World Colonial

Correct, all the way up to at least MS-62. I have not seen the article. I have looked at the NGC and PCGS population data occasionally directly. Once the count gets beyond 10,000 for any gold coin, I'm dubious most of it is owned as a collectible. If it is, it is probably "impulse" buying where it occurs. However, "impulse" buying doesn't explain the ability to absorb 300,000 1904 DE or any number close to it. There aren't anywhere near that many collectors who can both afford and want the coin as a collectible.

Could be as many as several hundred thousand buying generic pre-1933 gold predominantly for financial reasons but I suspect there are also a noticeable number who own this coinage in larger number. Last I checked, the 1904 DE had a TPG count of about 300,000, the price spreads indicate a very low proportion of duplicates, and there are possibly many more. The most common Saints have a similar number. Your collector population estimate seems a reasonable one., as I presume most of the scarcer dates (like 1932) are owned by those collect the series, though a noticeable minority might also be collected by big budget collectors who don't. Regardless of the actual number, it's evident that there are only a very low proportion buying the 1904 DE predominantly as a collectible. Most collectors will never own a coin of similar value their entire life and it's not competitive as a collectible versus the alternatives in the same price range. Morgans are much cheaper but a similar concept applies. A common date like the 1881-S potentially has a million UNC and the counts are also hundreds of thousands. However "popular" the series may be, it's very unlikely more than a very low proportion of the collector base owns it. There just aren't enough of them. Similar idea for a coin like the 95-W ASE, higher mintage modern commemoratives and even proof sets. The latter have declining mintages but collectors either often own it in multiple or it's likely there are still a noticeable proportion of non-collectors/casual collectors buying it. More recent silver proof sets have mintages of about 300,000+ which isn't remotely low.

Yes, I have read it too. The question I always ask is cheap compared to what? If it's in the context of high priced art, it's totally BS. Like years ago in the Coin Week article comparing the Brasher doubloon to "Scream". Supposedly it was "cheap" due to the "history" of this coin, as if anyone would ever buy an expensive painting for this reason.

It's my inference that most of these coins are losing "share of wallet" due to the internet and NCLT. It was one to collect this coinage when it was mostly done at FV and there wasn't much else readily available. It's another thing entirely when presumably somewhere in the vicinity of 95% of all coins ever struck can be bought on demand or short notice, except in some arbitrary quality. Previously, I have commented on key and semi-key date Lincoln cents whose relative preference has mostly collapsed from 1965. It hasn't happened for the 16-D dime - YET - and probably a few others but it's likely to somewhat, with the lowest grades faring worst. As an example, an AG-3, G-4, etc 16D @ $400, $700 or more isn't remotely competitive with the alternatives as a collectible in the same price range. Generic Morgan dollars and pre-1933 US gold at least must be predominantly owned in quantity by both collectors and "investors" as "investments". I'd say the answer is a resounding "no", as this type of collecting isn't competitive as a mass recreational activity anymore. I don't check often (very intermittently) but I'm fairly confident that much of this coinage is actually worth about the same (outside the metal content) as it was in the late 70's, if offered in a true auction. A common IHC in G and VG listed for 75c and 95c in my 1977 Red Book. A dealer can presumably get this price or somewhat more. I see this type of coin on eBay (in volume) but either predominantly with no bids or much of the price is actually "free shipping". Back in the late 70's, local dealers claimed to pay 60% of "retail" (one much less) in my area. For the coins most collect, I doubt the terms are any better and possibly worse now. That's fine if the buyer is willing to treat it as a consumption expense but most likely won't when the numbers start adding up.

My recollection is that this series was both promoted by telemarketers and targeted for inclusion in the LLP we previously discussed. My inference is that many people (collector and non-collector both) bought it at the time by being told the coins were "scarce" due to the "low" mintage. However, I don't know this definitively. It's evident that most buyers are buying individual coins and not even attempting to complete the series. There is also a lot of this with the common "key dates" such as the 09-S VDB, as I'd be really surprised if there are anywhere close to enough wheat cent collectors who can afford it. Going forward unless the collector base increases noticeably, these common series are more likely to lose (relative) value than gain it.

I find many coin prices absurd but no coin in the same price range has anywhere near an equivalent supply. $700K is a totally ridiculous price for a piece of cardboard with at least 316 where this "limited" supply is still only based upon a label. And who knows how many more are just waiting to end up in a GM-10 holder later. It's potentially more than the 316 currently graded now. No duplicates there, that is for sure. That's why I used St Gaudens artwork as a point of comparison earlier. We all hear of the headline prices in the eight or nine figures but that's a tiny portion of the art market. It's just another aspect of the bubble in search of a pin. It must be even worse for athletes like Tom Brady where I saw several of his cards on eBay with current bids at $80K+.

Not a baseball card but I would call a Michael Jordan rookie card (two apparently) selling for $700K+ with 316 GM-10 and 11500 graded "mass produced", even accounting for duplicates. There are potentially many more out there also.

Buyers just adjust their bids to pay whatever they planned. Seller presumably got well over 100% of hammer for a coin like this one. It's evident from the price level that very few US collectors who can afford to buy the "mega priced" coins will seriously compete for it. Apparently Hansen didn't buy it and at least two PCGS forum members who are understood to be able to do so admitted they did not either. Through a process of elimination, I'd guess the buyer could be narrowed down to a very small number, unless lightning actually struck and a non-collector bought it. If they did, it's still almost certainly a US based buyer like Weitzman (who was not a random buyer anyway). Not many coin collectors outside the US are likely able to afford it it but even if they can, aren't about to pay more for any US coin over their own, unless they believe misleading industry hype. Yes, but most of what you describe is more a function of the current asset mania. It's a headed for a crash landing "eventually" and when it does, their will be no bidders or buyers for these inflated luxuries (coin or otherwise) at anything close to current prices, at least measured in relative value. My opinion is based upon the 1822's AU-50 grade. If it were an MS-66 or a grade near it like so many other "mega priced" coins, I think the 1822 would have sold for a lot more than the 1933 DE will realize. As a circulated coin, the only contender seems to be the unique variety of the Brasher doubloon but the recent price of the more common Partrick coin leads me to believe it would sell for less than it did last time.

Presume many saw or heard the 1822 $5 sold for $8.4MM. It will be interesting to know who the buyer was, assuming it is disclosed. On the PCGS forum, one member claimed again it was a non-collector. He is buyer of "mega priced" coins and maybe knows through a process of elimination who did not from those who can afford it, but I still doubt it. His theory was that it was bought as an inflation hedge. If true, I consider it a very poor one, as coins are not an inflation hedge. The inflated price level is the result of credit conditions and the fake prosperity that goes with it. I wasn't specific previously but I think the 1933 DE will sell for somewhat more. Maybe set a price record by what I would describe as a nominal margin which would include up to the lower range of the estimate.

The only reason I can come up with is politics.

Yes, I understand your point but this can be said of anything. I keep on hearing that some ultra-affluent random buyer can't hardly wait to buy some luxury item (a coin and now a stamp) which has no status value to them and no utility. How often does life work that way? The probability isn't much better than being struck by lightning or winning the lottery, literally. I'm not denying a block isn't worth some premium to the individual stamps but if the estimate is going to be met, the probability is that it is going to be a current stamp collector. In the $12MM range, whether for any of these three items or another coin, there are going to be other objects which practically every non-collector is going to find more interesting, no matter how many coin or stamp collectors want to believe otherwise. In the past, I have used Faberge Eggs as a counter example because it's one I know somewhat well and it's possible to buy one in the same price range as these three estimates and a few other coins. Somewhere in the vicinity of 99% of non-collectors who can afford either potentially prefer it over any coin or stamp and if they don't, the most believable reason is because of future resale liquidity, not because they find it more interesting. When I expressed a similar sentiment on the PCGS forum, I received a reply that they had a hard time thinking of Faberge Eggs as unique enough versus the 1933 DE due to the story. It's about the worst rationalization I have ever read. Non-collectors who know anything about (coin) collecting will know why date rarity matters to collectors but there is no reason to believe it has any relevance to them (for any coin) outside of the price and the same apples to quality reflected in the TPG label. If they find the design that compelling, they can buy another date in slightly lower quality for a miniscule fraction. To give everyone here an idea how expensive these three items are, look at prior sales of St. Gaudens' artworks. I was able to find somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen (mostly) sold by Sotheby. A 40" Lincoln sculpture sold for about $1.5MM with the rest between the mid five to high six figures. By art standards, most or all of his creations aren't really worth that much and neither are the majority of others. This means there are a huge number of more interesting alternatives to the non-collector (stamps or coins) for the same money or a lot less.

It is presumably the most valuable circulated coin available but I still think it should be worth more than other more common coins in higher or much higher quality. Same opinion for the 1861 CSA half dollar and numerous others.

So it is a block of four being auctioned here? No way I see this being worth $12 million. It's a ridiculous price.

This is how collectors overwhelmingly see collecting and there is no reason to believe it's going to change. Coin collectors are collecting physical objects, so if you don't have physical possession, what's the point in collecting at all? Many collectors (including me) have some or all of their collection is a SDB but the difference is psychological, not objective. It's also my inference that the perceived necessity of doing this (for financial reasons) is a negative for many collector's collecting experience. This isn't discussed much on coin forums but I know it is for me. If you aren't going to have physical possession, then might as well collect coin images for free or just read and/or write about it. There is no practical difference.

Sports is also in a long term bubble: franchise values, media contracts, player salaries, ticket prices and yes, sports memorabilia including cards. When it bursts (which it will with a vengeance once the financial mania and fake economy supporting it also burst), prices and values are going to plummet. I covered this partly in a prior post here. I remember both those prices but don't have access to the population counts or at least I don't know of it. Jordan has always been popular but heard his increased last year when ESPN showed a documentary of his playing career when the NBA wasn't playing. I had no idea that this card was this common as a 10 though and it is likely a lot more than common than even this count indicates. An ultimate 99%+ loss from this price is likely, eventually. As for NFT and coins, I think it will be a complete bust. Hard to believe that any non-collector would have much interest and collectors aren't about to pay even a noticeable fraction versus the coin. This leaves "investors".

If you mean the "real thing" and not NFT, I still think the modern art selling for record prices is mostly actually garbage and I am dubious that hardly any of it has longer term staying power. Are any of these "artists" really going to be the next Picasso? I don't even like his art but "get" the relative prices paid for his works. The worst and even much of this cr*p reminds me of an "art" object my employer owned which was displayed by the outside entranceat one of facilities. Well, the maintenance person (presumably a Latino since this was in Miami) "mistook" it as garbage and threw it away, literally. It cost millions. Reality was he didn't make a mistake because it was actually garbage. People just pretend this garbage is "art" and pay millions for it anyway. Not sure about the context of the rest of your post. I think everyone who can do so should own some gold. I still think most coins are going to lose value longer term, especially the most overpriced common US coins. I don't follow sports cards but, as with coins, much of the money to buy it is still from the fake wealth made possible by the current asset mania. Modern cards are presumably mostly too common, regardless of how popular a particular player is now or later. Heard there a record price for a Michael Jordan rookie card. It can't be legitimately scarce and any "scarcity" must be from the TPG label. Baseball seems to be in long term secular decline which can't be positive for card prices.

Yes, a few threads on this on the PCGS forum, including one discussing the prospects for coins. As far as I am concerned, NFT are the worst manifestation of the hare brained speculation which has been going in the seemingly never ending mania. Not the most overpriced, but worst.

Good data, thanks. I have noticed the trend you mention even on the common date (I think it is 1852 but might be 1851) US Assay Office Territorial gold which is a coin I would like to own one day. Doesn't seem to have been much movement in a long time on AU-55 or AU-58 which is what I would buy.

The two you mentioned, mostly at least. It's still far from the norm but more noticeable than it used to be.

Yes, the size of the coni matters, a lot, Concurrently, it isn't necessarily the most important factor. Outside of maybe die varieties, I'm not aware of any regular issue US gold coin (not even one) that is unique. The 1870-S is $3 gold has two to my knowledge, but the other one is in the cornerstone of the SF Mint so it's not exactly like it will be available to be bought any time soon. There are a noticeable number of actually rare 18th and 19th century US gold. Most of the Capped Head half eagles are legitimately scarce or rare; all but the 1813. Many of the Liberty Head quarter eagle, half eagle, and eagles are too but this is mostly because the mintages were low or very low. If you are making the point that having so many rare dates in a series dilutes the significance, I agree with you. This is my opinion why actually common 20th century key dates (e.g., 09-S VDB cent and 16-0D dime) had the prior inflated perception which is retained somewhat to this day.

Three known, two in the Smithsonian. Mintage is about 19,000 but most believed to have been melted or struck with another date. Four owners to my recollection in the last 115 years or so, so almost never a chance to buy it. Currently owned by Pogue family, previously by Eliasberg and I think at one time by Virgil Brand but someone can correct me if I am wrong. It doesn't have the story of the 1933 but it was still a lot more prominent than the 1933DE in the past, though this might possibly have been because no one could legally own it. To my knowledge it used to be considered or was the most valuable US coin available for private ownership up to the late 1970's. Q David Bowers wrote a book on it in preparation for its prior sale in 2015 when it did not sell. I would like to buy it but have never seen it for sale and never read it. It was a form of marketing the coin. It last sold for $687,500 in 1982 in the Eliasberg sale, same price as the 1870-S $3 gold. By comparison, J-1776 (believed to be worth more than twice now) sold for about $500,000 to Steve Markoff somewhere around 1979.

To my knowledge, the most valuable coin in Hansen's collection is the 1854-S half eagle he recently bought. I don't keep up regularly with the mega thread on the PCGS forum and while I did read the list of coins he is missing to complete it, don't remember specifics. My recollection is that he doesn't have many seven figure coins but this might have changed in the last year+ since I was reading the thread more regularly.

This goes back to our prior discussions. First, the overwhelming probability is that a current US coin collector will buy it. Second, the buyer will ignore the other coins if they believe the one who will buy from them will do likewise. These people didn't become wealthy by ignoring resale. I have read a lot of claims inferring this yet whenever I have read (mostly second hand) accounts of how they actually bid, they research their purchase carefully before setting their limit.

Positives: It's also almost never available (three or four owners in over 100 years) and tons of money available to buy it if by some miracle a random non-collector decides to bid on it. Cons: It's not particularly high quality in an environment which is obsessed with numismatic minutia quality differences. It's also a small coin (much smaller than the 1933DE) and while I don't have a copy of Bowers' book and did not have a chance to read it, doesn't have as compelling a story. It isn't nearly as well known where a non-collector would be as likely to notice it. One thing I forgot in my prior post is that Sotheby's participation should help and so does (in theory) the more varied nature of the sale if this is true. I'm not sure what else is in it other than the 1933 DE and those two stamps but understand there is more. If it's only these three lots, it won't make as much of a difference.

I don't know much about stamps but I do know that the Inverted Jenny isn't really rare. A member ATS claimed about 90 exist. I'm just not familiar on the premiums between blocks and singles since I am not a stamp collector. I also didn't read how many are in this block though the image appeared to show four. Regardless, I don't see it as desirable enough to be worth the estimate. My understanding is that the estimate also includes the Magenta stamp (1856 British Guiana 1c) which to my knowledge is and has been the most valuable one for a long time. It was claimed as #1 in my late 1970's Guinness Book of World Records edition.