World Colonial

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.

5 hours ago, World Colonial said:

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).

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.

21 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Choice, Gem, Brilliant...

[ It is a shame I will never know whether the very first coin I bought, a 1909-S V.D.B. from Stack's in the mid-1960's, a brilliant uncirculated (BU) red cent, for $200. + tax, was a MS-63, -65 or 67.  The two things that stick in my mind all these years later is a). it took forever to appreciate in value, and b). the reason why may have had less to do with its limited mintage (less than a half-million) and more to do with its novelty, being first in the new series.  Many were simply squirreled away.  I believe the same thing will happen with the new Morgan and Peace dollars due out shortly.]

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.

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

By contrast, condition rarity, particularly certified specimens, are far more meaningful whether we know their precise whereabouts or not.  

This isn't exactly what I had in mind,

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I’ve often read of people having this “other costs may prevent me from getting another coin” viewpoint. You’re far from alone. I’ve always considered it unbelievably short-sighted.

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?

1 minute ago, VKurtB said:

I allow my voluminous reading of widely varied numismatic literature inform what series I am interested in collecting seriously, not vice versa.

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.

13 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

The typical “accumulator” is not a numismatist. It’s not called the American Coin Accumulation Association for very valid reasons. 

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.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

I pay MUCH MORE annually to NGC than to the ANA, and I consider BOTH to be indispensable expenditures. Have you even read The Numismatist lately? It is a treasure trove of eclectic numismatic scholarship!

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.

2 hours ago, DWLange said:

I suspect the ANA's annual dues are much less than 10% of the average collectors budget, unless you're describing people who collect coins from circulation alone. Membership may not be for everyone, but I've never regretted joining. I converted to life membership so long ago that I paid for it in gold doubloons. 

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.

13 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Maybe it had lots of bagmarks in less-noticeable areas which graders today are more forgiving of.

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.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

If a collector has an annual "coin budget" of less than $500, that collector is more in need of numismatic education than I can possibly relate here. Maybe they need (badly) to collect less junk and invest more in educational opportunities. If my coin budget were $500, I'd buy or acquire nearly nothing but books, travel, and seminar attendance.

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.

30 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Before the TPGs.....did UNC refer to what we would call MS-65 or MS-63 quality ?

I think it's 63 but don't quote me.

 

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.

2 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not only that, WC, but you had VERY FEW coins sell for anywhere near that much to the best of my recollection.  A few of the Saints had traded for as high as $2,000 in the 1950's and maybe the Liberty Nickel and a few other pure numismatic key dates traded at that level -- but that's about all I can think of (veterans, chime in with any other expensive coins circa 1960).

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.

2 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

I have famed dealer B. Max Mehl's company price list a year or so after his passing, 1958 I believe........the 1903-O is listed as Rare and the prices are $95 VF and $500 UNC.  The 1904-O doesn't have "rare" in the line item but it's $15 VF and $75 UNC.

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.

18 minutes ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

Low mintage can be relative or absolute.  The 1908-S Saint-Gaudens has a mintage of 22,000 which is 1% or less of some of the other coins from the 1920's minted in the millions.

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..

43 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Every candidate, every blessed one of them, wants to make the ANA more relevant to today’s collectors in any way they can. People shouldn’t bash the ANA. They should be telling them how to do that. If you aren’t an ANA member, tell the ANA why not. Do it here. Do it everywhere. Call their bluff.

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.

4 hours ago, gmarguli said:

I looked up her platform: She would like to make it [ANA] evolve and integrate as well as possible the globalized context in which we live since the emergence of the Internet. Sounds like she is advocating open boarders! 

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.

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Can anyone fault someone for expecting more from an organization with a lofty title like the American Numismatic Association?

This "problem," if indeed there is one beyond general perception, is going to have to be solved by the upcoming generation.

Coin collecting has changed.  Grading has changed.  How coins are marketed has changed.  We've got the keepers of the high-profile Crown Jewels whose population has become increasingly more defined, key dates, auction houses to keep the adrenaline pumping, and everything else. The young numismatists will have to set the tone and direction of the hobby for the years to come.

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.  

37 minutes ago, Hoghead515 said:

I bet it's a pretty neat place. Would love to go there. 

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.