World Colonial

Just checked eBay sold listings. Up to $325 for the "CC".

If this becomes a continuing series, expect the same gimmicks currently used for the ASE to extract as much revenue as possible from the buyer (notice I did not state collector) base. I also expect it to take "share of wallet" at the expense of the ASE. How much will depend upon the product mix, issue price and mintage. There may or will be sufficient increased demand for both, but not with the current mintage for the 2021. I consider it unlikely that any single classic Morgan or Peace dollar date/MM is owned by anywhere near 175,000 collectors.

I don't know whether it will fall below issue price but there is no direct substitute for the Buffalo dollar. It's the only crown sized coin with this design. Circulating Morgan dollars are an alternative to the 2021's and the novelty will be substantially diluted if it becomes a continuing series.

Totally correct. The coin is a relative novelty but not that interesting to more than a low proportion of the collector base except at a nominal price. If the reasoning in the prior post reflected actual behavior, then the price level across the board would be much higher, since practically every coin will be "scarce" under this reasoning. The only reason any US NCLT above a nominal price sells for current premiums is due to a substantial speculative component. There are unlikely anywhere near enough collectors who can both afford to pay current prices and actually want it as a collectible. With these Morgan dollars, most will want one coin where the supply is at least 175,000 for each mint mark. Many real Morgan dollars sell for the same or less in grades of MS-64 and maybe MS-65, especially if I read correctly that these are selling for $200 (or more) on eBay right now.

It would not surprise me if in the vicinity of 50% of the collector base doesn't own a coin at or above $85. This may seem odd to those who post here or the PCGS forum but shouldn't be to those who treat coin collecting as an alternate consumption expense, not an "investment". I didn't have a chance to respond earlier, but to the point of the OP, these two will be somewhat interesting to a noticeable minority of the collector base, but not as a continuing series and likely only near the issue price. As other posts have pointed out, you can buy a Morgan or Peace dollar which actually did or was at least made for circulation, for the same or less. This as opposed to a bullion round (that's what a .999 fine "coin" actually is) selling for a big premium to spot.

By my definition of collector, a noticeable proportion do not and likely never will own a coin at this price point, adjusted for future purchasing power/inflation.

I reads it may become an annual on-going series. If it happens, I expect it to take "share of wallet" from the ASE.

I certainly don’t trust eBay sellers asking stupid money prices

I don't buy many coins anymore and seldom sell. I used to do both a lot more but both what I see and read about eBay indicates that it's not nearly as good of an auction venue anymore. I see mostly fixed price listings. It's not the primary reason I changed what I collect but even if I collected something else, it's noticeable enough to change my buying behavior. I'm not interested in buying a larger number of predominantly lower priced coins I don't even like that much and then taking a noticeable "haircut" at resale. This is my description of most collectors, though they may not admit it or aren't aware of it until they (try to) sell.

Yes, volume discounts for bulk submitters. My costs would be lower if not for the conservation but postage both ways has also increased a lot. It can be reduced somewhat with higher volume submissions but I don't buy enough coins to do that anymore. When the coins come back from conservation, I'll some or all back with an additional group for grading.

What you are describing is part of the financialization of "collecting". Since I infer you have never submitted, let me give you an indication of the cost. This afternoon, I'm sending my first submission to NGC in several years. Two coins under the World "Standard" tier @ $38 each and six coins for conservation, one which I have requested to be regraded. (It appears to have developed a spot in the holder.) For these eight coins, about $400 to grade three and conserve five. I want to see the conserved coins first before I have it graded because any "details" coins are possibly worth less in the holder. But if I had the five graded now to avoid duplicate postage, add another $110 @ $22 each under the World "economy" tier. So basically, in the vicinity of $600 when the coins are worth $4000 to $5000. Without conservation, still around $400. In 2005 when I first submitted, World "economy" was $15 with a 10% discount for Collectors Society members. That's a 60%+ increase. Somewhat less for World "standard". Yes, I know TPG expenses have gone up but most coin prices have increased a lot less (if at all) during this time. I don't submit as many coins as I did partly due to this reason and I don't think I am an outlier either. The point I am making is that it's a noticeable proportion of the value of the coins most collectors buy. The coins they own aren't going to be appreciating substantially either anyway. Very few collectors proportionately own Saints (or coins in that price range) as a collectible.

It's per coin.

Can you elaborate on this extract from your last post? A PNG dealer where I live (ATL Metro) told me Heritage changed their fee structure to discourage consigning lower value coins; his claim below $250. I don't know if this is true but this makes some sense if the margin on it is much lower. The second sentence is exactly my prior point in discussing this subject. The problem for the TPG business model when comparing it to auctions is that, a coin can and needs to be sold repeatedly. Conversely, resubmitting the same coin over and over again is a complete waste of money. With the some coins since the "hobby" has been financialized, it's become necessary to do it due to changing grading standards, "+" grades and maybe some other factor but this is purely financial. I already know that NCLT represents a noticeable percentage of volume but that's low margin. Volume of potential US classics of any meaningful value? I read conflicting accounts. Going by PCGS Coin Facts, it's still noticeable but doesn't seem material for TPG revenue. Lower priced US classics it's mostly a complete waste, especially if dated prior to 1955 with the higher fee. Same for US moderns. World coinage? The volume doesn't exist and most collectors outside the US don't like it, at least yet. The overwhelming percentage isn't worth enough to make it worthwhile and the overwhelming probability is it's going to stay that way. Ancients is even less volume than world.

Do they provide an authenticity guarantee on ancients? My understanding is that they don't. I don't collect ancients but don't see much point to paying to have the coin in the slab without it. If the marketability is really that much better without it, not sure why. As for fee increases generally, I have said for a long time that the TPG business is eventually going to mostly price itself out of its market. Pricing has purportedly improved recently but I don't believe it will last (if it even applies now) to enough lower priced coins where volume will grow. I expect it to shrink over time as an increasingly poorer collector base = (mostly) stagnant market = grading fees exceeding or representing a disproportionate percentage of the coins most collectors submit.

Other have answered the first question better than I can. As to the second, it has nothing to do with the US Mint's mission. It's up to collectors to do that.

To clarify my comments, this coin is likely more common than the 1874CC dime (10,817) due to the lopsided difference in the mintage but I doubt in better quality. The dime has an estimated 80 survivors per Coin Facts with four or five MS. My coin will have more than 80, though almost certainly not as many MS or in better grades. Similar idea versus the 1871CC and 1872CC which have more estimated survivors but the same or fewer estimated MS. In Yonaka's survey, 23% of the 133 Peru 1R (for all dates) were also holed.

The likely reason it took a long time to appreciate is because it was already very expensive for its availability when you bought it. It listed for $335 in my 1965 Red Book, though I do not know if the prices were actual retail. In the 1960's it was already a very common coin just as it is now. With the 2021 Morgan and Peace dollars, the survival rate will be about 100% as struck for as long as it will matter to anyone reading my post. If the mintage will be 175,000 as I read, it may sell for noticeably more than issue price upon release but is unlikely to move up noticeably from that. It's also far too common.

Please see the examples below from my own collection for an idea of what I am talking about. The link below is to my 1752 Peru 2R. (The coin is actually noticeably better than the image.) According to Yonaka's reference, the mintage is supposed to be 208. I state "supposed to be", as I have seen this coin enough where I consider this unlikely. It's still a very scarce coin and the second best example I have seen (by far) but the actual mintage in IMO is likely to be at least 10 times the number recorded. Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com) The image below is to the obverse of my 1763 Peru 1R. The recorded mintage is 253,296 which is hardly low. It is more common but still not common at all (maybe hundreds survive based upon estimates for Liberty seated coinage) and this one is one of the few (and maybe only one) in this quality or near it. So which is more significant? It's a toss up depending upon each collector's preference. 99.9999% of US collectors aren't interested in this coin or series (most don't even know it exists), even though this date and practically every other are likely scarcer either in total and definitely in comparable quality than every single US dime (approximately same FV and size), except for the 73-CC No Arrows (a minor design variation) or 1894-S (a non-circulating "trophy" coin).

This isn't exactly what I had in mind,

How exactly is it short sighted when the collector already knows they don't want to prioritize anything else? I would agree with you if I were choosing to buy coins instead of the reference material for my series but that's not what I do. I own the three best books and the three best auction catalogs. If I can find more, I'll buy it too. If there were a club dedicated to my series, I would join it but there is not. Your thinking makes sense if a collector wants to pursue multiple sets, collects by type, or by theme. I'm not that kind of collector. I buy Bolivia and Peru pillar coinage because I prefer this coinage over everything else. Having been a collector on and off for 46 years and knowing a lot more about coins than most, it's not like I don't have a clue what the alternatives are and chose my interest out of ignorance. To do anything else would mean buying coins I like less than those I buy now. Why would anyone do that?

I am aware of what exists, most of it anyway, from the Krause manuals and know enough about many (though obviously not all) series to arrive at my choice. I now collect one broader series almost exclusively for two reasons. One, I don't have the budget for more. And two, there isn't another series or coins I would rather own, so paying for unrelated reference material isn't going to change my collecting. My primary goal is to have as complete a collection in this area as possible considering availability and a flexible quality standard. .Completing this 104 coin set covering two mints and five denominations is possibly several hundred thousand. I'm unlikely to ever make this outlay, much less have anything left over for anything else. Paying for recurring unrelated collecting expenditures possibly means buying one or more coins I could otherwise have bought. One example is a lifetime ANA membership versus several coins up for sale next week.

Yes, I agree with you and believe this describes most collectors. I am not a typical accumulator but probably not a numismatist by your definition either. I do not call myself a numismatist. I would categorize myself into a third group which I believe is representative of most members here and PCGS. I am most interested in knowledge/research directly related to the areas I collect. I actively look for and will pay for this knowledge. I am interested in knowledge in many areas outside my interest, but I won't pay a cent for most of it.

To be clear, I am not "knocking the ANA or anyone for being a member What makes non sense to me though is why anyone would be surprised that more collectors aren't ANA members. This shouldn't be a surprise, except to those who attribute motives to others which are similar to theirs. Some segment of the collector population probably is unaware of the benefits of membership and might change their mind if better informed. I believe this to be a very low minority. It's my opinion that the vast majority who aren't members now (such as myself) either know full well what they can receive from it or even if they don't, wouldn't change their mind anyway. As to whether ANA membership and submitting to TPG are indispensable, it depends upon each individual's collecting. I only submit to NGC and do to improve the marketability of my collection. My collection and the coins I buy are of sufficient value where it is beneficial. At the financial level I believe most collect at, I do not believe either meet this definition.

I described what I consider to be the "typical"; collector, whether you want to call them "average" or not. I also described the types of coins I believe they predominantly buy. If they aren't buying the coins I described, then what are they mostly buying? I don't believe those who submit to TPG are representative and neither are those you see attending coin shows in your role at NGC. If they are, then the collector base is a fraction of what I previously claimed. Most other coins affordable to most collectors are 1. Usually lower quality, frequently less marketable and with a lower preference; 2. Require more specialized knowledge which less knowledgeable collectors buy in much lower proportion I don't think $500 is anywhere near a low assumption of the typical collector's annual budget. My assumption is that most collectors are somewhat but not substantially more affluent than the median income US household. Older than the general population with more disposable income but hardly "flush" with cash. I see your motivation for membership similar to Kurt's. It's your livelihood so yes, it makes sense for you to be a member. But then, neither of you are representative of the "typical" collector anymore than I am with my collecting.

I have not seen the coin in person but likely, it's just a difference in grading standards which I presume also applied here in the US prior to the TPG era and especially before the 70's. It could be what is occasionally termed an AU-65 which is market graded MS-65.