only are buyers mostly losing money on their Mint purchases, the flood of US and world NCLT elsewhere is also depressing the value of their existing collections.  Many of the buyers are buying one or the other (NCLT or everything else) but many buy both.

3 hours ago, gmarguli said:

What they need to do is something they probably never will. They need to set a mintage limit slightly below demand so that the aftermarket holds up, but doesn't dramatically jump in value.

I don't see how the Mint would be in a position to know the "correct" number.  A few but only a few of the coins had limits too low, such as the 2019-S ERP ASE but it's an outlier.

It's hard to know the "correct" number when so much current demand (maybe most of it much of the time) is from speculators and flippers.

I agree with the rest of your post.  The combination of the scenarios you outlined make it plainly evident that most (potential) buyers don't really like US Mint products that much.

It's my opinion that most of the (supposedly) low mintage products are actually bought mostly for financial reasons, in the hope that demand will increase later to increase the price (noticeably).  Comments on coin forums imply that this appears to be true with a noticeable percentage of buyers, First Spouse being the best example.  It's a numismatically mediocre series which has essentially zero collector demand selling at an uncompetitive price due to the metal content.

The other primary buyers appear to be those who buy US Mint products through rote habit.

With these particular coins (and the Peace dollar), there is legitimate collector interest, but it isn't a better or more interesting collectible than a real Morgan or Peace dollar.  It's a novelty (for now) but one that is almost certain to lose much of it's appeal later, definitely if either turn into a on-going series.