World Colonial

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.

You are missing my entire point. The type of collecting you described isn't how most collectors collect and has no appeal to them at all. Most collectors are coin buyers, not numismatists and the hobby isn't connected to their social life either. I don't believe they need the type of numismatic education you imply because it's not relevant to their collecting. It's either mostly or purely recreational activity or anything more is (far) beyond their financial capacity. They do not buy the types of coins mostly profiled here or the PCGS forum, though maybe similar to a noticeable minority on Coin Talk. I presume they mostly buy lower priced US Mint products, silver world NCLT, lower priced US 20th century classics and moderns, and low priced world coinage. In using a $500 annual budget, I was also being VERY generous. $500 a year implies a large collector base with mid four to lower five figure valued collections consisting mostly of the coins I described accumulated over their lifetime. Outside of NCLT, I don't believe this happens much at all. Their annual budgets are likely either noticeably less or vary substantially from year to year. Do you disagree with me? If you do, what's your description? If you agree with me, the better question is, why would you believe the "average" collector would want to spend 10% or more of their annual budget each and every year on ANA dues? It's a waste of money to them.

Someone else who was older at the time would know better, but my inference is that it was mostly equivalent to current MS-61-63 grades, given that 60 is hardly assigned. It also might have been on occasion to what I have seen in foreign auctions. In a Spanish auction, a coin they described as EBC+ (choice XF) later ended up in an NGC MS-65 holder. It's a 17th century Spanish gold coin.

Yes, this was the second point in my last post but I do not have 1962 or 1958 prices available to me for comparison. I have both the 1965 and 1963 Red Books where prices changed "noticeably" (higher from my limited sample). There is also this site which was referenced in a prior thread but cannot confirm it's accuracy. The study of coin values and past trends may predict future price movements for many U.S. coins. (us-coin-values-advisor.com) My recollection is that more coins sold for higher prices compared to the 03-O, but I might be wrong about that. (Examples should include the most prominent rarities, scarcer early type, and numerous early gold.) But however many did, it's price was clearly in "nosebleed" territory.

PCGS Coin Facts quoting Bowers states the 03-O had an estimated UNC population of around 10. It was believed to be scarcer than the 1893-S which is the #1 key in the series today. It's hard to give anyone who is not familiar with prices of the time just how expensive the 1903-O was at the time. At $1500 in 1962, it would have cost about one-third of the annual median US household income. It was also far more expensive than numerous coins which are still out of reach of most collectors today.

I read that one of these two dates reached $1100 as "UNC" at some point but do not remember the source. The earliest Redbook I have is 1963 after the price crashed but do not have it with me. This coin is somewhat of an example of what I believe is in store for common predominantly US coinage where the price is disconnected from it's actual (as opposed to perceived imaginary) collectible merits. Anyone can get an idea of candidates form the TPG data and PCGS Coin Facts estimates. These coins are already known to be common unlike these two which were believed to be scarce/rare, but the predominant if not only reason any carry the current price is because of the belief by most buyers that they can get their money back at resale. If the price declines as this coinage continues to lose preference concurrently with economic adversity, it will never recover, though this will likely only apply measured by constant dollar purchasing power since longer term, there is likely to be a lot of inflation.

Yes, previously "rare" coins which are now very common. Price for both was very expensive considering incomes and the amount alternatives cost at the time.

What you seem to be referring to is the perceived significance of the mintage. Most if not every proof issued outside the US has a low mintages compared to practically any US proof dated from the early or at most mid-50's. There is nothing unusual in low mintages for patterns; it's the norm. Someone will eventually probably illustrate some die variety or error. All errors are low mintage by definition and same applies to most die varieties, certainly compared to more recent coins as a generic date. Many circulation strikes were also "made rare" or at least "made scarce". This applies to many 19th century US classic gold for a variety of reasons. Most world coinage is low mintage by US standards, predominantly due to population and economics. The consensus perceived significance of the scarcity is subjective but is mostly reflected in the price. What's also often equally significant though generically isn't the mintage but the survival and survival rate, including in better quality. Many "low" mintage dates are (a lot) more common than those with much higher mintages. The mintage creates a ceiling for availability but these coins are often not hard to buy and by my standards, rather common..

I have given my reasons scattered in numerous posts and threads, including here. I acknowledged what I believe is the benefit some of the courses/seminars provide but you do not have to a member to buy those and even if required now, it's a "one shot" deal and not an incentive for renewing or lifetime membership. It's incumbent on those who hold a contrary opinion to make the sales pitch for membership, not me to explain to anyone why it is not. The flat or declining membership is proof enough that most collectors see limited or even no value from it. What exactly do most collectors get out of membership and why should they want to spend it on ANA dues instead of coins or something else? I know the reasons the ANA provides on it's website but it's evidently not sufficiently persuasive. I'm a specialist collector who doesn't even collect US coinage at all. I don't see that the ANA will ever be relevant to my collecting or anyone like me. I don't see that it's that different for more "advanced" collectors of US coinage. The main reason I can see for joining is for those who are interested in being socially actively like you. In a prior thread, you told me that your vacations are organized around the show locations and schedule. I suspect that active involvement is substantially attributable to local club membership which also describes your collecting based upon your prior posts. If you are representative, then more local club members would result in more ANA members. Not sure the ANA can do anything directly about that. If the typical collector has an annual budget of less than $500 as I believe, it's unreasonable to expect them to spend in the vicinity of 10% for membership. Apparently, the ANA thinks they should spend it on this, local clubs presumably want more collectors to pay their dues, collectors are supposed to subscribe to other numismatic periodicals, "buy the book before the coin" and lastly, pay grading fees to TPG for coins that aren't even worth having graded. The primary point is that it's a trade-off. Most collectors would rather spend their (very limited) budget on coins, not a noticeable proportion on fees or services they do not need.

I'd be curious to know what this actually means. If it's what I infer, she is guaranteed to fail. However many demographic groups anyone wants to list, only a few have much of any propensity to collect. The rest do not due to a lack of interest, not for any other reason.

Well, the Numismatist used to be good, though of less interest to me than the collectors who (mostly) buys US coins. The Library? I never used it and it's not relevant for anything I have collected since 1998. However good it is, it's less useful now with the NNP and any future improvements to it. There is also a lot more published material than when I started collecting in 1975 or even pre-internet. For someone who has the money, there are the seminars. I'd find the one on counterfeits useful and most collectors might get something out of the grading course especially if they collect US coinage. I did buy the grading CD a long time ago but never even watched it. It's a lot cheaper but I don't believe any of this is practical to the "typical" collector based upon my assumption of their annual budget, $500 or less.. As far as joining to "give back", I know some volunteer their time but my vacation is allocated elsewhere. I also already expressed my opinion on the pointlessness of charitable giving in another thread, so someone else can do that if they believe in it because I do not. The ANA isn't relevant to most collectors, especially in the internet age. For the beginning collector, you can get the online version of one or more courses (if you have the money) but otherwise can get a lot more information on the internet for free whenever you want it. For the "advanced" or specialist collector, I see no incremental benefit to joining it in addition to or instead of a specialty club, like EAC, CONECA or Bust Half Nut Club. I presume the most active ANA members are club members anyway but are active more for social reasons. I have thought about joining the ANS as it's a lot more relevant to my collecting and I believe it to be a much better run organization. I intended to schedule a visit to view their Spanish colonial collection for the areas I collect which is an option for a $50 administrative fee, a bargain for the knowledge I would gain.

It's worth going to once. First time I was in transit travelling with my family. Last two times to visit my father when he lived there from 2002-2007. Main thing I dislike about it is that it's really hot and humid. I totally hate the heat. Not just in the summer, but year round from being so close to the equator. Last two times I was there in June but my father told me it isn't any cooler in the "winter". The traffic in Panama City where I was "sucks" too. It's really congested and unless you know the road system, very confusing due to the poor signage and sections with one-way streets. I was staying in the financial district and my father told me he arrived the night before but it took him 20 minutes in the dark to reach the hotel. He could see it from his car but couldn't find the right street to take him there. In 2002, I did try to find a coin shop. There was one listed in the phone book, a part timer. My father spoke to him but I understood he spent much of his time travelling (probably mostly here) to find inventory. There is a noticeable expatriate community there, since it's a financial center for "money laundering". I don't know how much coin collecting occurs there but there isn't what I would describe as any "collecting infrastructure".

I have been there three times: 1974, 2002 and 2003. I bought a few silver proof sets for this reason but sold it later.

I don't believe the ANA is nearly as relevant to most collectors as it might have been in the past, assuming it was ever relevant at all. I see no relevance to my collecting. I was a member for a few years but declined to renew. It isn't an accident that membership has purportedly been flat at around 25,000.

Looks UNC to me but from the lower part of the obverse in particular, if buying it would expect it was probably cleaned.

Not sure what grades you are referring to for CC DE but for the Liberty Seated coinage, I'm referring all the way down to G-4. Gold coinage is almost never below fine and usually noticeably better. What I am describing is that G and VG grades outperformed all of the highest grades. With 57-S DE, this became a widely available coin in better grades (lower MS) with the shipwreck discovery. It's also one of the few (and maybe only) Type 1 DE available in better grades with any noticeable supply.

I don't think it is just the price but the lack of supply. For most US coinage, I consider the higher and highest grade coins to be inferior values (sometimes financially but definitely as a collectible) to slightly or even noticeably lower quality coins. However, this isn't true for the US coinage with the highest preference. Years ago, I recall a similar trend from the PCGS archives for Liberty Seated CC mint coinage. I did not verify the data though. I wouldn't describe most of these coins as rare, but it's not common either and there aren't enough better examples for those who want to buy it.

I have not lost a package I sent yet either. I have always sent packages to NGC by first class registered mail. It's taken about a week to my collection for it to show up in their tracking.

I have a batch I have wanted to submit for about a year but have declined due to stories like this one. I was hoping NGC would attend the Dalton GA show but the table listing indicated they did not. It's worth somewhat more than the submission described in the OP but it's coins I would either have a really hard time replacing or would not be able to at all if lost. I always send mine registered mail and request likewise when returned, not priority or express.

You can find a nice one in a lower grade at a fraction of the price. You didn't mention the price but a 66 in this series doesn't come cheap.

I was actually referring to his articles generally. I have not read this one specifically. I'm not disputing that the trend isn't improving.

My suspicion is that a lot of readers don't like my "negative" financial opinions. I don't consider myself a "doomsday" predictor. I consider it reality. With coins, I don't expect coin dealers or a source like Coin Week to profile writers who are write about lower prices. What I find annoying though is repeated exaggeration and some of it ridiculously so. In a recent Coin Week article, another firm describes a number of Morgan dollars as "rare" when the truth is that every single one is actually extremely common since these weren't even the key dates. The only actually rare Morgan dollars are branch mint proofs. Every other is "rare" only in some arbitrary quality or as a die variety. Garret is also one who regularly writes about "rare" coins when the truth is many are actually practically as common as dirt, even in high grades.

I have read Garrett's Coin Week articles and he is definitely a promoter. It's what I would expect from someone like him but he is not what I would describe as an impartial observer.