World Colonial

South African based collectors prefer NGC by a substantial margin, as evidenced by the relative number graded (they buy most of it) and volume of listings on their version of eBay. There are a few pillars I have seen crossed by PCGS forum members from NGC holders. Not sure why they did this, as there certainly is no consistently higher premium that I can see since there isn't even enough data to conclude. The 1765 Peru 4R MS-62 in both pop reports is the same coin. So is my 1759 MS-63 Peru 2R.

NGC won the grading for the Emilio Ortiz collection of Latin American 1/4R, 422 lots. Conversely, Pat Johnson's collection sold last year was PCGS.

I mostly own NGC coins, somewhat by default. But for pillar coinage and South Africa (Union and ZAR), I have seen a higher proportion of better quality for the grade coins. Concurrently, NGC has graded a lot more of both.

I'm not criticizing you. That was not my intent. The dividend absolutely means something (a lot) but in and of itself doesn't change the definition of speculation and investment. Before the current mania, it represented the majority of the return for the US stock market. That's what should be expected in any "normal" market environment. A higher dividend means it's relatively less speculative and by this metric, the US stock market is close to the most speculative ever. The dividend yield on the DJIA (2%) and S&P 500 (1.5%) is a razor's edge above the all-time early 2000 low. The ability of a company to pay dividends is a function of the actual fundamentals. Corporate management's decision to establish the dividend payout rate is substantially psychological (from numerous factors) and the price of the stock essentially entirely so because the company and the stock certificate aren't equivalent.

Prices are set by the marginal buyer. It doesn't take that many of them to move the price of anything up or down substantially. That's your best argument. This is evident in the price of any publicly tradeable asset. On any given day, the price change of the biggest moving stocks usually occurs with a (very) low fraction of outstanding shares changing ownership.

With all supposed "investors", there is no difference between "investing" and speculation. I'm not singling you out with this comment either, because this is what practically everyone believes. In the current global asset mania, calling speculation "investment" is mostly (not entirely, as a low proportion know it consciously) a rationalization from ignorance to convince yourself that paying what are disproportionately absurd or inflated prices isn’t taking high or unprecedented risk but somehow magically becomes low risk or “prudent”. I know everyone has been told they are “investing”, but if I ask anyone for an actual difference between “investing” (mostly in tradeable markets) and speculation, the only answer they can give me is the holding period which is completely arbitrary. You've heard the saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is one. 99%+ of stock “investing” (or other asset buying) is indistinguishable from speculation, so what does that tell everyone? (It's attempting to generate a currency profit from buying and selling without producing anything.) The inferred supposed distinction between "investing" and speculation is "market timing". Everyone is a market timer, whether they know it or not. It's literally unavoidable, unless the person lives in an alternate parallel universe where there is no time. This doesn't mean that everyone has to be a "trader", it just means that there is only good timing and bad timing.

No, it isn't, and my comment isn't contingent upon GAAP though it's a weakness of using it. When I make the comments I make on any financial subject, I'm not just "making it up". That's what most people do, including what most people read in the financial press, writing nonsensical claptrap. It's what I told you in my last post. Earnings are an accounting number to 99% of all supposed "investors". It's of no direct relevance to them outside the dividend because that's the only return they actually get from the company 99%+ of the time. This growth you are talking about isn't what you imply either, because the price of the "piece of paper" most "investors" actually buy isn't contingent upon what you are claiming either. The price of any stock certificate (what they actually bought) is almost entirely contingent upon psychological perception, not the supposed "fundamentals" which never bought or sold a single share of stock, or anything else for that matter. As for Hussman, yes, I know his track has been terrible, because we are in a mania. The one you deny exists. It's not practical for me to write a book here but you can ask me any question you want on any financial subject, and I can give you or anyone else a detailed explanation for any claim I make. So yes, by all means if you want to start another thread on this subject, go ahead and do it.

Sorry, not my series. I'm also not the most qualified to express an opinion on authenticity. There are a lot of fakes for Bust 8R.

You're using the P/E ratio too? Read my reply above.

No practical difference with the late 2021 or early 2002 peak. Once again using one of the worst value metrics (earnings) even when I keep telling you this, over and over. It's even worse using forward earnings. Statistically, Hussman has proved this, but you ignore it because the asset mania has made it possible to profit from the most overpriced market ever anyway. It's not just stocks either. Look at real estate and until the 2020 bottom in rates, bonds. Foreign markets have improved somewhat recently (some), but US valuations have been on an island in deep outer space since 2008, 2000, or the late 90's depending upon the comparison. This relative US performance hasn't been based upon the "fundamentals". The fundamentals ("growth") during the mania have been mediocre most of this time, even with deranged monetary and fiscal policy the entire time since 2008. Deranged, not just in the US, but Europe, Japan, and China too. US interest rates are somewhat "normalized" now, but the FRB balance sheet absolutely is not. Fiscal policy is worse than ever. Remove that and the supposedly great "fundamentals" evaporate, with little if any "growth" since 2008. Lastly as I told you, earnings aren't real money. It's an abstract accounting number. No one can spend earnings. It's buried in the balance sheet where the retail "investor" can never monetize it. They can only sell their shares. That's what makes it SPECULATION. "Investors" mostly don't care about the overwhelmingly pathetic dividends, and they almost never care about the balance sheet, so why do earnings matter either? (No, it's not a real question.)

Great calls out of how many? Something tells me their batting average isn't that good. No one's has been, except those who say "buy and hold" forever due to the asset mania.

If I am correct that the typical US hobbyist collector's budget is somewhere in the vicinity of $500/YR, I can see that most of them won't pay to attend local shows. It's presumably different for the example in this post or roughly equivalent higher end shows in population centers with a high concentration of affluent collectors.

This has nothing to do with actual collecting. It's financial widget buying.

I'd pay $20 for the NYINC because I've never been there and it's one of the few that has a decent chance of having something I want to buy for my primary collection. I've paid admission to the ANA multiple times too. I'm not paying a dime to attend a "no name" show. I get that the economics might or don't work without it but that doesn't make any difference to me. But then, I don't go to these shows anyway. I see it as we discussed before. The show circuit is a social event for you and a low minority of the collector base. A larger number turn it into a vacation. Entrance fees don't make any difference here. I'm a utilitarian. My coin budget is for buying coins, not a vacation to a location I'd never go otherwise and not for travel expenses to get there.

Virtually 100%.

Given the option to choose from all predecessor US designs, I'll make the wild guess that Barber coinage ranks close to the bottom as a preferred option. The 1913 LHN was illustrated, but I assume no coin chosen will have a retro date. There won't be any restrikes.

100% sure the mintage of any retro issue won't be anywhere near 10K, unless it's the DE. 100K is probably the minimum. Including a 2017 bullion and numerous modern commemoratives as options is plain stupid. Why is the Morgan and Peace dollar on the list? A minority probably have noticeable interest, like the Draped Bust and Gorbrecht dollar.

Another reason not to have too much graded is storage space. My 5X10 SDB won't hold all my slabs and hasn't for some time. I choose what to store based upon a combination of value and the difficulty of replacing it.

Why would someone pay $35 to get a $50 to $100 coin graded, in volume? That's a money losing proposition when coins store just fine outside of a holder. The oldest highest graded coin I submitted myself was a 1721 Spanish which graded MS-64. It survived almost three centuries outside of a holder. Rather than submit coins in your price range, the better strategy is either buy it already graded or not at all. That's what I do now mostly. I don't make impulse purchases or have "side collections" of this type. I'm not interested in buying dozens to hundreds of coins in this price range (or somewhat higher) with mostly poor liquidity (graded or not) and which are almost guaranteed money losers. That's easy to do over a collector's lifetime and it adds up. I'd rather buy a (much) lower number of more expensive higher preference coins I actually want.

The number of people who submit the coins themself is a lot lower than you think. Most of these coins are submitted by dealers or eBay resellers. You're using the same reasoning I've seen others make for world coins. Over time, they see more non-US coinage in plastic sold by non-US sellers and assume non- US based collectors have an increased preference for it. Well actually, the coin was almost certainly in the holder when the non-US seller bought it, after being submitted by a US dealer or collector. I see more non-US coinage in plastic than I did before, but it's still a low minority. Also, foreign sellers know that US based buyers prefer it and pay higher prices, so it's marketing to them and not locals. There is seldom a reason for the non-US collector to pay TPG premiums because there is no market for these coins at this price locally and no practical difference between it and numerous others anyway.

Have you ever submitted a coin yourself? If you have, you'd know the improved marketability doesn't offset the cost on coins in this price range more than a low fraction of the time. Most of the graded coins in this price range (or otherwise) are (world) silver NCLT (like ASE) and post-1998 US moderns. The grading fee is lower on this coinage and probably most is bulk submitted (by dealers), but this doesn't hardly ever apply to end-user collectors. For the collector, your example will work for the highest grade common (yes, most of these coins) world and US coinage that will end up in "66" or higher numbered plastic but which actually has no practical difference with lower graded (eligible) examples of the same coin.

From what I read of the proceedings, he basically convicted himself. His comments (mostly texts) made the case for the prosecution. I presume that's why the defense seemed so ineffective. They didn't have anything to use as a defense.

Most coins aren't worth enough money to be graded. You're still thinking of the coins you buy, which only a very low to tiny minority do.

Actually, no. The first thing someone needs to know with the 1877 IHC is if it is counterfeit.

There are common factors that can be used to get an idea of whether a coin is likely (noticeably) more available (and therefore, common) than personal experience. Too many US collectors seem to think that the TPG population data is representative of the supply because they assume most coin owners are financially motivated or prefer slabbed coins when this isn't universally true. The other common fallacy is assuming "If I don't see it or those I know don't either, it must not exist". With non-US coinage, the TPG counts when low almost always are because of the low value and/or cultural dislike of coins in plastic. When I resumed collecting in 1998 and first started looking extensively at non-US coinage, I also mistakenly believed that because some coin was "old", it was "scarce" or "rare". Most of it isn't, often or usually in "high" quality too. With US coinage, it's because of the price and the limited or lack of improved marketability. Here is a list of factors I once provided on the PCGS forum, presumably not exhaustive, which anyone can use to evaluate whether a coin is likely as scarce as it appears from personal observation. *Mintage (most are not actually low, only relatively; it's a mass-produced object) *Extent of organized local collecting. (Extensive in all developed countries, often for a long time) *Geographic access, extent of travel, and ease of communication. *Local circulation, as opposed to other geographic locations with more collecting. (Correlated to a coin's age. Substantially applicable to trade coinage.) *Coin age combined with length of circulation. ("Recent" coinage could have been saved in volume within the lifetime of just those reading this thread.) *Quality when included in prominent collections of the series. If a coin is missing from a prominent collection or is of low quality, it’s usually at least somewhat scarce. *FV materiality *Melting, where it happened. *Hoards (it's subjective, but it doesn't take much to make a coin common.) *Market value which if “low”, reduces the number for sale and probability potential buyers will be aware of it. *Random preservation; yes, it’s possible for some centuries old coin to sit in a “change jar”, just like ancient and medieval hoards. *Comparison to coins with the closest characteristics where the number known is better quantified and/or with higher TPG population counts. If coins confirmed to be at least somewhat scarce meet most of these factors, the coin someone believes scarce probably isn't.